Can government solve Racism?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Supine
Posts: 1013
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Supine » May 7th, 2017, 8:54 pm

Lark_Truth wrote:By decree of law and having it upheld by law enforcement, can government stop racism in any nation?

My opinion is that racism would be an impossible thing for a government to try and control. It can enforce penalties, lay down laws, but it will not be able to change the hearts and opinions of the people, especially if it tries to force people to do so.
No to the question in the title.

Governments can help mitigate the effects of institutional racism (institutions like government, schools, corporations and business, police departments etc.). Possibly even eliminate them if the cultural climate is right.

Governments can even work to guide a social and moral change within the citizenry of a nation. That can reduce or even potentially eliminate personal racism and thereby reducing or eliminating the affects of personal racism in a nation among its population as citizenry interact with one another.

Often it seems governments make little dent in personal racism within a country though. Generally, it seems, social movements are far more successful and even move governments in certain directions.

User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Razblo » November 27th, 2017, 2:54 am

Lark_Truth wrote:By decree of law and having it upheld by law enforcement, can government stop racism in any nation?

My opinion is that racism would be an impossible thing for a government to try and control. It can enforce penalties, lay down laws, but it will not be able to change the hearts and opinions of the people, especially if it tries to force people to do so.
Yes, a government cannot or should not make a believer of racist views a criminal. If so it would also be tantamount to rounding up and imprisoning those with an IQ below some declared figure.

Alias
Posts: 2023
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Alias » December 3rd, 2017, 9:10 pm

It should not be a question of making or forcing or rounding up or outlawing anybody with an unpopular belief.
Persecution and punishment don't solve problems.
What might solve the problem is a better education that teaches children how to communicate with and understand one another; that introduces people, early in life to alternative ideas and philosophies.
What might solve the problem is a government that actually delivers on its own proclaimed principles of equality and liberty.
What might help is a government that doesn't enact inequitable, unjust laws in the first place; does not embed racism or sexism or any kind of discrimination in its economic and social machinery.
Like any disease, it's easier to prevent than to cure.
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 917
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Belindi » December 6th, 2017, 3:08 pm

Alias wrote:

"What might solve the problem is a better education that teaches children how to communicate with and understand one another; that introduces people, early in life to alternative ideas and philosophies.
What might solve the problem is a government that actually delivers on its own proclaimed principles of equality and liberty. "

Some governments are made up of politicians who are interested in providing advantages for rich people like themselves.

Alias
Posts: 2023
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Alias » December 6th, 2017, 11:00 pm

Belindi wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 3:08 pm
Some governments are made up of politicians who are interested in providing advantages for rich people like themselves.
Indeed. Where do you think racism originated?

GE Morton
Posts: 114
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by GE Morton » December 6th, 2017, 11:48 pm

Alias wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 11:00 pm
Belindi wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 3:08 pm
Some governments are made up of politicians who are interested in providing advantages for rich people like themselves.
Indeed. Where do you think racism originated?
Certainly not from politicians.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 917
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Belindi » December 7th, 2017, 9:29 am

Alias wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 11:00 pm
Belindi wrote:
December 6th, 2017, 3:08 pm
Some governments are made up of politicians who are interested in providing advantages for rich people like themselves.
Indeed. Where do you think racism originated?
I think that the origin of racism is self seeking elites who tap into the hopes and fears of us social inferiors. It follows that self seeking elites don't want or require us social inferiors to be educated enough to see through their words and actions to their underlying motivation.

Alias
Posts: 2023
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Alias » December 7th, 2017, 7:41 pm

GE Morton -- Certainly not from politicians.
What's your theory?
Belindi wrote:
December 7th, 2017, 9:29 am
I think that the origin of racism is self seeking elites who tap into the hopes and fears of us social inferiors. It follows that self seeking elites don't want or require us social inferiors to be educated enough to see through their words and actions to their underlying motivation.
IOW Politicians. Of course, they've called themselves chieftains, khans, warlords, kings, prophets or whatever - their overriding objective always was and still is domination. Dividing people, (whether it's classes and factions and genders within their own nation or their nationals from other peoples; engendering in them suspicion and fear, contempt and hostility, envy and predatory covetousness toward the other,) always makes it easier to consolidate power. Not only is it important to keep the subjects ignorant of different points of view and alternative choices, but also, as long as they're fighting one another, they can't unite to turn on you. Hence, making Mexican migrants the scapegoat for the unemployment of US working class, when that unemployment is actually a result of employers seeking a more cost-effective labour-force.

Look at the Old Testament and compare it to contemporary FUX broadcasting. There are plenty of similar examples from the law-books and popular wisdom of dozens of other cultures.

