Are racists mentally ill - should they be treated as such?

[blind_fury]

The ended English occupation, and were starting a new Government from the ground up...so yes

"In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776), Jefferson condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies, charging that the crown 'has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.' However, this language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia" -wik

And yet they did. In fact they were divided on nearly every aspect of Government, uncluding currency, for years until any unification process was made.

The unification would've been damn near impossible if you tried to outlaw slavery at this stage. It's obvious dude.

And abolitionists still throw around the word n***** like it was a wet towel during those days as well. Don't fool yourself, which you're doing, intellectuals and elites set the policy in this country. It wasn't until the Supreme Court and heads of state said it was wrong until it stopped. And the reason they did not say it was wrong is because they were racist and had no intention of dissolving it

.
But your suggesting that most of the intellectuals and policy makers hated blacks as if you went back in time and read their freakin minds. How do you know most Northern intellectuals had less respect for Frederick Douglas than they did for poor white southerners simply because he was black. Frederick Douglas' writings and oratory skills proved white supremacy was a fallacy. If any intellectual read his books or heard them speak and still supported racist ideology they did so because it they were lying to themselves or they they simply went along with the flow to stay in power. If Lincoln was in power back in 1776 he would never gain enough support to abolish slavery. Pushing such a progressive idea was simply impractical for the entire country back then. He would've recieved no backing from anyone because the US needed slavery to support the economy. In the early 1800's cotton was the biggest export, the industrial revolution was 50 years away, and western expansion required capital.

No, they didn't risk losing anything except for cheap slave labor. They hated blacks, lest they wouldn't keep them enslaved. See the problem there: I don't hate you but I'm going to keep you to a life of forced servitude and not protect any of your rights underneath the constitution. They did not even give blacks a political outlet to change their lot in life. They couldn't vote. They couldn't hold public office. Some states criminalized educating them. All under laws set down by the founding fathers. Yeah that's real not racist.

So why do business owners exploit illegals for cheap labor today? Because they hate latinos??? No it's finacially motivated. Bush knows many business owners need cheap labor from illegals so he doesn't sponser policies that force out illegals. It's about being practical not white supremacy. For politicians in the 1800's, white supremacy wasn't about making blacks suffer. It was about justifying slavery and native american displacement for money and power. It wasn't personal it was just business. The intellectuals today don't need racism today and our laws reflect that. Most intellectuals don't care about any color other than green. If supporting racist policies means they can gain more wealth they're going to be racist. But to think that these white elitist cared about poor white southerners any more than blacks is simply naive. They never cared about poor whites but needed their votes and complecancy so they preached white supremacy. People who hate others based on physical differences are either dumb or manipulating dumb people.

The only color that ever mattered to smart people is green. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[redmarvel]

Racism is not a mental illness, it is a learned trait. Children learn it from the people around them. To combat racism we have to TEACH people at a young age that everyone is basically the same. The best way to do that is to expose young people to different cultures through student exchange programs and similar activities. We may not be able to stop children from being exposed to racist views, but we can at least show them how those views do not reflect reality.

 

[kainedamo]

So everyone disagrees with me

Well, maybe my idea is flawed. But it does appear to me that racists - most of not all of them - are very irrational people.

 

[CyberFaust]

*singing* they're just a little bit special

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So everyone disagrees with me

Well, maybe my idea is flawed. But it does appear to me that racists - most of not all of them - are very irrational people.

Where did you get the idea that irrational thought is a disease?
Emotional disorders and brain abnormalities, whether chemical or physical, can cause irrational thought, but a completely healthy person is still capable of stupidity, succumbing to erroneous conditioning, and irrational thought.

 

[primemover]

Racism is not a mental illness, it is a learned trait. Children learn it from the people around them. To combat racism we have to TEACH people at a young age that everyone is basically the same. The best way to do that is to expose young people to different cultures through student exchange programs and similar activities. We may not be able to stop children from being exposed to racist views, but we can at least show them how those views do not reflect reality.

