DcifrThs
09-21-2005, 12:14 PM
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
these are from mirriam webster's online dictionary.
Many people, myself included mistake the definition of one for the other.
note that prejudice is the one that contains irrational emotional response period and racism is directing that emotional response based on a race rather than incomplete information.
the term racial prejudice is the key here imo. those that have BOTH a preconceived notion AND an irrational emotional response due to a lack of complete information are the ones that should be termed "racist" for all intents and purposes.
there are also different levels of each of these terms.
for instance, if you form an opinion due to incomplete or insufficient or selectively determined information, you have formed a prejudiced opinion.
There now exists the possibility of forming a logically sound conclusion based on available information in society which is then misconstrued as "racially prejudiced" based on THE RESULTS of that analysis. statements of likelihood of events based on posterior analysis fall victim to this disproportionally, imo.
statements or opinions based on racial outcomes may indeed be racist, AND only INCIDENTALLY prejudiced due to an UNOBSERVED lack of complete information. for instance, and here i use an example to prove this point. if person A sees that 50% of prisoners are black in a state which houses a black population of 10%, that person may then conclude that blacks are more likely to BE CRIMINALS than whites (assuming that 10% black 90% white). This person may have formed an incidentally racially prejudiced conclusion. what this person has failed to consider is that blacks are no more likely to BE criminals, but rather are many times more likely TO BE CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENT TO PRISON, than their white counterparts due to the racial profiling of a police force. Now clearly this is just an example and it need not be the case but i use it only to prove one major point:
IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO MAKE GENERALIZED STATEMENTS BASED ON SEEMINGLY COMPLETE INFORMATION WHERE STATISTICS SEEM TO PROVE CORRELATIONS RATHER THAN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS.
this statement can then be specified toward racially biased statements such as the example above. Many many good papers have been written on this subject. I no longer have access to my undergrad Jstore account (and dont know if i do in grad shcool) but i am sure if you type "race" or "prejudice" or "violence,race" in the subject search heading, you will find some well written papers by highly regarded social economists.
upon reading these and checking the facts with social opinion, you will be able to form opinoins based on MORE complete information than you previously had.
the point of this post. those that appear to be racist may just be stupid, and vice versa. making generalized statements is bad for the most part and many in OOT likely fall victim to being either stupid, racist, ignorant, or all of the above (ignorant is the most likely, imo.)
this comes from reading about 60% of the chuddo thread.
-Barron
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
these are from mirriam webster's online dictionary.
Many people, myself included mistake the definition of one for the other.
note that prejudice is the one that contains irrational emotional response period and racism is directing that emotional response based on a race rather than incomplete information.
the term racial prejudice is the key here imo. those that have BOTH a preconceived notion AND an irrational emotional response due to a lack of complete information are the ones that should be termed "racist" for all intents and purposes.
there are also different levels of each of these terms.
for instance, if you form an opinion due to incomplete or insufficient or selectively determined information, you have formed a prejudiced opinion.
There now exists the possibility of forming a logically sound conclusion based on available information in society which is then misconstrued as "racially prejudiced" based on THE RESULTS of that analysis. statements of likelihood of events based on posterior analysis fall victim to this disproportionally, imo.
statements or opinions based on racial outcomes may indeed be racist, AND only INCIDENTALLY prejudiced due to an UNOBSERVED lack of complete information. for instance, and here i use an example to prove this point. if person A sees that 50% of prisoners are black in a state which houses a black population of 10%, that person may then conclude that blacks are more likely to BE CRIMINALS than whites (assuming that 10% black 90% white). This person may have formed an incidentally racially prejudiced conclusion. what this person has failed to consider is that blacks are no more likely to BE criminals, but rather are many times more likely TO BE CAUGHT, CONVICTED AND SENT TO PRISON, than their white counterparts due to the racial profiling of a police force. Now clearly this is just an example and it need not be the case but i use it only to prove one major point:
IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO MAKE GENERALIZED STATEMENTS BASED ON SEEMINGLY COMPLETE INFORMATION WHERE STATISTICS SEEM TO PROVE CORRELATIONS RATHER THAN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS.
this statement can then be specified toward racially biased statements such as the example above. Many many good papers have been written on this subject. I no longer have access to my undergrad Jstore account (and dont know if i do in grad shcool) but i am sure if you type "race" or "prejudice" or "violence,race" in the subject search heading, you will find some well written papers by highly regarded social economists.
upon reading these and checking the facts with social opinion, you will be able to form opinoins based on MORE complete information than you previously had.
the point of this post. those that appear to be racist may just be stupid, and vice versa. making generalized statements is bad for the most part and many in OOT likely fall victim to being either stupid, racist, ignorant, or all of the above (ignorant is the most likely, imo.)
this comes from reading about 60% of the chuddo thread.
-Barron