Do you think that racism would stop if....
People viewed each other in a more scientific manner ? I've studied animal behavior with dogs being a good species to study due to canines being one of the most common species on the planet. It seems that a dog doesn't care about the color of its mate, as long as he or she is attractive, then they will be mated with. In arachnid behavior it seems that color bears little interest to the spider and that they look for a mate that is attractive to them and one that can perform a mating dance very well. Now I believe humans are superior to animals and that's why it upsets that modern humans still view each other as different, or inferior, or superior to each other.
For instance slavery is a common reason for hate, yet what people fail to realize, is that slavery has happened to many different cultures for thousands of years. History shows us that slavery dates back to at least 3,000 or 4,000 BC and it could have been further back than that. In Rome's history we are shown that slaves typically worked together in the gladiator games. People from Italy, the Middle East, various European people and people from Africa all worked together to earn a common goal, freedom. It's quite humorous to think that people of that time period shows intelligence of a higher level compared to most racist people of this age.
In science it is proven that diverse genetics are a very good thing to any male or female. DNA plays an important role when it comes to science and daily life. Some cultures are immune to some diseases and some cultures are better suited to certain terrain and weather patterns. All cultures have their strengths and weaknesses and when you are exposed to various cultures you learn to appreciate the people that celebrate their culture.
With that said I think that if people start studying each other, they would learn to appreciate their differences and realize that the difference gap is very small. When a human is born, they do not hate anyone as their key goal is just to survive at the moment. I was talking about Roman slaves earlier and they showed a similar goal to work together so that all might survive.
Human behavior is taught and learned, it is not instinct. If a human grows up in a racist environment long enough, they will believe it as if it were actually true. There are racist people of all colors almost always, their behavior was learned by a racist family member. I've always been fascinated with Star Trek as it shows that if you placed various different colored people into a work environment that showed that we are all almost identical, then people would learn to appreciate each other.
I'm Scottish/English on my mom's side and Italian with the Italian side having a small number of Irish in it on my dad's side. My fiance is Irish/Scottish on her mom's side and African from her dad's side. Now Dwight Eisenhower had a English father and a Irish and African mother. His genetics were diverse and strong and that's why his mother gave him the nickname Ike, which in Africa, means strong warrior. My fiancé and I will have kids that will be strong, highly intelligent and would think before acting.
I believe that if people would look at each other in a scientific manner then racism wouldn't be as dominant as it is today. What are your thoughts ?
Comments
Oh sure...but seeing as we do not live in a society that does that...you are just pining for the unattainable. I am sure one day..many years after you and I and your children and their children are dead...we will see that...when things like nationalism and religions die then sure. But not anytime soon.
That's not really possible, I mean, the world is so full of different cultures right now.
Well the world has had various cultures for countless of years and we still have racism today due to people not viewing things in a scientific manner. Science and culture are not the same thing and that is what I'm getting at. When people view things in a scientific manner then color bears no importance at all. A friendly rival when it came to Mathematics to Albert Einstein was a man from Africa. During the history of Greece, Science was shown to various ethnic groups by Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and Alexander the Great. The Library of Alexandria that was founded in Egyptian territory shows this as another example.
I don't think that religion is to blame at all. If someone tries to live a good life due to their religion then it is a positive lifestyle to live. Religion is a good subject to study human behavior in my opinion. In some religions, it is viewed that different colored people are the same if they follow the same theology. For instance in Christianity all cultures are viewed as the same and interracial marriage is a theme that doesn't matter. My viewpoints are that Christianity and Science can coexist and I've made several Scientific hypothesis writings on the subject.
Yet I do not want to talk about religion in this thread as I do not want anyone to be offended or to offend anyone. This thread is about if people would become better educated in Science that racism wouldn't be as dominant as today. Racism (at least in United States) of today is just as bad as it was during the Civil Rights movement era of the 1960s.
People who advocated eugenics claimed to be "viewing each other in a scientific manner." Bad science, yes, but claiming a scientific viewpoint doesn't mean racism will end. Just look at YouTube.
No, it would still continue. People are that cruel.
No need to say anything further. Racism, much like homophobia, xenophobia and bigotry, will never stop. No matter what. People are just fucking idiots and that's all there is to say.
