Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Who decided...
Love-N-Peace
Veteran
In past times darker skinned people were slaves to lighter skinned people. Who decided this? Why where things that way round? Why are some people racist? Isn't it all a bit primitive?
And why are people sexist? In the past why was women considered lower than man? Why did they have unequal rights? Why was it that way round?
And on to more modern times with bisexual and homosexual people, who decided they were weird? It's a normal part of nature yet people make fun of them and say 'you're gay' as an insult. Yet people don't say 'you're straight' as an insult. I really want to know who decided things this way? Why are humans racist to other humans? Why are homo and bi-sexuals looked down on by so many prejudiced people and other religions?
Why are things this way? Where did it all come from, this prejudice, race and sex-ism? Are many humans just cruel by nature?
Thanks alot to anyone who can help me, I feel strongly for equal rights for everybody from everyone...
Thanks for listening,
Joe:(
And why are people sexist? In the past why was women considered lower than man? Why did they have unequal rights? Why was it that way round?
And on to more modern times with bisexual and homosexual people, who decided they were weird? It's a normal part of nature yet people make fun of them and say 'you're gay' as an insult. Yet people don't say 'you're straight' as an insult. I really want to know who decided things this way? Why are humans racist to other humans? Why are homo and bi-sexuals looked down on by so many prejudiced people and other religions?
Why are things this way? Where did it all come from, this prejudice, race and sex-ism? Are many humans just cruel by nature?
Thanks alot to anyone who can help me, I feel strongly for equal rights for everybody from everyone...
Thanks for listening,
Joe:(
0
Comments
As for why people are racist, sexist, etc., it's a very complicated subject. I don't think people are inherently bigoted, but I do think that people are heavily influenced by the material conditions they're born into, as well as the prevailing ideas of the time (which are generally those of the ruling class).
Sadly, it takes time to change those conditions, so progress is relatively slow. But I do believe that the fight for equal rights is one that's worth fighting. As Marx once said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
In the US, we have a time-honored tradition, where the government enables racist perspectives and injustice. See:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
As for tastes, sexual or otherwise, the proof of their propriety can only be discovered in the clear light of day and not hid under the covers of secrecy and presumed singularity.
Reasonable minds seeking justice will surely prevail in the end.
I don't think that's necessarily true. There've been many cultures that haven't exhibited xenophobia, although maybe it would've been better if they had. Take the Arawaks, for example, who, according to Columbus' journal, greeted his arrival with gifts. Columbus and his men must have looked like nothing the Arawaks had ever seen, yet Columbus described them as peaceful, gentle and very welcoming (that is, before he turned them into slaves and helped to literally wipe the land of its original inhabitants).
Perhaps evolution does have a strong influence on these things, but seeing as how evolution is generally a very slow process, I just don't think there's been enough time on an evolutionary scale to fully explain the divergent behaviour of the Arawaks, or any other culture for that matter.
This illustrates my point perfectly. The peaceful Arawaks have been exterminated, thus proving that xenophobia has been helpful to survival.
Natural selection is not always a slow process. In certain circumstances, holders of a particular trait (e.g. Arawak-like lack of xenophobia, lack of immunity to a certain disease, etc.) are wiped out in a single generation.
Some of the most xenophobic groups are also the most welcoming of strangers. Pushtans are often very welcoming of strangers (as long as the strangers don't arrive in the form of an army) but carry on bitter feuds with the next village over or the neighboring tribe. With the exception of people being invaded, groups that exhibit xenophobia tend to direct it against other groups that they have some familiarity with. If Xeno had not been at the head of an army, he might have found the Caucasian tribes much less xenophobic.
One can also make the argument that hospitality towards strangers gives an evolutionary advantage, since it tends to create larger social networks.
Not quite. That particular tribe had likely never encountered people so different, so they didn't have the evolutionary advantage of xenophobia.
Large social networks weren't necessary for ancient human life. Our modern instinct to be kind to strangers we know we will never see again is probably a misfiring of an evolved instinct to be kind to people who will later reciprocate.
And yet humans have always sought to expand their social networks.
Ah, so the Arawaks weren't different after all.
You seem to be arguing that the Arawaks had been sufficiently isolated from other populations to have evolved different behaviors. First, they hadn't been on the island long enough for that to have occurred, and second, they weren't sufficiently isolated for that to have occurred. For that matter, the aboriginal inhabitants of the New World hadn't been isolated from the Old World long enough for the two populations to have evolved any significant differences in behavior. There's no reason to believe that the Arawaks or any other population were genetically more or less xenophobic than any other group of humans.
Are you trying to say we should be xenophobic?:rolleyes:
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Oh right then, I understand...
Just a question though, (as far as I understand) Buddhism has never on a whole beenxenophobic but we've survived the past 2500 years pretty well, obviously xenophobia is not neccesary to Human survival
Buddhism doesn't foster xenophobia, but that doesn't mean many Buddhists weren't xenophobic. And 2500 years is a blip in the history of humanity.
Of course it's not (nor ever has been) a necessity. At some point, however, it probably conferred some evolutionary advantage for those who were disposed to it.
Earlier, LNP, I alluded to PBS's RACE, The Power of an Illusion as a useful web resource showing that race is a myth, not a fact. http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm The real enemy is not so much mean-spirited or bigoted people, but our failure as individuals and societies to set the record straight.
For years, the US government has been mollycoddling the more affluent among us, including the middle classes, while disenfranchising people of color. Now, helping out the middle classes is a respectable thing to do, but trying to make amends for past misdeeds, that would be unamerican socialism!!!!!
It's tragic just how badly people of color were treated by law and how the supreme court in recent years has turned a blind eye to all of that.