GE Morton
Posts: 114
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by GE Morton » December 7th, 2017, 10:25 pm

Alias wrote:
December 7th, 2017, 7:41 pm

What's your theory?
"Racism" is a facet of tribalism. The preference for members of one's own tribe, clan, pack, cohort, etc., and distrust, if not hostility, to members of other tribes is endemic to all social animals. As Jared Diamond wrote in Guns, Germs, and Steel, "With the rise of chiefdoms 7500 years ago people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without trying to kill them."

Humans are primates, and like all other primates, are tribal animals. Until the last 10,000 years or so ago they all lived, like all other primates, in small kinship-based groups, consisting of a few dozen to a few hundred members. The rise of civilization brought individuals from many disparate groups together, due the great economic advantages afforded by larger communities. But the ancient tribal prejudices and hostilities did not disappear. Nor will they ever.

People do not "love their neighbors," and never will. The best you can hope for is that they tolerate them. "Racism" and other manifestations of ethnic/racial/cultural prejudices are ineradicable. The best you can hope for is that they do not spur violations of others' rights.

Alias
Posts: 2023
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Alias » December 8th, 2017, 2:22 am

GE Morton wrote:
December 7th, 2017, 10:25 pm
Alias wrote:
December 7th, 2017, 7:41 pm

What's your theory?
"Racism" is a facet of tribalism. The preference for members of one's own tribe, clan, pack, cohort, etc., and distrust, if not hostility, to members of other tribes is endemic to all social animals.
Preference isn't racism. No other animals have no "isms" at all: that's an intellectual concept. If you've ever had pets or livestock, you're quite well aware of how malleable the endemic attitude is: horses and ducks can be just as good buddies as dogs and cats.And if you have young children, you know that they have to be forcefully restrained from interacting with strangers of any species. Nothing hard-wired - it's circumstantial.
As Jared Diamond wrote in Guns, Germs, and Steel, "With the rise of chiefdoms 7500 years ago people had to learn, for the first time in history, how to encounter strangers regularly without trying to kill them."
And they did. Most tribes had regular peaceful contact with other tribes: trade, alliances and intermarriage have been commonplace. Mutual tolerance, where they simply ignore one another is even common. So is agreeing to a territorial boundary and a set of rules for maintaining it.
War is expensive; peace is cheap.
Humans are primates, and like all other primates, are tribal animals. Until the last 10,000 years or so ago they all lived, like all other primates, in small kinship-based groups, consisting of a few dozen to a few hundred members. The rise of civilization brought individuals from many disparate groups together, due the great economic advantages afforded by larger communities. But the ancient tribal prejudices and hostilities did not disappear. Nor will they ever.
You recited that quite glibly. Now, show me the details. How does civilization "rise"? From what? By what agency? Who points out the advantage of larger communities and how are two smaller ones brought together? Where did the prejudices originate and what are they, specifically?
Why are prejudices so spotty now - that is, intense against people of a certain colour in one group of people over here; absent or faint in another group of same-looking people there; while those other people have an intense prejudice against people who look just like them, but go to a different house of worship or wear different clothing, over yonder? Where are those vital blood ties?
People do not "love their neighbors," and never will.
Love has no relevance to racism. Except in that, however hardened in their mutual hostility any two artificially designated groups may be, some of their children will somehow manage to fall in love and bring the wrath of their authority-figures down upon them.
"Racism" and other manifestations of ethnic/racial/cultural prejudices are ineradicable. The best you can hope for is that they do not spur violations of others' rights.
I try not to use the word that springs to mind.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 917
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Belindi » December 8th, 2017, 4:21 am

G E Morton wrote:

"Groups (of any kind) have no properties, other than statistical ones, not traceable to the properties of its members, and propositions sbout groups are non-cognitive (they have no determinable truth values) unless they can be translated into propositions about the members of the group. E.g., we can say, "Utah is a Mormon state," if we understand it to mean that some significant fraction of its population are Mormons. It is they who have that property, not the state per se. On the other hand, if we say, "Utah has a population of 3 million," we are then speaking of the state per se (no member of that group has a population of 3 million)."

Societies of persons do hold beliefs in common. Aggregates of persons can't be expected to hold beliefs in common.

GE Morton
Posts: 114
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by GE Morton » December 8th, 2017, 11:44 am

Belindi wrote:
December 8th, 2017, 4:21 am
G E Morton wrote:

"Groups (of any kind) have no properties, other than statistical ones, not traceable to the properties of its members, and propositions sbout groups are non-cognitive (they have no determinable truth values) unless they can be translated into propositions about the members of the group. E.g., we can say, "Utah is a Mormon state," if we understand it to mean that some significant fraction of its population are Mormons. It is they who have that property, not the state per se. On the other hand, if we say, "Utah has a population of 3 million," we are then speaking of the state per se (no member of that group has a population of 3 million)."

