You can't have an all boy or all girl or all anything without it it being 'ist' can you? Personally (and this is what makes me think that I am a closet 'ist' in denial) I really don't see why groups can't congregate and don't see that as 'ist'. Can you still have 'cubs' and 'brownies' - or the WI or whatever?
As for slavery (and talking specifically about the Afro-American slave trade) - I don't see that as racist - and I'm not trying to whitewash the slavers actions at all - in fact I think in my view they were worse than racist. I see the 15th+ centuries as again like a perfect storm. On one hand you have the largely unknown continent of Africa - not united and controlled by tribal nations. Not technically as advanced as Europe. Then you have navigational advances mean that ships could travel beyond sight of land easier. The ship technology had also started to advance beyond galleys. Then due to those advances, America and the Indies were 'discovered' - but proved to be difficult to tame.
I had initially thought that the African slaves were then taken by conquest - ie a more advanced technologically powerful group dominating a weaker - but having a quick read, I'm not sure that's entirely the picture (although I'm not sure what I've read isn't just white apologist stuff). What appears to be put forward is that the West African tribes used slavery (as did most cultures around the world) internally ,and that when the Europeans arrived, slaves (from local conflicts) were in some cases bought from the local tribal chiefs. I would guess that it was a mixture of taking and trading. I don't think the skin colour mattered per se (maybe itmade it easier to justify their abhorrent actions) - and this why I think this was far worse than racism - they were just seen as a commodity to buy and sell elsewhere. It just so happened they came from West Africa and were black but I don't think (and this is impossible to prove) that that mattered - they needed manpower in the Americas, navigation and ship tech meant they could transport people in bulk as objects, and in West Africa they came across a place where they could buy that resource or take it. Isn't that worse than racism? It's what we would see today as 'The Market' - 'the market' finds its level and is the all. And we still see that same driving force in place today.
Sexism - again apologies if this is barking but I think you can't ignore what 'man' is here. We are discovering more and more about genetics (and I understand very little about it).
We all see traits in animals that differentiate between the sexes. Are those traits learned or genetic? Irrespective, we see those traits and accept them - more than that we all 'oooh' and 'aaah' when Attenborough points them out and think 'how wonderful nature is'. Desmond Morris showed that we are still apelike.
Man has been on this planet for what? 2 million years? For whatever reason it seems than males were genetically stronger than females. Who made that rule? Nature? g_d? Again, irrespective, I don't think then it is 'sexist' when if division of labour meant that the more powerful male did certain things and the less powerful female did others. That, to me, is just genetics at play. It would be 'sexist' for the more powerful to force the weaker to put themselves at risk wouldn't it? Do we then have learned genetic attributes? Does genetics affect how we think and our intelligence? Can man become taller because of what he eats? Does diet affect genes or is diet purely a one off localised effect? What is controlled by genetics and what isn't? Man then for al intents and purposes from 2 million years ago until around the 17th century lived the same as either foragers,farmers or ancillary trades. Power was still the thing. Kings had no divine right, they were just bigger, stronger and took what they wanted (from men and women) - cleverly the 'royalty' then said 'oh and by the way' my kids are also royal and own what I took by force - which in some way led to royalty keeping a bunch of bully boys around them that shared in the wealth and who then protected the royals' interests. Power was not just directed against women - it was directed against other men. What changed - very slowly at first - was tech (even the longbow had an effect - didn't knights moan when the powerful longbow came in that meant a weedy archer could defeat a powerful knight? Not fair to be at a distance and kill powerful knights eh? Far better for the big, well protected bully boy to get up close and hack you to death with a broadsword). Gunpowder did the same as the bow - powerful men meant less and less. What does it take to fire a cannon or a musket? To top it all, in the 17th century we see the start of the industrial revolutions which culminates in an out of shape leader being able to destroy another nation at the press of a button - AND - where machines now do most of the hard labour. Being strong and powerful today is of no real benefit - how many trades rely on physical power? What is of value to the current human - intelligence - adaptability? If 'power' and a 'warrior gene' is there and did develop over the millenia, then bear with. 2 million years of genetics has to be bred out. If it's not genetic, then it's about people not wanting to give up power and again, I know 300 years sounds a lot, but it's a drop in the ocean.
What I think was really clever though was religion. That someone, who was not necessarily physically powerful, used the power of a supernatural being as their ally and threatened other men, not with what is going to happen to them now, but what will happen to them in future. Psychology at its best. Persuade people that you exist forever, then tell them that you have the ear of the being that controls eternity - you are the bully boy for that eternal king. The kings all saw and understood that model and would they risk, even if they had doubts, being beaten up for eternity? Even clevererererer, in my mind was the infallibility model. The person with the ear of the eternal was infallible - as they were talking on the eternal king's behalf (who was all seeing and all powerful) - so had to be infallible. I also quite liked the hereditary priesthood thing. Brilliant.
But it's all just power isn't it? The more powerful over the weaker. But what defines power in this day and age? Will China send gun boats up the Thames to enforce the use of Huawei kit?
That's quite an essay. It IS about power; virtually all the divisions between us are about power, I think. Many of your isms and ists are just justifications for the appalling things we do to others. Genetics govern our physiology and the way we reproduce. It wasn't sexist for men to take on the heavy work while their pregnant and nursing womenfolk kept house. But it WAS sexist to buy and sell women in marriage, to refuse to educate them and to take away their property. It is sexist now to assume that a man has a finer intellect because he is tall or more muscled. Genetics do influence intelligence but not by gender.
