Prejudice is prejudgment or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case.
The purpose of this article is to philosophically dismantle this concept and hopefully play a part in discarding it to the realm of failed ideas where it belongs. Using some basic critical thinking techniques, I will be attacking it from various angles to show how it does not stand up to scrutiny in principle or in practice.
These will include arguments from semantics, pointing out logical fallacies and contradictions as well as using thought experiments and real world examples to show how it results in absurd consequences.
After all, there is no shortage of examples in the public sphere of racist attitudes and remarks coming from people of all races, sometimes towards other races and sometimes towards white people. Anecdotally I have seen racism in one form or another exhibited by people from various races after having lived in an ethnically diverse city and travelled to other countries.
I looked up the meaning in several dictionaries and not one of them listed this alternative definition. Here they are attempting to conflate the word racism with a phenomenon which we already have several perfectly good phrases to describe: None of these moves are necessary and only serve to confuse our language.
We already have the terminology to describe racism at the institutional level, and since the dictionary definition is neutral regarding who can be racist or who can be the victim of racism, it is perfectly capable of accounting for all varieties of interpersonal racism. The word prejudice is not synonymous with interpersonal racism and not sufficient for accounting for things we would normally want to label as racist.
One can be prejudice towards followers of a religion, people of a certain sexual orientation, people who have opposing political views, people who partake in a certain lifestyle smokers, drug users people who choose a certain fashion or culture hipsters, ravers, hippies and so on.
Also, calling somebody prejudiced does not express the strong contempt for racial bigotry that we would want to convey by calling somebody a racist. Words such as chink, nigger, kike, wetback, wog, towelhead, cracker, etc. They are used in a malevolent way by racial minorities towards other racial minorities and towards whites, and in cases where that happens it would be apt to call that person a racist rather than prejudiced.
Calling them prejudiced is simply not the right tool for the job. I argue that for anyone wishing to alter the commonly used official meaning of racism, the burden of proof should be on them to justify why it should be altered, or why their definition should be adopted instead.
I have sought out as many arguments as I could find attempting to justify why racism should be conceived of solely as a power dynamic. Every single one of the justifications available result in a circular argument in which it is taken for granted that power specifically institutional power is required for racism.
As a result it often happens that discussions on racism turn into discussions about the meaning of the word, with people disagreeing on terms and talking past each other.
Person A calls out person B for being racist against white people. At each point of the exchange person B is using the conclusion of their argument as the premise. This is a textbook circular argument also known as circular reasoning or begging the questiona type of informal logical fallacy.
There are different forms or power and different levels of scope of power. By forms I mean things such as state power presidents, senators, police, judges, militaryeconomic power corporations, lobbyists, wealthy individualspower over opinion media, academia, social activists, religious leaders, educatorsnaked power gangsters, militias, drug cartels, terrorist organisations.
By scope of power I mean things such as local, national, global, personal. Even if it were true, all that deductively follows from this is that the people who hold positions of power within these institutions have the capacity to be racist towards people with no power.
However in order to get to the further conclusion that all members of one race can be racist whilst all members of the other race cannot, several additional premises need to be implicitly assumed.Culture, Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination Summary and Keywords Prejudice is a broad social phenomenon and area of research, complicated by the fact that intolerance exists in internal cognitions but is manifest in symbol usage (verbal, nonverbal, mediated), law and policy, and social and organizational practice.
Prejudice: Dorothy Counts is sneered at by a wholly-white audience as she enrolls to start her schooling at Harding High School (Original picture by Don Sturkey, September The tragic tale of blue-eyed blond children taken by the SS to create an Aryan super-race Folker Heinecke History and WWII.
Yes - It was the race prejudice that would. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination. Learning Objectives. By the end of this section, you will be able to: (children with blue eyes) results in prejudice against people who are not part of the favored category.
While prejudice is not necessarily specific to race, racism is a stronger type of prejudice used to justify the belief that.
I’m so tired of Black people pulling the race card when things aren’t going there way. And YES there are racist Black people too! It’s NOT just a “White Thing”. An exploration of the context within which the Holocaust occurred - an examination of: human nature and the dynamics of prejudice, events, deeds, and ideas in European history that contributed to the Holocaust, such as the history of antisemitism, racism and the development of race science in the nineteenth century, the rise of German.
In , after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jane Elliott, a public school teacher in Riceville, Iowa, divided her all-white third-graders into blue-eyed and brown-eyed groups for a .