edit: (The title of this thread should be "Culture as an excuse for prejudice", not racism, sorry for not correcting it before hitting submit.)

Okay, this came up in another thread and got shut down way to fast.

In Canada it is taught to be understanding of other cultures in matters that may be different from the "Canadian norm". It is also taught that associating anything with someone simply because of their culture or "race" is wrong. Obviously these two things conflict when it is part of someone's culture to have preconceived notions about someone due to "race", culture, sexuality, gender, sex, etc.

Now, that is what is taught, whether people follow that is another thing. There is a big difference between the presented theory and practice.

I see a lot of people from "other cultures" getting defensive when this is brought up. They try to deflect the comment, but there is no way to get around it. You can be from another culture, or another generation, but that doesnt make it something other than prejudice.


Discuss.

Before this debate begins I'm going to ask that we don't carry on discussing the specifics of the other thread that this stemmed from.

What I do is try not to assume anything about other people, so I say: "I have no idea what your culture is and how that affects you as a persn"(obviously in less words than that). Then the person I am talking to will explain their culture, or the aspect I was asking about. Then I'm free to use this without fear of offending them culturally.

Example(for illustrative purposes only): if someone asked me about parenting in europe, I would say that parents definitely beat their children more than in Canada. Then if someone says something related, I have no intention of getting upset about it. Now if someone came up from nowhere saying(for example) they would never have anything to do with an European because they beat their children, I would be offended since they didn't even bother confirming this. I am assuming they just have anecdotal evidence.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's inevitable to talk about racial/cultural differences and treat people differently because of them. What is not ok is treating people below "Canadian standards" because of racial/cultural differences.

tl;dr: you can act on cultural differences, as long as you're not acting badly towards someone because of the differences

..What are we discussing? (Seriously, I think my brain has turned to mush. Been up far too long & studying for far too long). D:

i think its fair to make preconceived notions about someone based on their culture as long as they remain open to the possibility that these notions may be false. the only problem occurs at the two extreme. where someone takes their assumptions to the point of malice and starts to hate on people, or when someone of another culture takes offense at the slightest cultural association.

otherwise to the rational person i think its somewhat clear at which point these "associations" become offensive. a person will know deep down whether they're acting innocently or using culture as an excuse to be prejudice.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

..What are we discussing? (Seriously, I think my brain has turned to mush. Been up far too long & studying for far too long). D:

...or not long enough.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the topic at hand correctly...so correct me if I'm wrong.

That being said, I think it's universal that people interpret and parse other people with preconceived notions and biases. What I got from Rossclot's original post is that in our boutique multicultural society, culture is some sort of unattackable wall to hide one's biases behind. But I think that there is a tacit understanding that when it comes to extremes in biases, Canadian law will prevail, and Canadian law (at least in Ontario) has a natural bias towards Protestant Anglo-Saxon tradition (which works wonderfully).

But with less clear-cut instances of prejudice from cultural bias, I do agree that it (too) often passed off as different cultural "things" that any self-respecting PC person shouldn't challenge. Perhaps it's my bias for spending a large part of my life in a Western society, but I firmly believe that one should always think rationally about any cultural norm and challenge dogma. Too frequently people have a static notion of culture, when in reality culture is dynamic and changing. In our boutique multicultural society, "traditional" culture will be eroded and adapted regardless of whether people cling to dogma or not, thus we should encourage people to stop hiding behind walls of "different cultural standards".

tldr; everyone has biases. interact with people as individuals. question your preconceived notions about cultural groupings (or any groupings for that matter) of people. challenge dogma.

Like I said in my other post, I think the idea of "traditional" or "old fashioned" is also being used as an excuse to be prejudiced.

A friend and I were talking a little while ago; she said her parents don't approve of gay couples, and she said "But they're very traditional, so you know, I get it". My friend is very pro-gay rights and she's not prejudiced at all, but I think people don't realize when their parents are being prejudiced.

I think it can be hard for people notice racism, discrimination against homosexuals, etc., when derogatory terms aren't being used. But the truth is, even if you're not saying domething outright mean like a homophobic slur, you still might be saying something prejudiced.

(That has hard to put into words, I hope it makes sense)

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Like I said in my other post, I think the idea of "traditional" or "old fashioned" is also being used as an excuse to be prejudiced.

A friend and I were talking a little while ago; she said her parents don't approve of gay couples, and she said "But they're very traditional, so you know, I get it". My friend is very pro-gay rights and she's not prejudiced at all, but I think people don't realize when their parents are being prejudiced.

