"How easy it is to misunderstand the meaning
of terms, when we don't think about their actual meaning. Been thinking about the term
"racial." The term of course refers to a particular race, or various
races. However, this is wrong. There is no such thing as "races"
within the human race. Ethnicities and nationalities are not different races.
To dislike such people is prejudice, not a racial statement. Because there is
only one race--the human race. Whether black, white, Asian, or Indian, all such
ethnicities are apart of one race, not different races. For example: the human
race is one race of people, whereas if aliens actually existed, they would be
considered another race of beings, and disliking them would be racism. Despite
popular belief, since the term's first use, there's no such thing as
"racism." The correct terminology would be "prejudice." So
"racial bullying" would make better sense to say "prejudice bullying."
In response to the quote I wrote above on face book. Her friend Simon
commented as follows:
"Jerry - while I agree that there are
limitations to "race" or "races," the fact of the matter is
that people treat others based on characteristics which society has recognized
as race. As Time Wise puts it "As an ideology, racism is the belief that
population groups, defined as distinct “races,” generally possess traits,
characteristics or abilities, which distinguish them as either superior or inferior
to other groups in certain ways." The system perpetuates this though by
creating more opportunities for some but not to others."
I followed with this response back:
"Simon, I agree with what you are saying. It
is unfortunate that people feel the need to demean or make other people groups
inferior to themselves by such prejudice terms. The fact is such terms as
"races" or "racism" is a misnomer. To judge other people
such as Chinese as "chinks" blacks as "niggers" whites as
"honkies," etc. is certainly offensive. Which is another reason why I
strongly disagree with "racism" because it promotes hatred and
violence towards others. In regards to ethnicities and nationalities, all
people groups are EQUAL, for we are all human beings who belong to one race. No
particular group of people are more superior then another group. Yet, sadly, as
you said, "that people treat others based on characteristics which society
has recognized as race." Then you added an accurate definition on racism
by "Time Wise," even though the term is misleading and does not
really apply to the human race. Race as a singular term I can accept, but as a
plural term, definitely not. Which is why "racism" does not apply.
Since we all belong to the one race of human beings, to demean or be prejudice
towards another person because of their skin colour, weight, or characteristics
is in a sense offending one's own person. I can't speak for you Simon, but I do
not allow society to dictate to me how I should view others of different
nationalities. The problem with so many people is that they allow society to
think for them, instead of thinking for themselves. It's so easy to get caught
up in stereotyping people without really taking the time to get to know them.
I'm sure at some point in our life, we have all been guilty of being
"prejudice" towards others in some way. I say screw society and screw
the urban dictionary. For such thinking only leads to division instead of
unity."
Now as for the term "prejudice." We are all prejudice in some way
or form. The word is defined: "Damage; esp: detriment to one's rights or
claims; an opinion made without adequate basis; to damage by a judgment or
action esp. at law; to cause to have prejudice." (pg. 567). In a sense, it
is prejudging someone without full hearing or examination of the matter or
person in question. Indeed, to be prejudice towards someone is ugly. Even more
importantly, it is wrong! Yet, people do it every day in some subtle or major
action or form. People are "prejudice" not "racist" against
other ethnic groups of people when they demean or treat them as inferior to
themselves. God made from our original parents, Adam and Eve all the nations
and peoples of the world. As today's text puts it, "And [the Lord] hath
made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the
earth." (Acts 17: 26). This Scripture text points out clearly that all
ethniticies and nationalities belong to one race of people, the human race.
This is why it doesn't make sense to refer to black people as one race
and white people as another race. Whether black, white, Asian, Indian,
or any other groups of people, all are fellow human beings who belong to the
same human race. Just as there are different characteristics and traits in dogs
within the same species, so there are various characteristics and traits in human
beings within the human race. The human race does not consist of many different
races. Yet the young woman who I conversed with on her face page argued that
the human race consists of many races of people. She gave this definition on
racism to argue her point:
"She wrote: "I
actually have to disagree with "race" being used to describe humans
with oneness: race2 [reys] Show IPA noun 1. a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology . a.
any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the
caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and
universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary
classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any
or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial
form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood
groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other
populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic
similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or
peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united
by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race."
