I've been thinking a lot about racism and bigotry lately. Ethnic, religious, etc. I read Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and saw Malcolm X in February, and last night I saw Focus, a film based on Arthur Miller's 1945 play of the same name. Caged Bird was largely about anti-black racism in the American south, and Malcolm X about anti-black racism and throughout America. Focus was about anti-semitism in New York in the waning years of World War II.
Anyway every time I read a book or see a film about racism, it simultaneously terrifies me and makes my blood boil. I can't stand the idea of living in such a society. I honestly don't think there is a religious or ethnic group in America that's so universally feared and loathed anymore--at least not openly expressed--but I wonder if we in America (and/or you in your country) have enough guards against such things built in to the existing political and legal system. What do you think?
I agree with your sentiments against racism and bigotry in general, vm, but I'm wondering what you mean by "guards [...] built in to the existing political and legal system"?
Many see any legal or politicals guards as being against free speech. My own gut reaction to the free speech argument, is that legal and political guards (ie: anti-hate speech/crime legislation) actually enhances free speech (or freedom of expression and association) to a greater majority, as it protects minorities from tyranny and enables them to also practice their culture without fear. However, I've read a few arguments about that at IIDB, and I'm not so sure I'm on the right track with my thinking on that one.
It sure is a toughie.
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”
I think that the number of checks and balances designed to prevent racism are somewhat secondary to the intrinsic beliefs of people. As long as people still believe that those who possess a particular skin colour or a set of beliefs are vastly inferior or have a greater predisposition towards violence (for example), then there will most likely be an undercurrent of racism/bigotry. Sure, various laws may make it less extant, but nonetheless...
Also, isnt there a certain degree of irony in not tolerating intolerance (which is the effect of creating more guards designed to prevent racism)? This question always pops up in my mind when reading about such things, and I for one cannot resolve it.
Because stimulus generalization is hardwired into our brains, we must all be vigilant in guarding our attitudes so that bias doesn't creep in, especially since there also seems to be something in us which takes a sneaking sort of joy in looking down on others.
Malcom X himself was an extreme racist for many years and many people suspect that his murder was ordered by his former leader for adopting a purer form of Islam, which, among other things, didn't require that all Caucasians be filed in the White Devil catagory.
I wonder what laws there are left to enact to eliminate racial prejudice, given that it's a misapplication of the same innate discriminatory abilities which prevent us from drinking from drinking Draino by mistake.
Sadly, I only can attribute my lack of racism to my early education and the example of my parents: the law had nothing to do with it, since the US's Civil Rights Act wasn't passed until I was older and already agreed that it was badly needed.
<snip>
Also, isnt there a certain degree of irony in not tolerating intolerance (which is the effect of creating more guards designed to prevent racism)? This question always pops up in my mind when reading about such things, and I for one cannot resolve it.
IMO, the primary meaning of the term "tolerance" is to attempt to understand, respect and endure beliefs the beliefs of others without sharing them and living in the region in which I do, I absolutely must attempt this with racism, but if I have to perform the metaphorical equivalent of blowing my brains out in order to order to do so, something is badly wrong. There is no scientific foundation for racism whatsoever and I won't pretend there is.
I also see a distinction between hurtful attitudes and injurous actions. I don't want to establish a Thought Police Force, but some actions ought to be illegal. If a serial killer enjoys contemplating killing, I may wish to avoid him rather than hear him fantasize at great length on the subjectand I don't want a law preventing him from buying films and books containing such material, no more than I want The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf banned, but I don't tolerate actual serial murders and I see no reason why I should.
My parents didn't choose to condition me; instead they chose to reason with me, as young as I was, and I've seen racists change their minds in adulthood, so I'm not without hope that we can continue to make progress in this country.
I agree with your sentiments against racism and bigotry in general, vm, but I'm wondering what you mean by "guards [...] built in to the existing political and legal system"?
The first two things that came to mind were the US's Civil Liberties Act and Germany's anti-racism laws (which I know almost nothing about). I'm just wondering how they compare, what everyone thinks about whether one or the other is too much or too little, etc.