Societies of persons do hold beliefs in common.
Members of civilized societies (societies characterized by cities), or any society consisting of more than a few hundred members, do not. If you disagree, name a belief shared (for example) by all persons in the USA.

Ecurb
Posts: 362
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Ecurb » December 8th, 2017, 12:37 pm

GE Morton wrote:
December 8th, 2017, 11:44 am


Members of civilized societies (societies characterized by cities), or any society consisting of more than a few hundred members, do not. If you disagree, name a belief shared (for example) by all persons in the USA.
"The world is a sphere" is a belief shared by everyone in the USA except Kyrie Irving.

GE Morton
Posts: 114
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by GE Morton » December 8th, 2017, 12:59 pm

Alias wrote:
December 8th, 2017, 2:22 am

Preference isn't racism.
Yes, it is. Those preferences are accompanied and underpinned by what are called "social cognitions,", i.e., a set of expectations, emotions, and reactions elicited by other members of one's community. When those differ with the race or color of the person encountered you have "racism." And they do differ, for virtually all members of multi-racial, multi-cultural societies.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ne ... -cognition
No other animals have no "isms" at all: that's an intellectual concept.
Other animals do not have the concept, but they certainly display the behaviors embraced by that concept. Animals have no concept of gravitation, either, but they're certainly affected by it. A lion's reactions to a lion from another pride, or to a hyena, will be much different from his reactions to a member of his own pride.
And they did. Most tribes had regular peaceful contact with other tribes: trade, alliances and intermarriage have been commonplace. Mutual tolerance, where they simply ignore one another is even common. So is agreeing to a territorial boundary and a set of rules for maintaining it.
War is expensive; peace is cheap.
We are not speaking of war and peace, but of the differing perceptions members of a given tribe will have of non-members, or "barbarians." Trade, when it occurred, was accompanied by wariness and distrust on both sides; intermarriage was not commonplace; it was rare, and generally frowned upon (often to the extent of banishment or stoning).
You recited that quite glibly. Now, show me the details. How does civilization "rise"? From what? By what agency? Who points out the advantage of larger communities and how are two smaller ones brought together? Where did the prejudices originate and what are they, specifically?
The history of the rise of civilization is pretty well understood and settled. It developed independently in 5-6 places in the world, all following the advent of agriculture. That discovery necessitated permanent settlements near the planted crops, and the abandonment of the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It also produced, in some places, a surplus of food, freeing some members of the tribe to hone other skills --- making pottery, weaving, metal working, etc. And, of course, soldiering. Traders began traveling between villages, exchanging innovations introduced in one community with those made in others.

There is no "agency;" the transition was gradual and spontaneous. Nor is there any need for anyone to "point out" the advantages of larger communities, as they are obvious, and the typical mechanism for bringing two or more communities together was conquest.
Why are prejudices so spotty now - that is, intense against people of a certain colour in one group of people over here; absent or faint in another group of same-looking people there; while those other people have an intense prejudice against people who look just like them, but go to a different house of worship or wear different clothing, over yonder? Where are those vital blood ties?
Prejudices are not spotty --- they're universal --- but they manifest differently, depending upon each person's micro-cultural environment and personal experiences. Blood ties, while important, are not vital; what matters (for differences in social cognitions) is the extent of perceived affinities between individuals.
Love has no relevance to racism. Except in that, however hardened in their mutual hostility any two artificially designated groups may be, some of their children will somehow manage to fall in love and bring the wrath of their authority-figures down upon them.
Yes indeed. But the prejudices remain, even among interracial couples 'in love."
I try not to use the word that springs to mind.
Please do.

Alias
Posts: 2023
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Can government solve Racism?

Post by Alias » December 8th, 2017, 1:07 pm

It might be useful here to define racism.
More particularly, not to confuse various kinds of voluntary grouping with organic tribes, or ancient tribes with modern institutions, or loyalty to kin and territorial rivalry with instinctive hostility toward those who are physically different.

It seems to me that Caucasian, Semitic and Asian millionaires are more comfortable in one another's company than that of Caucasian share-croppers, Arab camel-drivers or Chinese fishermen; that African-American Christians and Anglo-American Christians are more at eas with one another than either group is with Nigerian Muslims or Swedish atheists. Is this contrary to your observation?
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!

Post Reply