Whatever text book or dictionary
she got this definition from is in error. There is no such thing as "the
Slavic race' or "the Dutch race" within the human race. A race within
one race is definitely a contradiction in terms. So I argued back with this
comment:
"I really appreciate where you are
coming from, because I used to believe what dictionaries and scientific
definitions about the term "racism" and "races" would tell
me; until I began rethinking what I believed about the term racism, and what it
actually means and applies to humanity. As I mentioned in my previous comment,
I can accept the term "race" as a singular term in relation to all of
mankind. For instance, consider the various kinds of animals. Since a
"dog" is one of the best known pets to mankind. I will use it as an
example. There are many different types of dogs within the species. A close
friend of mine who is a research writer, explained it this way: "Dogs are
a species. They differ from cats, monkeys, and elephants. All of these are
rightly termed "species." However, Poodles are not a species,
Chihuahuas are not a species, and Saint Bernards are not a species. They are
different "kinds" existing within the single "species" of
dog. When bred together, the result is a dog." So it is with mankind.
Again, my friend says: "White people and black people are simply different
skin colours existing within the single race of men. When bred together, the
result is a human being." Yes, humankind can be divided into different
ethnicities such as Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negro, Asian, etc. But they are
different kinds of people within the human race. The only way
"racism" would apply is if there were races of Elves or Aliens as
opposed to Mankind."
Not able to respond to what I
said above, she then threw at me this short response, "Dogs =/= wolves." I rebutted it with this
response below:
"Good question Alice. Actually dogs and
wolves are of the same species. For it has been shown that they can interbreed
with each other. Years ago, I remember having a friend who owned a large dog
that was part wolf. Try interbreeding a dog with a monkey, it can't be done,
due to the fact they are two distinct species within the animal kingdom. No
doubt the ancestry of dogs can be traced back to an original species of dog.
Some have argued that the Mastif, which exists today is considered to be the
original dog, while others have argued that wolves are. Whatever that actual
species looked like in very ancient times, we can only guess. Since you
mentioned dogs =/= wolves, why not mention dogs =/= wild dogs; dogs =/=
coyotes; or dogs =/= foxes as well. Wolves are the cousins of dogs that
branched off from the original dog kind within the ancestry of the species.
Wolves are wild in nature, whereas dogs are tamed. However, scientific
experimentation has proven that they can be tamed. Foxes also have been proven
to be tamed as well. They also can be bred together as well. Why? Because they
are all of the same species within the dog family. Having said that, wolves,
coyotes, and foxes for example are distant cousins due to the fact that they
live in the wild, whereas dogs live with mankind. They are two branches of
different kinds of dogs within the same species. We just call dogs, dogs
because of their companionship with us, whereas wolves and coyotes are called
such for their distinction to dogs in their relationship to man. For all we
know, wolves could have been the original kind that dogs have branched off
from."
Annoyed and angry, she arrogantly retorted back:
"You are
attempting to argue with someone who possesses a degree in biology and your
failure to understand the point is amusing. At any rate, stop going off
tangent. This has nothing to do with the original point, which you have
completely missed."
After I rebutted that, she
followed up with this comment: "Go off on a tangent when I have asked you to stay on topic and I will be
forced to remove comment privileges for you. Sorry." Since she has a
degree in Biology, I challenged her with scientific research information
that was conducted on dogs. That's when she deleted me. That became obvious
when I tried to post my last comment as follows:
"Alice, out of
respect that this is your face page I am writing on, this will be my final
comment on the topic. You say I have been off the "topic." I
disagree with you on that for these reasons: (1.) In my original comment I had
commended you for what you had written about in regards to racial terms
considered offensive, yet used by such bands as "The Ni****s" and
"The Slants." I could have ran with that topic. But since I agreed
with your comments, why further elaborate on it? (2.) Then in my second
response, I focused on certain words in your original comment about
"racism" and "racial bullying," which was apart of your
comment and the topic at hand. Though my primary focus was on the meaning of
the term "racism/races." So as you can see, I was responding on
topic to what you have originally said. With that said, I respectfully
close the issue."
What astounds me is the fact that
nothing offensive was said to cause her to "delete" me. Her warped sense
of reasoning to delete me was her accusation that I was "off the
topic." Which I proved in the above comment was not true. I was on topic.
Her problem was she did not like the truth I was challenging her with. So she
accused me of going on "tangents," "failure to understand the
point," and my personal favorite, "This has nothing to do with the
original point, which you completely missed." If she had read and
understood what I had stated in my original two responses, she would have known
I was on topic. Because she was unable to rebut what I said in my responses,
she resorted to calling my logical responses going on "tangents,"
"not understanding the point," and "missing the point
altogether." Really? I don't think so. I do not possess a degree in Biology
like she does, but I do know what I am talking about in regards to the terms
"races" and "racism." This was an opportunity for her to
learn something that she had not considered before. Instead, she allowed her pride
of education get in the way of facing the facts she was presented with.