While nurture is a factor, nature is too, more than some people want to realize. While you say kids learn how to hate from society and it a purely learned trait, it's actually that kids are naturally that way and can only get past that with exposure to the larger world.

Children aren't born xenophobic, that is true, but children also aren't born able to walk, or born with pubic hair, or even the ability to tell the difference between what they know, and what other people know, empathy.

Some things kick in later as age progress, and some of those things are modules in the brain, like the ability to discern kin and utilize that distinction to aid it's process towards eventually spreading it's genes via survival and reproduction.

Notice that kids aren't born caring about such things, but around grade school and especially in junior high and high school how children become very cliquish and start joining together with people more related to them, whether it be socially, economically or the obvious, racially.

Way back when, in our ancestors past, these traits were important as you just couldn't trust strangers, and being able to tell us from them meant living or dieing. Nowadays in our world society, it is truly a hindrance to unity, as we weren't meant to live in such close quarters with such different people than us, and the struggle we live with today is due to this.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

While nurture is a factor, nature is too, more than some people want to realize. While you say kids learn how to hate from society and it a purely learned trait, it's actually that kids are naturally that way and can only get past that with exposure to the larger world.

Children aren't born xenophobic, that is true, but children also aren't born able to walk, or born with pubic hair, or even the ability to tell the difference between what they know, and what other people know, empathy.

Some things kick in later as age progress, and some of those things are modules in the brain, like the ability to discern kin and utilize that distinction to aid it's process towards eventually spreading it's genes via survival and reproduction.

Notice that kids aren't born caring about such things, but around grade school and especially in junior high and high school how children become very cliquish and start joining together with people more related to them, whether it be socially, economically or the obvious, racially.

Way back when, in our ancestors past, these traits were important as you just couldn't trust strangers, and being able to tell us from them meant living or dieing. Nowadays in our world society, it is truly a hindrance to unity, as we weren't meant to live in such close quarters with such different people than us, and the struggle we live with today is due to this.

I don't really agree with this. My parents used to take part in a program that brought 12 and 15 year old kids from Northern Ireland during the most violent time of the year as sort of a break. The first year my parents who are Catholic got a girl who was Protestant. During the 5 weeks she became very good friends with one of the Catholic girls in the program, both had parents that hated the divide between religions in Northern Ireland, which is why they enrolled thier daughters in this program. The sad thing is the girl my parents took in said once they got back, her and her friend would probably never be able to see each again because of their difference of religion and they might even be beaten up if they were seen together. So take the nature of racism out of the equation and the nuture of not caring about race/religion takes over, the teachings that the perceived differences don't actually exist.

 

[primemover]

I don't really agree with this. My parents used to take part in a program that brought 12 and 15 year old kids from Northern Ireland during the most violent time of the year as sort of a break. The first year my parents who are Catholic got a girl who was Protestant. During the 5 weeks she became very good friends with one of the Catholic girls in the program, both had parents that hated the divide between religions in Northern Ireland, which is why they enrolled thier daughters in this program. The sad thing is the girl my parents took in said once they got back, her and her friend would probably never be able to see each again because of their difference of religion and they might even be beaten up if they were seen together. So take the nature of racism out of the equation and the nuture of not caring about race/religion takes over, the teachings that the perceived differences don't actually exist.

Not really sure what your example is pointing out besides the fact that these two girls saw past their religious differences and got along, even though the society they are part of doesn't, is that it? This is anecdotal either way, these two girls probably had a lot in common outside of their religious upbringings, which they might not have really been sold on either as. Like I said in my previous past, these natural feelings are easily trumped by exposure to those things you don't know, and once they become familiar they are less frightening and are more easily accepted.

Understand, all I am saying is that xenophobia in general is both nature and nurture, though many people see it as completely being nurture. But, by what you said in your last sentence, you might not understand what 'nature vs. nurture' means, true?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

"In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776), Jefferson condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies, charging that the crown 'has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.' However, this language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia" -wik

Jefferson is not the only founding father. But unlike Washington, he did not free his slaves. Not even on his deathbed, not even on his future generations deathbeds. While he mused on the notions of tolerance and emancipation he never acted on it...and he could've afforded servants. So yes, again, that's quiet racist to keep slaves even if you say otherwise.

