Is Racism Natural or Cultural?

Red flags were raised in my mind when this topic came up.  It's not entirely fair, since Europeans in general, and the Spanish in particular, do not pay a great deal of attention to what "racism" means.  As was mentioned in the meeting, it's not even completely clear if race is natural or cultural, let alone discrimination based on it.

The problem I have with the question as posed is mostly that.  Race itself has a lot of cultural components rather than being a clear division between groups of people that everybody can agree exists.  It does not seem to be as simple as "those people look different from me, therefore I don't like them", mainly because the amount of difference cannot be objectively calculated.  "White" people can discriminate against "black" and "Asian" people indiscriminately (hah!), but they also see differences between different groups of their own "race".  Sometimes people from one group "pass" as the privileged group, as in the case of mixed race people or people who happen to belong to the wrong religion.  The discrimination against followers of the wrong prophet/god/church bleeds over from racism into classism, but since the dividing lines have been laid with the same level of fervor, we can bring hate against Jews, Catholics and Mormons into the equation, even though the adherents of these faiths might have no differences in physical appearance from their "mainstream" neighbors.  Studies show that people have a tendency to seek out and stick to those most similar to them, so we could draw a logical conclusion that racism based purely on external traits is natural.  However, many urges we have are natural, including the urge to eat large amounts of fat and sugar, to steal things we want, and to harm or kill people we have negative feelings towards.  Those things might be natural, but they are not useful or good.  If we can accept that a "killer instinct" should be redirected, why should we accept that a "racist instinct" cannot?  From what I have heard from people who ask and expound on this kind of question, the expectation is that something natural cannot be changed, so why should we even try?  It is a fool's errand.  The bad things in our society which are cultural simply have to be accepted as we accept a day with an uncomfortable temperature, a wind that musses hair, or a rain that falls at an inopportune time.  We cannot fight against them, they are simply natural.  These people do not want to see the possibilities of change in a human being's perception, most likely because it would reflect badly on them if they are not able to accept or allow such change in themselves.

The Source had suggested the topic because she had found herself fascinated by studies showing children's aversion to those who are different and affinity for their "own".  It made her consider how difficult it is to truly respect those who are not like us, which is a necessary quality in the society we have created.  Interestingly, she believed "modern" racism was born in the 15th century with the coming of colonialism.  One could argue that that is an argument for the "cultural" side, since the ideas that support ill-treatment and low opinions of the "other" had to be developed and made to appear logical, rather than being immediately manifest. Also, it highlights the question of what "race" actually is, since the same level of mistrust and prejudice existed before there was a large scale mingling of what we consider races today, but it was directed to groups within we consider the same race.

Our Doctor had doubts about the validity or significance of the studies mentioned which depended on brain activity to draw conclusions.  As he often reminds us, we know nothing about the brain, yet.  He continued, focusing on the ideas of exclusion and advantage that the Leader had written about, insisting that we are in fact animals and cooperation is the key to our success in the world.  Yet, exclusion is also a natural phenomenon.  Our natural context is constantly changing, and this forces us to find new solutions continually.  Later on he said that philosophy actually needs constant change to exist, while it functions as a kind of biography for the philosopher.  So, the philosophy of racism may be a solution to problems in some circumstances, but those circumstances will change, leaving those who espoused those ideas marked with them.  At the same time, the word "racism", like all -isms, has an emotional charge about it but nobody really knows what it is.  We have an idea, and we like to think we believe our own ideas, which makes them difficult to change.  He ended a contribution saying we should not fight all prejudices, mostly because of a reverence for the shades of grayness of life and reality I speculate, and warned us to be careful of people with clear ideas.  He had his final word later on after the Animal Defender spoke of the common idea that Spain was traditionally a tolerant and open country, accepting of all, when he told her not to forget the expulsion of Jews and Moors.  It is easy to be tolerant of ideas, but more difficult when actual people are involved.

Speaking of more modern times, the Animal Defender mentioned the training we receive from our families to be tolerant or intolerant of others.  There might be some genetic influence, but it is a rare person who denies the influence of those closest to us.  She also made reference to the cultural idea of racism which limits the other to those with different customs and values.  People might look very different but live in much the same way without any hate or suspicion between them, as she told us happened with some immigrants she had known over her life.  They accepted the culture of their neighbors and were accepted by the neighbors in turn as part of the community with little trouble.

The Leader then spoke of his idea of racism as a tool used to disadvantage others, entire identifiable groups rather than just a few individuals.  Even being victims of this discrimination can be used to an individual's advantage by means of the "race card".  He admitted that there were many forms of discrimination used to divide and conquer - racism, classism, sexism, etc. - and their popularity only goes to show that no matter how necessary cooperation is, it is hard.  Discrimination, on the other hand, is easy.  Later he insisted on the key to defining racism being the imposing of restrictions and disadvantages in a active way, and made the point that some problems are really culture clashes and not actually racism.  As an example, he pointed to the typical meal times in Spain as compared to other European countries.  Not being able to eat a meal at a specific time is a problem of an individual being unadapted to a different culture, not the result of that culture's members actively trying to cause problems for others.

A Newcomer pondered the difficulty we as individuals have in recognizing our own failings.  We ask ourselves if we could be racist, although the default assumption is that we are not.  He also wondered if it is proper terminology to call a millennial habit "nature".  Beyond family influence, he reminded us of the power of the media in forming our opinions, particularly television.  Stereotypes abound on TV shows which reinforce vague notions most people only imply holding in real life.  He also implied that the old prejudices can live on, even without the violence of racism, in a sense of superiority to another group.  As an example, he gave the relationship between the English and the French.  It's a long-lived rivalry, but most people would not consider it racism since both sides come from the same "race".

The True Philosopher came down firmly on the side of cultural racism rather than natural.  Most of his thoughts were on the ways that this type of discrimination combines with others, each of them adding to the others and making the problem more difficult to solve.  He also reminded us that the issue is almost never one race versus another, but an intricate interplay of several groups, some based on race, and others on characteristics such as religion, language, or sex, among others.  Discrimination can begin because of identification of one trait, but it will spread into others, and from one disadvantage, like a social one, to economic and political disadvantages.

The Deep Thinker told us a personal anecdote, in which he found a black man hanging around a hallway of his building, and when the stranger was not able to give any concrete answers to explain his presence, the Thinker invited him to wait outside the building.  The stranger left, but angrily called the Thinker a racist several times.  So he asked us, was he really a racist?  Did the stranger's skin color matter more than his purposeless presence, subconsciously?  The Thinker thinks not, but we have some difficulty being objective about ourselves.  He said we all have a seed of un-expressed violence within us, and this type of prejudice is often a socially acceptable way to release it.  He also belongs to the cultural racism group, but said that there are inherent behaviors, which are then promoted and sharpened by learned reactions.  The good thing, in his opinion, is that learned behaviors can be modified when they cease to be useful.

The Leader closed the meeting with what I think are the most important things to keep in mind: even if something is natural, that does not means it's good; there is no real definition of race - it can be based on genes, culture or citizenship, among other things; and finally, this is just another example of how easy it is to manipulate people through fear, in this case fear of "outsiders", while maintaining an illusion of only wanting what's best for everyone.