Never read so much middle class shite in my life. This thread should be an advert for the Tory Party.
Is that prejudice against the middle classes? The middle classes are often blamed for things but rarely stand up for themselves, they just say mea culpa.
Dordogne and Norfolk. Clay in Dordogne, sandy in Norfolk.
@Balgay.Hill - I'm happy to report that not all members of the much-reviled middle class are Tories. Quite a lot of us are lefty Liberals, green activists or dyed-in-the-wool Labour...
What I think was really clever though was religion. That someone, who was not necessarily physically powerful, used the power of a supernatural being as their ally and threatened other men, not with what is going to happen to them now, but what will happen to them in future. Psychology at its best. Persuade people that you exist forever, then tell them that you have the ear of the being that controls eternity - you are the bully boy for that eternal king. The kings all saw and understood that model and would they risk, even if they had doubts, being beaten up for eternity? Even clevererererer, in my mind was the infallibility model. The person with the ear of the eternal was infallible - as they were talking on the eternal king's behalf (who was all seeing and all powerful) - so had to be infallible. I also quite liked the hereditary priesthood thing. Brilliant.
Not sure you've got your facts straight here, @steveTu . In Protestant Christianity, only God is infallible. No human being, including, bishops, vicars etc, is seen that way - and we all have "the ear of the eternal" without needing an intermediary. I don't know whether Catholics still believe the Pope to be infallible, nor do I have any extensive knowledge of other religions. However, I do feel that "religion" is used as an easy target, when the religion cited (Islam, Catholicism etc) is often no more than an excuse for violence and bigotry used by people who actually don't have personal faith in the religion they purport to support. And, of course, there are people with an ulterior motive in radicalising the vulnerable to perform acts of violence, but they are not true followers of the religion either. The real Moslems, Christians etc in my experience are those who, inspired by their religion's teaching (loving your neighbour, supporting the weak, helping the afflicted) run soup kitchens, look after the elderly, etc. Of course there are plenty of non-religious people who do the same, but you surely can't dismiss the actions of people with true belief on the basis that "religion is bad"?
Since 2019 I've lived in east Clare, in the west of Ireland.
I was thinking about why we humans have prejudice and bias and I believe it all goes back many thousands of years to when we were nomadic bands of people. You would be wary of strangers as they could possibly kill you or whatever. You may have a bias towards another tribe as you know that in the past that they have been friendly or massacred your family.You were not always sure who you could trust so a tribe with different body markings,hair styles etc would be viewed with suspicion. So I think we all have these prejudices and bias as they were thousands of years ago quite simply a survival strategy,the fact we live in the 21st century does not mean we can suddenly get rid of all these feelings,we may hide them better but they will always be there.
“Every day is ordinary, until it isn't.” - Bernard Cornwell-Death of Kings
Apologies from me (to anyone) if I offended with my religious comments... actually, apologies if I offended with anything I've said - totally unintended.
Got my deccies up over the weekend though - so now I'm in Chrimbo mode.
So Merry Xmas all - Ho Ho Ho - and all that stuff..
I'd love to come back in 100, 200 years time and see what they've found buried in genetics or what we thought was genetic and that's been debunked. It's virtually impossible though isn't it to look back without applying current standards to bygone eras. Just been watching Ashes to Ashes and Life on Mars (don't tell me the ending - still watching!) and you forget (even though I lived through it) what the 70s and 80s were like don't you? I love the way TV channels now do disclaimers when they broadcast stuff from only decades back.
Posts
Genetics govern our physiology and the way we reproduce. It wasn't sexist for men to take on the heavy work while their pregnant and nursing womenfolk kept house. But it WAS sexist to buy and sell women in marriage, to refuse to educate them and to take away their property. It is sexist now to assume that a man has a finer intellect because he is tall or more muscled. Genetics do influence intelligence but not by gender.
Not sure you've got your facts straight here, @steveTu . In Protestant Christianity, only God is infallible. No human being, including, bishops, vicars etc, is seen that way - and we all have "the ear of the eternal" without needing an intermediary. I don't know whether Catholics still believe the Pope to be infallible, nor do I have any extensive knowledge of other religions. However, I do feel that "religion" is used as an easy target, when the religion cited (Islam, Catholicism etc) is often no more than an excuse for violence and bigotry used by people who actually don't have personal faith in the religion they purport to support. And, of course, there are people with an ulterior motive in radicalising the vulnerable to perform acts of violence, but they are not true followers of the religion either. The real Moslems, Christians etc in my experience are those who, inspired by their religion's teaching (loving your neighbour, supporting the weak, helping the afflicted) run soup kitchens, look after the elderly, etc. Of course there are plenty of non-religious people who do the same, but you surely can't dismiss the actions of people with true belief on the basis that "religion is bad"?
You would be wary of strangers as they could possibly kill you or whatever.
You may have a bias towards another tribe as you know that in the past that they have been friendly or massacred your family.You were not always sure who you could trust so a tribe with different body markings,hair styles etc would be viewed with suspicion.
So I think we all have these prejudices and bias as they were thousands of years ago quite simply a survival strategy,the fact we live in the 21st century does not mean we can suddenly get rid of all these feelings,we may hide them better but they will always be there.
Peace.