The unification would've been damn near impossible if you tried to outlaw slavery at this stage. It's obvious dude.

No it's not. Retroactive logic. They also said the unification process would be impossible for a democratic republic, in fact that was the Tory response to the Revolution. It wasn't.

But your suggesting that most of the intellectuals and policy makers hated blacks as if you went back in time and read their freakin minds.

I don't need to. Racism is not merely hating blacks, it is the though of one "race" being superior to the other, which they did think. Lincoln even said himself, as did Jefferson, that "no n***** will ever be my equal". That's racism. Emancipating the slaves for the sake of preserving the Union, which is the logic used to justify it, is not somehow not racism. Leaving an entire people cold in the rain with no political action to save themselves is racism. Hell, Lincoln even wanted to send them back to Africa; so he did not want much to do with them. And he even said they were not "equal physically or intellectually" only because "they had heads and hands" were they equal. That's racism, it places one race above the other.

How do you know most Northern intellectuals had less respect for Frederick Douglas than they did for poor white southerners simply because he was black.

And many of them did.

Frederick Douglas' writings and oratory skills proved white supremacy was a fallacy.

No, modern day science and sociology did that.

If any intellectual read his books or heard them speak and still supported racist ideology they did so because it they were lying to themselves or they they simply went along with the flow to stay in power.

And thats. still. racism.

If Lincoln was in power back in 1776 he would never gain enough support to abolish slavery.

He did not abolish slavery for the sake of the black man, he did it for the sake of the union...as he said. He wanted to ship the black man back to Africa despite the fact that particular provision of the emancipation was not adopted. He did not, nor ever indicated he believed they should have equality as America defines it.

Pushing such a progressive idea was simply impractical for the entire country back then. He would've recieved no backing from anyone because the US needed slavery to support the economy. In the early 1800's cotton was the biggest export, the industrial revolution was 50 years away, and western expansion required capital.

And by the 1800s they had the "cotton gin" which could essentially take the work from most of the slaves on the field. Plus they "choose" to use black slaves, instead of white criminals, workers (and by the way there was no minimum wage back then, so it's not like you had to pay them much) or any other number of peoples they could have and did exploit for labor.

So why do business owners exploit illegals for cheap labor today? Because they hate latinos??? No it's finacially motivated.

Which is still racism (or ethnicism).

Bush knows many business owners need cheap labor from illegals so he doesn't sponser policies that force out illegals.

Which is still racism (or ethnicism).

It's about being practical not white supremacy. For politicians in the 1800's, white supremacy wasn't about making blacks suffer.

No it wasn't. It was about justifying cheap slave labor. They did not just look at blacks and go "oooohhhh we hate them...I mean LOOK at that skin color...it's so ugly". If it was about "making blacks suffer" why weren't they attacking Africa, or trying to spread slavery to other nations.

It was about justifying slavery and native american displacement for money and power. It wasn't personal it was just business.

Which is still racism (or ethnicism). You don't just walk up to your slave and go "this is nothing personal, we just found a way to rope you guys into working for free" and makes it not racism. It is racism, and it's ALWAYS personal when you justify that racism by saying they have inferior traits to you.

The intellectuals today don't need racism today and our laws reflect that.

Don't need it, or don't want it. Trust me we could use cheap slave labor and do...i.e. outsourcing. You think those CEOs go to Taiwan because it's "morally right". No, they want to cut costs. But that doesn't make their actions any more justified. They are just better now at covering their sh** up. Exploiting a bunch of Taiwanese children is no different than exploiting a bunch of forced black immigrants. And you're right, it's nothing personal. They tried exploiting Native Americans first. They really could care less who it was. But that non chalant view does not make it "not racism".

There are always two types of Racism. "Direct hatred" and "Ignorant". Neither is okay and neither is "not racism". Just because someone does things because they don't know better or feel compelled to by their society does not somehow then remove them from their actions.

