jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (9 posts)

Is the term Racism flawed?

  1. Seth Winter profile image78
    Seth Winterposted 5 years ago

    Racism is defined as:  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. 

    So basically we are all human beings and no one race is superior to any other race is any given field.  That being said would of basketball team comprised entirely of African Bush Pigmy's (average height 4ft) vs Sudanese Tribe (whereas the average height is 6'4)...two difference races be a fair matchup?

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_mu … ther_races

    So based on the Pigmy basketball team as well as the link above it's somewhat safe to say that while races are all human some have strengths is certain areas that other's lack...or is that racist?

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    I think the primary deification these days is: "Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief."

    Choosing a basketball player because they are tall is no prejudiced and not based on race.  It is based on a trait that just happens to correlate with race.

    1. Seth Winter profile image78
      Seth Winterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      With the basketball thing I just meant grab an 5 average Pigmy's and 5 average Sudanese Tribes and see who wins...an obvious outcome, to say the least.

      But I thought it interested that blacks tend to be better at the basketball type sports (NBA 79 percent black) whereas whites tends to be the better weight lifters. Kind of makes me wonder if Asian's really do have something in their brains that makes them better at math (of course there is always the exception to the rules...but how many stereotypes have some truth behind them?

  3. Backwater Sage profile image60
    Backwater Sageposted 5 years ago

    The Pygmies would kill them in a limbo competition. Come on over and see if you can beat a Florida Cracker in a hammock nap contest.

    It's all good. Love 'em all the same and there will be no issues.

    1. Seth Winter profile image78
      Seth Winterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Your right the Pigmies would kick butt in a limbo contest...and the Sudanese would be screwed....I feel for them I'm 6'5.

  4. SOBF profile image77
    SOBFposted 5 years ago

    The definition is correct, its your example that is wrong.  People defined as pigmy nor Sudanese are races. There are pigmy of all races including African, therefore African pigmy (black) and Sudanese (black) would be of the same race. You have confused ethnic groups with racial groups in order to make your point.

    On the point of Blacks being better basketball players than Whites, this is incorrect. Blacks born and raised in the US tend to be better basketball players that Whites born and raised in the US. White international players dominate the NBA today because of they are skilled in the game at a similar level as their Black peers.

    1. Seth Winter profile image78
      Seth Winterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Actually SOBF I think your might be the one confused...within races there is something known as sub-races.  Sudanic and Pigmy's are a subrace.

      Racial groups tend to be defined by skin color and other physical characteristics. Ethnic groups are often associated different nationalities. For many centuries, for example, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and English people all tended to be members of the same (white) racial group, but they had distinct ethnic identities, rooted in part in differences of language and culture.

      As for the basketball point...it was just a point. I don't even watch sports. But there are genetic differences in subraces...is pointing out differences or the possibility that one race might be inherently better at something then other's really that bad?

  5. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    The sad problem with racism is that it took on both a political and a monetary value somewhere back in the 60's and that benefit for those who use it has been sustained.  This makes for a very complex problem in that "racism" per se is not really the problem...it is the use of "racism" which becomes the problem.  The only viable solution which I see is for those who tend to be targets of racism as a political or monetary gain must balk and make it clear that they will not be used in such a manner.  Racism in its true form is a very ugly thing based totally in bias, ignorance, and fear.  We should all be working together to make sure that such actions toward any group of people does not take place.  We also must educate our children so that they understand when true racism is occurring and when someone is simply "playing the race card" for their own benefit whether it be political or monetary.   When this happens, the party to which such action is aimed is really being victimized for someone else to gain.  We are all smarter than that. Let's show that is the case.  ~WB

    1. Seth Winter profile image78
      Seth Winterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree WB. Racism in the context of what it refers to now-a-days is a ugly thing. It's a political and a social issue and a true end to racism is nowhere in sight.

      My purpose of this forum post was to find out other peoples take on if racism in it's truest form is that bad. That is to say that I think that different races might have certain strengths and weaknesses and those attributes should be celebrated not scorned. Pigmies are short, Sudanese Trbies folks are talk. Blacks have more fast twitch muscle mass and whites have  more slow twitch muscle mass...differences in a human race and the goal was to look at it in more of a scientific view rather then the social/political sense.