Quote:
Many see any legal or politicals guards as being against free speech. My own gut reaction to the free speech argument, is that legal and political guards (ie: anti-hate speech/crime legislation) actually enhances free speech (or freedom of expression and association) to a greater majority, as it protects minorities from tyranny and enables them to also practice their culture without fear. However, I've read a few arguments about that at IIDB, and I'm not so sure I'm on the right track with my thinking on that one.
It sure is a toughie.
I go back and forth on anti-hate speech/crime legislation. I debated with a lawyer who convinced me that both are not a good idea, but I have to re-read that discussion to refresh my memory as to how I was convinced.
It's just that movies like Focus really freak me out. I'm sure racism and bigotry will always exist on an individual level, but when it gets big and organized it starts getting really creepy.
There is this ACLU thing which I think is a good argument against hate speech codes on University campuses. But I'm really interested in hearing varied perspectives.
I'll just touch on this in your post before racing off to hang out my washing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
...Germany's anti-racism laws...
I also don't know much about them, but I'll put my 2 cents in anyway.
Since Germany's experience of the Nazis and the Holocaust, I can fully understand why they would have checks in place to make sure that never happens again on their soil. Many 'outsiders' may criticise that has a negative effect on freedom of speech, etc, but my own experience of Germans in the modern day are that they are very tolerant people, culturally, and their society is quite comfortably diverse, now. While I'm sure they still have racist groups and thinking - who doesn't? - they are more humble and open-minded in their acceptance of 'others' now. But then history has given such legislation..er...legitimacy, if you like, and the German mindset regarding bigotry is based on what really happened and their shame with regard to that. This means that they have a genuine desire to overcome the forces that made such horror happen. Something many other nations just don't have, or don't feel that they need as they cannot comprehend that such things could ever happen in their home countries. I think.
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”
I've just re-read the thread I participated in about hate crime legislation and as it turns out I didn't become convinced that such laws are a bad idea. I did, however, come to understand some of the criticisms much better and I went from being a strong believer in hate crime laws to an agnostic. I wish I could reproduce the whole thread here, but it was at a private forum and none of the other participants are members here. I'll reproduce some of the general themes in a bit, though.
I've just re-read the thread I participated in about hate crime legislation and as it turns out I didn't become convinced that such laws are a bad idea. I did, however, come to understand some of the criticisms much better and I went from being a strong believer in hate crime laws to an agnostic.
Yeah, I'm pretty much the same way. My gut still lies with the German ...oh, dear, dare I say... "solution". But perhaps that's because I'm born not so far from where it all began in Munich.
I'm all for public money being spent on such things as 'awareness' and 'tolerance' campaigns across assorted media as a means of changing social norms and perceptions. To me, this is an area where Marketing is best used. I'm feeling way too lazy this Sunday to explain myself better here, but hopefully you'll understand what I mean. I know some of my Kiwi countrymen here will know what I'm on about. I think.
__________________
“Passion makes the world go round. Love just makes it a safer place.”
Also, isnt there a certain degree of irony in not tolerating intolerance (which is the effect of creating more guards designed to prevent racism)? This question always pops up in my mind when reading about such things, and I for one cannot resolve it.
I've wondered about that myself. I think the best answer is that tolerance is not an absolute value. It's religious/ethnic/etc. intolerance that's wrong, not intolerance itself. For example surely there's nothing wrong with being intolerant of rape, murder, etc.
Anyway here are a couple of my posts from that old thread elsewhere. I'll post more thoughts later, since I ended up changing my position somewhat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vm - May, 2004
I always look to the ACLU first when investigating issues like this, because I share their commitment to protecting both free speech and civil liberties. The first document I found after a quick Google was this one, in which they wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. At another point in the document, they refer to the difference between discrimination (an act) and bigotry (a belief). In other words the hate crimes legislation isn't about what a person is thinking, but how a person acts. I find that justification compelling for the same reason I agree that harassment or defamation targeting an individual stretches beyond the bounds of protected speech to the level of unprotected conduct.