Most intellectuals don't care about any color other than green.

Which is precisely what led to racism in the first place. The belief that personal wealth and success trumped human rights.

If supporting racist policies means they can gain more wealth they're going to be racist.

So Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Hamilton, etc, etc. all fall into this category. I.e. they are racism as YOU JUST SAID. Gaining more wealth and power to them was more important than the human rights it violated.

But to think that these white elitist cared about poor white southerners any more than blacks is simply naive.

Not really, they provided poor white southerners an outlet for political power, an outlet they soon took advantage of after the Civil War Reconstruction. An action, the disenfranchisement of black voters and black education, that NORTHERN supreme court justices upheld for years afterwards.

They never cared about poor whites but needed their votes and complecancy so they preached white supremacy. People who hate others based on physical differences are either dumb or manipulating dumb people.

And those who manipulate the masses must be...intellectuals. I've never seen a complete doofus motivate an entire crowd or, more to the point, an entire country. Country that is suppose to be centered around notions of equality. Remember Lyndon Baines Johnson, in his tenure as President nearly reversed years of segregation and racism with the sweep of a pen and did not do things to be popular. And desegregation was no more popular then than it was 30 or 40 years prior. In fact the maniced riots in segregated South AND North (where in fact they were sometimes MUCH worse) ought to indicate the sheer power the executive has over the people. For example, riots broke out in Mississippi after the Governor gave the "I love our State and it's Heritage" speech, whereas in South Carolina the Governor submitted and said they would go forward with the executives policies...no riots.

Government is a top--down organization. Once Elites agree on a course of action the people get behind it.

The only color that ever mattered to smart people is green. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean somehow their actions aren't racism. Hitler was only scapegoating Jews really in an attempt to unify and control Germany. Stalin was really only supressing religious groups, killing political rivals and imprisoning people without trail to protect himself from murder or upheaval. "Nothing personal, but I have to kill you all because that's what Machiavelli tells me to do and you all possibly have a massive grudge against me". No one does anything without proper motivation. However if that proper motivation is not simply "hating blacks" it does not make you not racist. Only not doing racist or saying racism things makes you not racist.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

Racists are pretty much "conditioned" to be racists. Whether it be family, friends, a group they joined to feel accepted. It's not a mental illness as much as it mental conditioning.

Good explination. However, I grew up in a rather racist family, but they never thought they were racist. I however I am not a racist.

 

[kainedamo]

Good explination. However, I grew up in a rather racist family, but they never thought they were racist. I however I am not a racist.

How were they racist?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

kd, post #105

 

[kainedamo]

Where did you get the idea that irrational thought is a disease?
Emotional disorders and brain abnormalities, whether chemical or physical, can cause irrational thought, but a completely healthy person is still capable of stupidity, succumbing to erroneous conditioning, and irrational thought.

Well yes it is true that healthy people are capable of irrational thought. It's just my perspective that hardcore racists display traits of mentally unhealthy people Not just irrationality, but also paranoia.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Well yes it is true that healthy people are capable of irrational thought. It's just my perspective that hardcore racists display traits of mentally unhealthy people Not just irrationality, but also paranoia.

Paranoia itself is not necessarily a mental disorder. If you hate a group of people, or express yourself in a hate filled or "irrational" manner you'd have good reason to suspect the "rational world" as they would literally be against you.

 

[Sofa]

Paranoia itself is not necessarily a mental disorder. If you hate a group of people, or express yourself in a hate filled or "irrational" manner you'd have good reason to suspect the "rational world" as they would literally be against you.

You're very right about that.

As for racism being considered a mental disorder, i think thats unlikely. It is a state of mind, while a disorder is more of a sickness of the mind, and though i do not at all support racism, i would not dfine it as a sickness. It's an illustration of opiniated minds.

 

[ScottyBBadd]

How were they racist?

They dropped a lot of N-bombs, and said other disparaging things about Blacks/Africian Americans.