The two major religions Christianity and Islam are responsible for many instances of ethnic cleansing. Plus they have negative images of science. Mankind's true religion should be the understanding of the universe...not in some stupid sky gods.
You are in error Sarangholic. The people that studied eugenics like Hitler as an example were not looking at eugenics as a positive human study. They were distorting the simplicity in Science in an effort of personal gain. Hitler used Darwanism to show that some humans are better suited to live and that some humans should die so that the strongest may live. He used this to show that pure Germans should take over the world and that dark skinned people such as Jews and Africans should die to limit the resources of the Earth. On another hand, Hitler used propaganda to trick people to view Jews as common thieves and vermin.
Margaret Sanger used propaganda to show hate towards Africans and created legal abortion with the hope that Blacks would be killed off in a genocide type manner. This again shows that this type of eugenics is different than the one I'm talking about.
The Black Panthers started out as a homeland defense force against hate crimes yet in time Malcom X basically became like Magneto and said that Blacks must unite to form a strong force of a united Black power to take over local areas and only Whites that acknowledged their superiority would be allowed to live unharmed. Interracial marriage was hated against by Panthers as it would distort the imaginary purity of the Haitian and African bloodline. Again this is not what I'm talking about and shows that this wasn't a scientific experiment, but a distorted view to cause hate.
I'm talking about if people celebrated differences and combined culture and science as a positive experiment to create a better future.
Just saying, racism is not mainstream anymore (in America). It's no longer a problem as we have, mostly, solved that issue. I'm putting this out there: people do view others as you are hoping humans will eventually do; I don't look at skin color and see beauty, to me beauty is symmetry. As an example, since I'm white, if an African-American woman had perfect symmetry, has a great personality, and is just all around awesome, I'm damn sure I'll find her attractive. It goes both ways and it doesn't matter if she were to be white or black, as it isn't skin color that determines attraction.
Inter-racial couples are no longer shunned in this day and age which is why there are a good amount of those couples today. Biology is not possibly racist because science doesn't have a mind of its own. I bring this up because biology is what determines who we find attractive or not; it's not up to us to decide that.
Oh goodness I just said let's leave religion out of this. The cleansing you speak of is almost non existent when you look at the origins and meaning of Christianity. Peace, prosperity and understanding of people is the true meaning of it. That to me shows a high level of self awareness in my opinion.
Ask the native americans about that.
Racism still is a major problem today, I don't know were you get your information from. With the negative influence of Black Lives Matter and racist grooming, it is as much of a problem today as it was in the 1960s. I visited South Carolina a year ago and it was a mess as many people were racist to me there.
Science is the art of discovering and learning about people, behavior, space, time and life. There are racist people that are ignorant about others and thus they drag themselves and others down with them. I grew up in a Black dominated area and for awhile, I was subject to teasing and being viewed as an outsider. I used education and understanding to become no different than anyone else. Racism of today's time is still very much active and my fiancé and I have seen much of it from various people. If you turn on the TV you see the word racist a million times on the news and media. AL Sharpton and Jesse Jackson teach that Whites are bad and Blacks are victims and that creates an unstable playing field.
Since then I've spent many years of my time in educating people that a strong group of people is a united group of people.
I'm talking about the racism of the 60's. I know that BLM is racist and people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. are black supremacists. It's horrible and schools are doing nothing to stop it; the schooling system has truly instigated "reverse" racism.
No. Things like racism will always exist no matter what.
The crusades prove otherwise.
umm the racism of the 60s...other than making folks drink at separate fountains or ride in the back of a bus...is still alive and well.
Not really. No matter what the circumstances are, people are always gonna have different viewpoints and prejudice will always exist in one way or another.
I posted the origins of it, the crusades happened in the middle ages, Christianity was founded 2,000 years ago. I've asked before and I'll ask again to drop it.
Negativity as well.
It seems though that in Science there is no racism as ideas and thoughts are shared amongst each other. Knowledge is all that matters to scientific individuals and color doesn't matter at all. No there is no racism amongst animals because humans think on a higher level compared to animals. This higher level has pros and cons and because of that humans fear the unknown. "What if my grandkids are Black looking" "What will my family and friends think" etc.