I also don't really understand the argument that bigoted intent is too hard to prove. I don't see why it should be any harder to prove than any other form of intent, and as it has been mentioned other assessments of intent affect the application of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vm - May, 2004
Yet at the same time, it seems self-evident to me that beating someone up because they're black or gay is worse than beating someone up because you want their money or they screwed your wife. The APA calls hate crimes "message crimes", in that the victim is not just the person who suffers the direct effect of the crime, but the whole group of like people. The ACLU says that hate crimes should be legislated against as invidious discrimination for similar reasons.
I learned something else in the course of all this research. There is a department of the US DOJ called the Community Relations Service (CRS) whose sole responsibility is to "help local communities resolve serious racial and ethnic conflicts". On their site I found an article entitled Hate Crime: The Violence of Intolerance. Instead of an argument against discrimination for its own sake, they present a more pragmatic rationale for legislation against hate crimes: preventing civil unrest. From the article:
Quote:
Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at-risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery may be hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates.
But they don't completely ignore the discrimination angle either, encouraging legislation against hate crimes on those grounds as well:
Quote:
A core responsibility of government is to protect the civil rights of its citizens and to advance its inherent obligation to ensure good race and ethnic relations. This tenet should not be abrogated and such a commitment requires no special funding. A government can confirm its commitment to the safety and well-being of its citizens by establishing an ordinance against hate crime activity or enhancing the punishment for hate crime. It can also encourage compliance with existing equal opportunity statutes.
I guess in summary I would say that at this juncture I believe that yes, crimes against individuals - motivated by prejudice against a particular group – have a more significant impact on both the individual and the community at large than crimes motivated by other things, and as such should receive enhanced penalties.
I honestly don't think there is a religious or ethnic group in America that's so universally feared and loathed anymore--at least not openly expressed--but I wonder if we in America (and/or you in your country) have enough guards against such things built in to the existing political and legal system. What do you think?
I'm not sure that I agree with you about the absence of a group which is universally feared and loathed, VM. As far as North America is concerned, I can only speak for what I have seen from stereotyping in U.S. and other films etc. and from what I have read in various media outlets, but I certainly detect the presence of a strong anti-Islamic sentiment there. Also, in Europe, Islam has been revived as the bogeyman to be feared and watched everywhere. Arabs are especially popular as the "them" (though Pakistani, Turkish, Iranian and other mainly Islamic ethnic groups are also popular targets for "othering"). There are too many people being harassed in the West for the crime of being named Ahmed or such, for having a long beard (or wearing a veil) and a brown skin, for going to mosques and reading the Koran for this to be insignificant.
Ask yourselves who fills the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay? Who forms the main body of the "axis of evil"? Who "hates" the American way of life and "freedom"? Who do we launch crusades against? etc. etc.
Add it all up and the sum is pretty overwhelming, and it's called Islamophobia.
I think the vast majority of people fear those that are "different" and this presents as racism and bigotry. Anti-Black and Anti-Semitism are frowned upon in our current society, so it has simply been transferred to Anti-Arab/Anti-Islam and Anti-Hispanic.
Sad, really, but I think it's a function of nature...a sorta throw back to tribalism.
Wow, if you combine Darren's and LadyShea's posts you will get pretty much what I've been trying to formulate as a response to this thread.
The fear or even just lack of knowledge of those peoples who are "different" than "us" can often translate into racist and bigotted behaviors. Even from people who want very much to be race/color/nationality/gender-blind.
And I would add my own to Darren and LadyShea's comments about Anti-Islam/Arab here in the U.S.. When I first saw this thread, it was soon after I had had a somewhat frustrating conversation with a few of our own here in FF's chat where a couple of rather broad generalizations were made about Arabs and life in Kuwait. For example here in the U.S., life and the peoples of New York City can be vastly different than people/life in a small town in Minnesota, yet most people I know seem to assume every Arab country is just like its neighbor and all Arabs live and think and look the same way day to day.