Look at the website! Equal rights do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be sorted out sometimes in exacting ways. Measures were passed in Congress in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s meting out moneys subsidizing white middle class flight to the suburbs. These measures helped provide for the financial soundness of these white housing assets, while at the same time leaving people of color behind in the cities with ever-growing taxes d/t a shrinking tax base. I believe the PBS site documents these adverse developments well. People of color were treated beneath contempt.
WHO DECIDED THIS?
Commenting on my old first thread, I have learned about a Native American tribe that was actually based around homosexuality. Where men would be paired off and once a year they'd mate with the women. But I don't agree with that, in no culture have people been able to be with who they want, when they want, where they want *takes a deep breath and
Yeah. But a mixture of cultures can be helpful. With the spread of technology and the showing of different ways to hunt, collect and cultivate food ect.
I think with the African slave trade, if I'm remembering my history correctly, when European colonists started to arrive on the west coast of Africa they encountered tribes of natives who already practised slavery, they'd carry out raiding parties on neighbouring tribes and enslave whoever they could capture. I think the selling of these captured peoples to the white man was novel, but otherwise I think the practice had been established in their culture for a very long time before the Europeans arrived. If we look at ancient Rome and other cultures of the time, slaves were of all races, but I'm not sure if they actually had racism as we'd know it today. I think modern racism derives from the influx of alien peoples into European cultures, as far back as the time of Queen Elizabeth I there were orders for the deportation of the "blackmoors" (Africans) because people grew uncomfortable with their numbers.
Well, it all started in the antiquity...white people , romans , took slaves from all the corners of the Mediteranean basin, and most of them, I think were black. The thing continued in the medieval times, when the church dictated all the things, and ( this may sound funny and ignorant) may have painted the black people as devils.
About the women's rights...still this unequality goes back as far as the prehistoric ages , when the patriarchal types of societies were established, like tribes and clans. The men, in that period of time, were the ones who went hunting, were the ones who made tools and weapons, they were the ones who put food on the table.
People are racists because they were taught that way. In my country, for example, the orthodox priests lately indoctorinate other people to distrust jews, atheists, and other religious people, and also other ethnic groups ( I know, I gave an example about xenophobism) but they don't do it 'at day's light'.
Why are we this way ? Well, it's about fear. It's more about the fear and ignorance of the people. These are the kind of people who cling to some Dark Ages principles that are still preached in churches today.
Jellybean
Trying to fix society will only be a temporary if not overly idealistic solution at best, Look what happend Britain for example before WW2 there we where as a virtually Homogenic nation, Then through the nations past actions the islands became flooded with a wave of many different people from many different lands, Some people with noble ideas thought that it would be nice for everyone to try and cohese and in doing so adopted an idealism that was soon to lead in more Ethnic violence then there was in the first place...:(
Recognise Samsara isnt fair, You cant fix it by throwing money at it, You cant fix it by an worldly means that will last. The only thing you can fix is your mind. And from mind stems all of Samsara. So work on the mind is the very first place to start if you want to fix all the ills of Samsara.
Something that struck me a few days ago...who said women are supposed to be pretty? And in America...who said we should try to look young when we're old?
Some others...who said insects are creepy and should be killed? Who said the death of a loved one needs to be devastating? Who said making money is important in life? Who said I'm smart and talented? Who said I'm separate from everything else in life...
When you come right down to it, it's easy to understand why people believe stupid things. The question, the challenge for all of us...are you going to believe it?
African slavery existed long before the Africans started selling / trading slaves to the Europeans. So my answer would be Africans.
Right, because yknow, the white guys didn't just come and take them by force or anything. It was all voluntary... hence the term slave :rolleyes:
Also, didn't the American slave traders buy slaves (rather than capture) from Africa to begin with? I don't know too much about that.
Yet slavery still exists in Africa today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_modern_Africa
Why does Obama have a 91% approval rating from black people but only a 36% approval rating from white? Tribalism?
Some of your questions about the history of western society's view homosexuals might be answered here:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
Not only does slavery exist today, there are more people enslaved today than at any time in history.
http://www.freetheslaves.net/
The people of Africa were viewed more as animals than as human beings and that was how they justified slavery. The whites also enslaved the native americans on pretty much the same basis.
Doesnt get much more racist than that.
I don't think the origin of USA / African slavery was a system to advance the idea white supremacy. Indentured servants were Europeans and some American Africans owned slaves.
It may not have been a matter of supremacy as we know it today but it certainly was a form of supremacy.
Whether its based on race, class, tribal affiliation, or anything else there is always a "justification" that is based on some form of supremacy.
It was a mixture of both.
1) I'm not white
2) I think the race factor does have a lot to do with it, and it's not a personal attack so I don't know why you're bringing up your family lineage. I don't care.
I'm stating the facts, and that is that Europeans (mainly from England) were white people, and they had slaves that were non-white, predominantly black. This slave economy was continued in N. America.
And by a "minority of people" I hope you mean rich landowners.
It's funny to see people try to squirm out of the "white man's burden."
3) I was exaggerating for effect when I said that the Europeans came and "took them by force" (i.e. capture) Africans for slaves. I'm sure it did happen in some cases, but yes, they were generally traded.
My point is that the "moral West" still participated in a barbaric practice, and just because some African guy sold another African guy as a slave doesn't mean that it's alright. And the argument that "Africans did it before the Europeans did" may be true, but it is still a fallacy to say they're at fault.
Slavery exists in all societies in various forms. It can be racial/ethnic superiority based, but the underlying discourse is that of power relations.
Well a very high percentage of Christians are none-homophobic