Most humans are easily manipulated and that's why racism is still strong in the world. In every culture, Native American, Asian, White, Hispanic, Black, etc, there is racism because most people cannot think for themselves and they depend on others for this. They are taught in a false way of how humans of different colors are and they believe these stories.
Racism is very much in the mainstream nowadays.
My parents once had a cat that was attacked by a squirrel when he was little, when he got bigger he chased and killed almost exclusively squirrels, leaving only the tail and hind legs. He also had a set of tail and legs hidden under the porch that he attacked every time he went outside. Although this would be more like "speciesism"? And it's a prey and predator thing as well. So I might not know what I'm talking about.
You do realize the crusades were in defense of Europe from Islamic invaders, right? I'm not saying Christianity has been historically peaceful. That would be idiotic of me to do so and that's why I won't.
Animals act as their instinct says how to act so there isn't a voluntary racism amongst animals.
A poodle won't reject a chihuahua because is another race of dog.
I just don't see how that's true.
Then you are not looking.
Oh here we go... people need to learn to stop blaming religion for every fucking thing that happens in this god damn earth. We need to instead look at humanity itself.
The racist mindset of the 60's is no longer mainstream; I didn't say it doesn't exist, I only said it's not the law, it's not what our politicians believe, and it's not how groups of people are treated anymore. It's just the other way around in the mainstream today (minus it being law).
He also chased deers. That's how he got killed actually, he chased one up to a road and got hit by a car. The deer survived.
THE CRUSADES: BACKGROUND
By the end of the 11th century, Western Europe had emerged as a significant power in its own right, though it still lagged far other Mediterranean civilization such as that of the Byzantine Empire (formerly the eastern half of the Roman Empire) and the Islamic empire of the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, Byzantium was losing considerable territory to the invading Seljuk Turks, who defeated the Byzantine Army at the battle of Manzikirt in 1071 and went on to gain control over much of Anatolia. After years of chaos and civil war, the general Alexius Comnenus seized the Byzantine throne in 1081 and consolidated control over the remaining empire as Emperor Alexius I.
In 1095, Alexius sent envoys to Pope Urban II asking for mercenary troops from the West to help confront the Turkish threat. Though relations between Christians in East and West had long been fractious, Alexius’ request came at a time when the situation was improving. In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the pope called on Western Christians to take up arms in order to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. Pope Urban’s plea met with a tremendous response, both among lower levels of the military elite (who would form a new class of knights) as well as ordinary citizens; it was determined that those who joined the armed pilgrimage would wear a cross as a symbol of the Church.
THE FIRST CRUSADE (1096-99)
Four armies of Crusaders were formed from troops of different Western European regions, led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois and Bohemond of Taranto (with his nephew Tancred); they were set to depart for Byzantium in August 1096. A less organized band of knights and commoners known as the “People’s Crusade” set off before the others under the command of a popular preacher known as Peter the Hermit. Peter’s army traipsed through the Byzantine Empire, leaving destruction in their wake. Resisting Alexius’ advice to wait for the rest of the Crusaders, they crossed the Bosporus in early August. In the first major clash between the Crusaders and the Muslims, Turkish forces crushed the invading Europeans at Cibotus. Another group of Crusaders, led by the notorious Count Emicho, carried out a series of massacres of Jews in various towns in the Rhineland in 1096, drawing widespread outrage and causing a major crisis in Jewish-Christian relations.
When the four main armies of Crusaders arrived in Constantinople, Alexius insisted that their leaders swear an oath of loyalty to him and recognize his authority over any land regained from the Turks, as well as any other territory they might conquer; all but Bohemond resisted taking the oath. In May 1097, the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies attacked Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey), the Seljuk capital in Anatolia; the city surrendered in late June. Despite deteriorating relations between the Crusaders and Byzantine leaders, the combined force continued its march through Anatolia, capturing the great Syrian city of Antioch in June 1098. After various internal struggles over control of Antioch, the Crusaders began their march toward Jerusalem, then occupied by Egyptian Fatimids (who as Shi’ite Muslims were enemies of the Sunni Seljuks). Encamping before Jerusalem in June 1099, the Christians forced the besieged city’s governor to surrender by mid-July. Despite Tancred’s promise of protection, the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of men, women and children in their victorious entrance into the city.