These assumptions aren't borne of racism or bigotry, but when they become ingrained in an individual's thought, the sense of "The Other" can make it harder to recognize a chipping away at simple acceptance, let alone true civil rights and equality.
Of course Darren's right that there is an anti-Arab/anti-Islam sentiment here in the US that has been especially prevalent since 9/11, and Ladyshea makes a good point about anti-Mexican sentiment that's fairly widespread -- at least in the west/southwestern states. I also agree that there will probably always be a tendency for people to align themselves with groups and to be somewhat fearful and suspicious of other dissimilar groups. And pesci's point about Arabs not having a monolithic lifestyle from region to region is a very good one too.
That said, I don't think I expressed myself very well in the OP here. The reason I started this thread in the Politics and Law forum instead of Philosophy, Religion and Morality is because it wasn't my intention to discuss how widespread racism is and what its causes are, although those are both importantly related issues. What I wanted to explore more thoroughly is what safeguards are built into our government (respective to your home country) and whether they have been and will continue to be effective. Not necessarily to curb racism or bigotry (since we all agree that those things will probably never go away) but to make it more difficult for people to legally discriminate on that basis.
For example, here in the US we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides every citizen with a host of legal protections against discrimination in the workplace and public sphere. In addition, according to this article 40 states have hate crime statutes which provide stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. The Civil Rights Act is fairly comprehensive and seems pretty much set in stone here. I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that it will be substantially eroded any time soon. In contrast, some people think hate crime legislation isn't comprehensive enough (relatively few states think discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, or physical disabilities should be classified as a hate crime) and others are completely opposed to any hate crime legislation.
So basically I'm looking for input about the laws that exist today. How do you think they're working, how could they be expanded, etc. Do you support hate crimes legislation? If so, do you think it should be changed or expanded? And for those of you who aren't American, what safeguards (if any) does your country have in place to prevent discrimination, and are they effective? Should they be expanded or changed? Etc.
Well, the safeguards have obviously failed in that our government is practicing racism right now via the Patriot Act. My friend's Iranian aunt is having to shut down her law office, because her clientele is mostly Middle Eastern and she has been questioned regarding "aiding and abetting" terrorists. Middle Easterners of all nations have been detained, arrested, investigated, etc. with little or no due process or even reasonable cause.
IMO, the primary meaning of the term "tolerance" is to attempt to understand, respect and endure beliefs the beliefs of others without sharing them and living in the region in which I do, I absolutely must attempt this with racism, but if I have to perform the metaphorical equivalent of blowing my brains out in order to order to do so, something is badly wrong. There is no scientific foundation for racism whatsoever and I won't pretend there is.
I also see a distinction between hurtful attitudes and injurous actions. I don't want to establish a Thought Police Force, but some actions ought to be illegal. If a serial killer enjoys contemplating killing, I may wish to avoid him rather than hear him fantasize at great length on the subjectand I don't want a law preventing him from buying films and books containing such material, no more than I want The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf banned, but I don't tolerate actual serial murders and I see no reason why I should.
This may be construed as strawmanning, but its analogous to the core issue here (and it also continues from your post). Do you support the death penalty for convicted killers, and do you see a certain degree of irony in doing so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by viscousmemories
I've wondered about that myself. I think the best answer is that tolerance is not an absolute value. It's religious/ethnic/etc. intolerance that's wrong, not intolerance itself. For example surely there's nothing wrong with being intolerant of rape, murder, etc.
I'm not sure I get what you mean here, both in general, and in your example. In your example, do you mean that theres nothing wrong with being intolerant towards those who commit the crime, the crime itself, or the intent behind the crime?
To illustrate the difference, take the case of three heterosexual couples, one living in the 19th century, one in the 20th century, and the last in the 21st century. In all three cases, the husband wants to have sex with his wife, in all three cases, the wife does not want to.
The 19th century man does the deed anyway, and does not commit a crime.
The 20th century man does the deed anyway, and does commit a crime.
The 21st century man doesn't do the deed, but is literally a hairs breadth away from doing so.