I think it can be hard for people notice racism, discrimination against homosexuals, etc., when derogatory terms aren't being used. But the truth is, even if you're not saying domething outright mean like a homophobic slur, you still might be saying something prejudiced.

(That has hard to put into words, I hope it makes sense)

Agreed.

I really don't care if your parents/grandparents etc are old fashioned, that doesn't give them an excuse to discriminate against people.

A friend and I were talking a little while ago; she said her parents don't approve of gay couples, and she said "But they're very traditional, so you know, I get it". My friend is very pro-gay rights and she's not prejudiced at all, but I think people don't realize when their parents are being prejudiced.

Not approving or wanting to ban? To me they are very different things. Ones a moral judgement (although one that I think is mistaken and incorrect) while the other one would result in discrimination.


I don't think it has anything to do with being traditional or not. Some people believe that homosexuality is immoral and its their right to think that way. Think of it this way: A "good" catholic believes sexual activity is only moral for procreational purposes. Even if you could prove to them that sexual orientation was a determined by genetics they'd argue back that our urge to have sex out of marriage is natural as well and they disapprove of that as well.

The government should not legislate morality either to dictate something as moral or to dictate it as immoral. The government belongs neither in the bedrooms nor in the places of worship of the nation.

But it brings me to my conclusion: Is it prejudice if someone disapproves of someone else's morals?

Further to my last post, racism is another matter entirely. I know of no mainstream religion or moral code that promotes maltreatment of others based on their race. In other words it's pretty hard to imagine that someone who disliked people of another race are doing it for any reason other than racism.

Of course this is entirely different (again) from arguments such as "I disagree with the way multiculturalism works in Canada because (for example) we can't say Merry Christmas anymore" or "I disagree that Sikh's should be exempt from helmet laws because of their turban" or other similar arguments. These are not racist but based on either ignorance or valid concerns.

Originally Posted by Kathy2

Like I said in my other post, I think the idea of "traditional" or "old fashioned" is also being used as an excuse to be prejudiced.

A friend and I were talking a little while ago; she said her parents don't approve of gay couples, and she said "But they're very traditional, so you know, I get it". My friend is very pro-gay rights and she's not prejudiced at all, but I think people don't realize when their parents are being prejudiced.

I think it can be hard for people notice racism, discrimination against homosexuals, etc., when derogatory terms aren't being used. But the truth is, even if you're not saying domething outright mean like a homophobic slur, you still might be saying something prejudiced.

(That has hard to put into words, I hope it makes sense)

That is an excellent point. There is absolutely no excuse for this train of thought, but the fact is that these old fashioned people exist and they're not going to change their views. But you can't really blame them can you? That is how they were raised.

Many of us know these kinds of people and still must accept them and love them all the same. However, the important thing is that we must actually identify it as prejudice. I will occasionally find an older family member saying something borderline racist and I will definitely point it out. Of course they'll just be stubborn and waive me off, but the fact remains that they may have been influenced by past generations, but I will not be. As this old fashioned generation dies out, so will the prejudice and one day we'll all live happily ever after.

Originally Posted by arathbon

Not approving or wanting to ban? To me they are very different things. Ones a moral judgement (although one that I think is mistaken and incorrect) while the other one would result in discrimination.


I don't think it has anything to do with being traditional or not. Some people believe that homosexuality is immoral and its their right to think that way. Think of it this way: A "good" catholic believes sexual activity is only moral for procreational purposes. Even if you could prove to them that sexual orientation was a determined by genetics they'd argue back that our urge to have sex out of marriage is natural as well and they disapprove of that as well.

The government should not legislate morality either to dictate something as moral or to dictate it as immoral. The government belongs neither in the bedrooms nor in the places of worship of the nation.

But it brings me to my conclusion: Is it prejudice if someone disapproves of someone else's morals?

I get what you're saying, and I'm not sure of the answer. People are allowed to think what they want, but they're not allowed to hurt anyone else (according to the law).

I think what my friend meant was that, for example, if her parents saw a gay couple holding hands, they would roll their eyes and talk badly about them. I think that is to the point where it's discrimination because if that gay couple heard them, they would be offended.