THE CRUSADER STATES AND THE SECOND CRUSADE (1147-49)
Having achieved their goal in an unexpectedly short period of time, many of the Crusaders departed for home. To govern the conquered territory, those who remained established four large western settlements, or Crusader states, in Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli. Guarded by formidable castles, the Crusader states retained the upper hand in the region until around 1130, when Muslim forces began gaining ground in their own holy war (or jihad) against the Christians, whom they called “Franks.” In 1144, the Seljuk general Zangi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa, leading to the loss of the northernmost Crusader state.
News of Edessa’s fall stunned Europe, and led Christian authorities in the West to call for another Crusade. Led by two great rulers, King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany, the Second Crusade began in 1147. That October, the Turks crushed Conrad’s forces at Dorylaeum, site of a great victory during the First Crusade. After Louis and Conrad managed to assemble their armies at Jerusalem, they decided to attack the Syrian stronghold of Damascus with an army of some 50,000 (the largest Crusader force yet). Previously well disposed towards the Franks, Damascus’ ruler was forced to call on Nur al-Din, Zangi’s successor in Mosul, for aid. The combined Muslim forces dealt a humiliating defeat to the Crusaders, decisively ending the Second Crusade; Nur al-Din would add Damascus to his expanding empire in 1154.
THE THIRD CRUSADE (1189-92)
After numerous attempts by the Crusaders of Jerusalem to capture Egypt, Nur al-Din’s forces (led by the general Shirkuh and his nephew, Saladin) seized Cairo in 1169 and forced the Crusader army to evacuate. Upon Shirkuh’s subsequent death, Saladin assumed control and began a campaign of conquests that accelerated after Nur al-Din’s death in 1174. In 1187, Saladin began a major campaign against the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. His troops virtually destroyed the Christian army at the battle of Hattin, taking the city along with a large amount of territory.
Outrage over these defeats inspired the Third Crusade, led by rulers such as the aging Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (who was drowned at Anatolia before his entire army reached Syria), King Philip II of France and King Richard I of England (known as Richard the Lionheart). In September 1191, Richard’s forces defeated those of Saladin in the battle of Arsuf; it would be the only true battle of the Third Crusade. From the recaptured city of Jaffa, Richard reestablished Christian control over some of the region and approached Jerusalem, though he refused to lay siege to the city. In September 1192, Richard and Saladin signed a peace treaty that reestablished the Kingdom of Jerusalem (though without the city of Jerusalem) and ended the Third Crusade.
FROM THE FOURTH TO THE SIXTH CRUSADE (1198-1229)
Though the powerful Pope Innocent III called for a new Crusade in 1198, power struggles in and between Europe and Byzantium drove the Crusaders to divert their mission in order to topple the reigning Byzantine emperor, Alexius III, in favor of his nephew, who became Alexius IV in mid-1203. The new emperor’s attempts to submit the Byzantine church to Rome met with stiff resistance, and Alexius IV was strangled after a palace coup in early 1204. In response, the Crusaders declared war on Constantinople, and the Fourth Crusade ended with the conquest and looting of the magnificent Byzantine capital later that year.
The remainder of the 13th century saw a variety of Crusades aimed not so much at toppling Muslim forces in the Holy Land as at combating any and all of those seen as enemies of the Christian faith. The Albigensian Crusade (1208-29) aimed to root out the heretical Cathari or Albigensian sect of Christianity in France, while the Baltic Crusades (1211-25) sought to subdue pagans in Transylvania. In the Fifth Crusade, put in motion by Pope Innocent III before his death in 1216, the Crusaders attacked Egypt from both land and sea, but were forced to surrender to Muslim defenders led by Saladin’s nephew, Al-Malik al-Kamil, in 1221. In 1229, in what became known as the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II achieved the peaceful transfer of Jerusalem to Crusader control through negotiation with al-Kamil. The peace treaty expired a decade later, and Muslims easily regained control of Jerusalem.