I'm not sure I get what you mean here, both in general, and in your example. In your example, do you mean that theres nothing wrong with being intolerant towards those who commit the crime, the crime itself, or the intent behind the crime?
I just meant that since (imo) morality and laws are subjective/intersubjective, once we (the members of a given society) have come to some basic agreement on the morality/legality of, for example, rape, then we no longer have any moral or legal obligation to tolerate it.
But if you want to continue in this direction we should probably start a new thread in the Philosophy forum, because as I explained in my last post I'd rather this one focus on what legal protections citizens of the US and other countries have to protect them from discrimination, and whether these protections are sufficient in most cases.
Of course Darren's right that there is an anti-Arab/anti-Islam sentiment here in the US that has been especially prevalent since 9/11, and Ladyshea makes a good point about anti-Mexican sentiment that's fairly widespread -- at least in the west/southwestern states. I also agree that there will probably always be a tendency for people to align themselves with groups and to be somewhat fearful and suspicious of other dissimilar groups. And pesci's point about Arabs not having a monolithic lifestyle from region to region is a very good one too.
That said, I don't think I expressed myself very well in the OP here. The reason I started this thread in the Politics and Law forum instead of Philosophy, Religion and Morality is because it wasn't my intention to discuss how widespread racism is and what its causes are, although those are both importantly related issues. What I wanted to explore more thoroughly is what safeguards are built into our government (respective to your home country) and whether they have been and will continue to be effective. Not necessarily to curb racism or bigotry (since we all agree that those things will probably never go away) but to make it more difficult for people to legally discriminate on that basis.
For example, here in the US we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides every citizen with a host of legal protections against discrimination in the workplace and public sphere. In addition, according to this article 40 states have hate crime statutes which provide stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. The Civil Rights Act is fairly comprehensive and seems pretty much set in stone here. I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that it will be substantially eroded any time soon. In contrast, some people think hate crime legislation isn't comprehensive enough (relatively few states think discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, or physical disabilities should be classified as a hate crime) and others are completely opposed to any hate crime legislation.
So basically I'm looking for input about the laws that exist today. How do you think they're working, how could they be expanded, etc. Do you support hate crimes legislation? If so, do you think it should be changed or expanded? And for those of you who aren't American, what safeguards (if any) does your country have in place to prevent discrimination, and are they effective? Should they be expanded or changed? Etc.
I see your point VM. Here in France, where I now live, there has been an upsurge of right wing acts of hate - especially the desecration of Jewish and Islamic cemetaries and places of worship with Swastikas and such, as well as acts of racist violence. There is a lot of media attention over this and there are laws covering such acts and defining them as illegal, though I'm afraid I can't cite specific legislation. There are also anti-discriminatory laws covering fields such as employment and social exclusion. In practice, however, many companies persue active policies of discrimination, particularly towards groups of North African origin, and many landlords do the same. Many examples of such discrimination have been exposed and penalties do exist - but the extent of the said discrimination is so great that it is difficult to apply existing laws on the scale required.
The NGO "SOS Racisme" exists to help people to know and enforce their rights regarding such discrimination, but companies and landlords continue to discriminate - often using codes to "grade", for example, prospective employees on a racial scale. Members of ethnic minorities are also regularly refused entry to nightclubs etc. and there are too many allegations of Police discrimination against minorities, especially Maghriban, to be ignored. So there does seem to be a large gap between theory and practice. Furthermore, on the European Union level, immigration laws (based on the Schengen list, also known as the "black" list) are blatantly racist, this has resulted in refusal of political asylum and the creation of a large European sub-caste of "illegal-immigrants", mainly from the third world, who are, in practice, denied basic human rights.
Many ethnic minorities are practically confined to suburban ghettoes as a result of social discrimination. Local authorities are then able, under certain circumstances, to organize distribution of subsidies etc. in a way that has a negative impact on particular areas which are populated mainly by ethnic minorities caught in a poverty trap which is effectively racist. This is particularly the case in regions where local government is controlled by the FN (National Front).