I definately get what you're saying though. It's a hard line to draw, and I'm not sure what to say. I think "morals" is the tricky word here. For example, it'd be okay if I didn't agree with someone doing drugs because it's bad for your body and it's an addictive substance that could poentially hurt those around them. But when we're talking about something like homosexuality, that isn't a choice like drugs and isn't hurting anyone, I don't think it's right to look down upon them. Good question though, I think about that sometimes too.

dis·crim·i·na·tion / disˌkriməˈnāshən/ • n. 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination

(Oxford)

1. I agree that once you come into a culture and make it your home, taking the good it has to offer, you have to tolerate, if not accept, aspects of that culture that you don't enjoy that aren't harming people, even if those aspects offer you no good whatsoever.
2. This being said, I believe that what happens behind two closed doors should stay there. And the "two closed doors" are the doors of a private conversation that is not followed by harmful action or accompanied by malicious intent, AND one's own mind.

The reason I say this is because people think certain things regardless of what happens. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder have paralyzing thoughts that they're pedophiles. You can't stop them, arrest them and search them for what they're thinking; most suffer from the irrational fear that they are "evil" versus sexually appealing, yet socially and legally unacceptable desires.

That grandparent who moved here when they were 50 or 60, growing up in a culture of vocalised discrimination may have been conditioned to think a certain way. It may be something they cannot control. They can control their actions and their words, and I believe if they do that, that's fine.

I do believe that thoughts are one's own business. I could think everybody is out to get me and I have every right to think that. I could also think everybody is beneath me, and while that may sound like I'm an ass - there's a very fine distinction that needs to be made.

IF:
I am not telling somebody that I think they're beneath me...
I am not acting as though I think they are beneath me...
My thoughts are mine alone, confined to my own mind, free from peer review, if you will.

I just wanted to make this very clear before I moved on to my next point. I understand being offended or unhappy with what is being said or what is being done - but nobody's opinion is wrong.
It's their opinion.
It can be whatever they want it to be.

If I think all giant pandas are evil forces of nature and should be sent to outer space, but I'm not locking them in cages to send to NASA or defacing public images of pandas or badmouthing a panda near its kid....I have every right to do so.

2.ii. Private conversations. Going back to freedom of speech. As much as it is absolutely disgusting, if two racists want to sit together and have a conversation about how the blue race is superior to all others, and are willingly and knowingly consenting to said conversation, AND are not impressionable minors or impressionable parties unable to think independently entirely or distinguish right from wrong - they can.

Sure, nobody likes it; sure, it's a jackass thing to do, but they can do it. And yes, they are promoting hatred but unless they go out and beat up a purple person or refuse to touch a purple person and keep their views confined to their thoughts and these private conversations, I don't really think it's discrimination.

3. Speaking of discrimination, I'm curious to hear people's views on airport screenings. That's a direct consequence of culture (i.e. present day Western culture) resulting in racism. But we don't only tolerate that, we as people seem to demonstrate enough support for the idea to elect politicians who continue with these practices and elevate it to just before the line of "racial profiling".

And yes, we can talk about terrorists, and death tolls all we like but the fact remains: every country, every race and every group of people commits some heinous atrocity - if we're going to start talking, we better touch on every Goddamn thing including the fact that a 15 year old boy has spent one third of his life locked in a prison where he was tortured, the fact that 2 cities were used like reaction beakers not too long ago, the fact that abolishing India's caste system officially hasn't abolished the racial segregation, the fact that financial motivation is resulting in the slaughtering of thousands in Africa etc.


I'm not defending one side over the other.
This isn't a "West vs. East" debate. I do not identify particularly with any side, but both. I have enough positive memories from the East to appreciate the scarce beauty it holds, but I have always been exposed to progressive Western ideologies resulting in me supporting the good of either side, and speaking about the horrors of either side.

Originally Posted by goodnews.inc

the fact that abolishing India's caste system officially hasn't abolished the racial segregation

Interesting way to put it. The notion of 'race', really, isn't very different at all from (what we see as the) fabrication of 'castes' - it's in the end just a means of classification. So, by definition, a 'racist' would just be someone who acknowledges and accepts these fabricated classifications.

'Race' is just one of many classifiers - in my view, however, it's a very dangerous one (just like, it can be argued, 'nation' and other fabricated ideals). This is because of the arbitrariness (stemming presumably from it's 'fabricated' nature) of both the breadth of its description and the inclusiveness of its description - other classifiers are relatively well-defined in comparison,is (in my view) has made this fabricated notion of 'race' such a sticking point.

To hell with purple people! Unless they're choking... then HELP THEM