END OF THE CRUSADES
Through the end of the 13th century, groups of Crusaders sought to gain ground in the Holy Land through short-lived raids that proved little more than an annoyance to Muslim rulers in the region. The Seventh Crusade (1239-41), led by Thibault IV of Champagne, briefly recaptured Jerusalem, though it was lost again in 1244 to Khwarazmian forces enlisted by the sultan of Egypt. In 1249, King Louis IX of France led the Eighth Crusade against Egypt, which ended in defeat at Mansura (site of a similar defeat in the Fifth Crusade) the following year. As the Crusaders struggled, a new dynasty known as the Mamluks–descended from former slaves of the sultan–took power in Egypt. In 1260, Mamluk forces in Palestine managed to halt the advance of the Mongols, an invading force led by Genghis Khan and his descendants that had emerged as a potential ally for the Christians in the region. Under the ruthless Sultan Baybars, the Mamluks demolished Antioch in 1268, prompting Louis IX to set out on another Crusade, which ended in his death in North Africa (he was later canonized).
A new Mamluk sultan, Qalawan, had defeated the Mongols by the end of 1281 and turned his attention back to the Crusaders, capturing Tripoli in 1289. In what was considered the last Crusade, a fleet of warships from Venice and Aragon arrived to defend what remained of the Crusader states in 1290. The following year, Qalawan’s son and successor, al-Ashraf Khalil, marched with a huge army against the coastal port of Acre, the effective capital of the Crusaders in the region since the end of the Third Crusade. After only seven weeks under siege, Acre fell, effectively ending the Crusades in the Holy Land after nearly two centuries. Though the Church organized minor Crusades with limited goals after 1291–mainly military campaigns aimed at pushing Muslims from conquered territory or conquering pagan regions–support for such efforts disappeared in the 16th century, with the rise of the Reformation and the corresponding decline of papal authority.
The Crusades were pointless...Some of the first victims were Jews..and pagans. The capture of Jerusalem was a negotiated surrender as the Muslims considered it a holy city...but then when the Crusaders entered they slaughtered men women and children. And this is the start of the issues with the Mideast.
I'm sorry, did you say Christianity is the root cause of the problems in the Middle East? Did you forget about how Islam was spread? Muhammed conquered the middle east by slaughtering and raping his way across the region. After he did, he told his army to spread Islam with violence.
I'm not denying Christianity had it's problems in the past but they were nowhere near as bad as Islam was (using their methods in spreading their beliefs).
That may be, but you can't deny that religion is certainty responsible for some atrocious things both throughout history and in current times. And it's in those instances, where religion has had a direct role in deluding and brainwashing it's followers to commit horrible acts in the name of whatever God they choose to believe in, we can blame it.
But you can't say getting rid of religion is going to change a thing. There will always be violence, racism, etc in this world. It just won't magically end if religion is no more. That's my point. It's just humanity being itself.
The only way to get rid of any form of discrimination, murder and other cruel behaviors is to get rid of homo sapiens as a whole. And to be honest, that would be actually the best for everyone. For Earth's flora and fauna, for Earth itself and for the universe as a whole.
Not a problem anymore? XD Do you live under a rock?
Racism became very strong again over the last few years. Hell, the USA is the prime example. Their new president itself is a big racist idiot and police vs. black men has been on the news on a daily basis.
Oh, yeah, I agree with that. The world is full of cruelty and cruel people, who'll always find means of creating farcical reasons to hate others, in attempts to justify their own sinful nature. The removal of religion wouldn't stop that, nor prevent it. I was just saying if religion had never existed, certain atrocities wouldn't have happened and that it, whether it be Christianity or Islam, has to be held accountable for such.
But religion has also done good in this world we wouldn't have the amazing artwork, certain charity organizations, democracy, etc. It can do good and bad.
Come on Dominique, what you say is the equivalent of approaching a Chess game with throwing all of the pieces onto the ground or bringing nuke weapons to a knife fight.
There is hope and I'll never stop believing it. The Earth would be useless without humans as we make it interesting. I don't see intelligent life on other planets.
[removed]
That's already enough information for me to be honest. You seem to have a similar mindset like those who cause so much terror and destruction on this planet. Humans are so full of themselves. This planet was much more interesting and beautiful in my opinion, before this species started to enslave and slaughter everything.
And if "intelligent life" means that it is similar to humans, then I only hope that you are right and there aren't more of creatures like us anywhere out there.