There exists also the constitutional separation of the state and religion, so in theory the state doesn't promote a particular brand of religion. However, in practice it does. This is most clearly seen in legislation governing state subsidy of religious places of worship - such buildings dating from before 1900 are eligible for subsidy from local government. Since the largest French religious group after the Roman Catholic church is Islam, and since the bulk of Islamic immigration occurred in the post-war period (immigrants from the Maghrib practically rebuilt France after 1945), mosques fall outside this period and thus there is no state support for Islamic places of worship, while most catholic places of worship date from before 1900 and so are eligible for subsidy. So, in practice, there is positive state discrimination towards the religious majority.
So, I would say that the safeguards are not sufficient, and there are too many loopholes. That said, there is a high degree of awareness of these problems, and there are politicians and others who are working to improve the situation.
One particularly Gordian-Knotty problem is that of the veil which many Muslim women wear. Recent legislation has been passed banning the display of "ostentatious symbols of religious belief" (which effectively means the veil) from public institutions - so, for example, state school and university students may not wear the veil, the same applies to teachers in state educational institutions as well as municipal employees etc. While supporters of this legislation argue that many girls are forced to wear the veil by their parents (probably true in some cases), there is a significant number of Muslim girls asserting the wearing of such veils as their right, and many of these have been barred from state schools.
In any case, this does effectively act as a bar to participation and employment in the public sector of those Muslim females who do view the wearing of the veil as an intrinsic part of their faith and way of life.
Interestingly, this debate has mainly involved white males, which brings us to another area of discrimination - that against women. The majority of government and corporate positions are held by men, and there exists a significant wage gap between male and female employees, the latter receiving less remuneration than the former for doing the same jobs in many sectors. Here again, the safeguards are insufficient. And that's not to mention the incredibly high degree of violence against women in general in society.
Also, homophobia is still enshrined by the denial of the right of gay couples to secular marriage. There exists in France a lesser form of secular personal contract between couples of any gender known as the pacs, but the right of marriage is still denied to gay couples. Last year, a prominent member of the Green party celebrated gay marriages in the town of which he was mayor, and received higher penalties for doing so than did other politicians found guilty of financial fraud and corruption around about the same time.
Of course Darren's right that there is an anti-Arab/anti-Islam sentiment here in the US that has been especially prevalent since 9/11, and Ladyshea makes a good point about anti-Mexican sentiment that's fairly widespread -- at least in the west/southwestern states. I also agree that there will probably always be a tendency for people to align themselves with groups and to be somewhat fearful and suspicious of other dissimilar groups. And pesci's point about Arabs not having a monolithic lifestyle from region to region is a very good one too.
That said, I don't think I expressed myself very well in the OP here. The reason I started this thread in the Politics and Law forum instead of Philosophy, Religion and Morality is because it wasn't my intention to discuss how widespread racism is and what its causes are, although those are both importantly related issues. What I wanted to explore more thoroughly is what safeguards are built into our government (respective to your home country) and whether they have been and will continue to be effective. Not necessarily to curb racism or bigotry (since we all agree that those things will probably never go away) but to make it more difficult for people to legally discriminate on that basis.
For example, here in the US we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides every citizen with a host of legal protections against discrimination in the workplace and public sphere. In addition, according to this article 40 states have hate crime statutes which provide stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. The Civil Rights Act is fairly comprehensive and seems pretty much set in stone here. I could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that it will be substantially eroded any time soon. In contrast, some people think hate crime legislation isn't comprehensive enough (relatively few states think discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, or physical disabilities should be classified as a hate crime) and others are completely opposed to any hate crime legislation.
So basically I'm looking for input about the laws that exist today. How do you think they're working, how could they be expanded, etc. Do you support hate crimes legislation? If so, do you think it should be changed or expanded? And for those of you who aren't American, what safeguards (if any) does your country have in place to prevent discrimination, and are they effective? Should they be expanded or changed? Etc.
I know this is an old thread (I found it on google) but it is so interesting to see how little has changed in 15 years. This is all still happening and relevant today. I hope we won't be able to say the same in 2035.
Civil Rights Laws
Linear Mode
