Bigots: Weaklings Suffering From Own Sense Of Powerlessness

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

There are various analyses of the roots of hate violence and racial and ethnic stereotyping, some pointing to head trauma, genetic factors, or brain biochemistry. But I’m putting forward the thesis that bigotry, especially in its organized manifestations, stems from an inability to compete in the market due to fear of exposure to new experience and failure resulting in economic deprivation and a need to compensate. One study indicates that members of a white supremacit organization known as the Aryan Nations are drawn overwhelmingly from the ranks of the deprived, powerless and downtrodden. The study found that 78% of members were manual laborers or unemployed. They despised and victimized blacks, Latinos, immigrants and especially Jews, and gained a fleeting sense of power or adequacy from acts of violence or rallying together and reinforcing commonly held hatreds.

For a bigot, steoreotyping serves to rationalize feelings of personal failing and fear. It offsets the dissonance born of the ostensible success of previously repressed minorities, whose rise in the demographic is otherwise uncomfortable to behold.

Hate violence is usually committed when the attacker is physically superoi or armed or has superior numbers, and serves the physic need for a fleeting sense of strenght of relief from a sense of weakness.

2

my appologies for being blunt but for me this is well known, the odd cure for this is to show both mercy and compassion, because when you hold value for them they question their own inner value and ask if your right.

the question becomes what path will you walk to end violence, one could end such violince through passafist methods and by compassion, but most people are far too cowardly (myself included) to be passifists.

peace

3

Perhaps Faulkner goes after this the best.

I’m not completely convinced that it is economic deprivation in any real sense. Rather, it is the inability to adapt to a changing society and then looking for a scapegoat that creates the conditions for hate crimes and hate organizations.

But neither economic deprivation nor the inability to adapt cause these problems. In other words, they may be necessary but not sufficient conditions.

4

I’ve often argued that one’s material well-being dictates one’s mental well-being. People who are impoverished tend to manifest a variety of anti-social behaviours, especially when there is visible economic inequality.

After all, if everybody is poor, then people can more-or-less continue with their lives. But as soon as people observe that inequality they start asking ‘why’. And it certainly isn’t their fault – they are perfect in every way. It is obviously somebody else’s fault.

Different cultures have different people to blame. Occasionally skilled demagouges manage to convince a group of impoverished people that there is a new and different group to hate. Can serve as a wonderful unifying force for the downtrodden. [/i]

5

This is correct. But is being poor even necessary? The fear of losing one’s status in a society strikes as a stronger motivating factor.

6

Yeah, that definately plays a role.

But material well being is a relative scale. As was discussed in another thread, Americans on welfare making $12K/year are still making four times as much as the average Indonesian. Yet, despite the occasional flarings of violence in Indonesia, I think it is fair to say that the average impoverished American is more involved in crime and ethnic scapegoating as opposed to the average American population than the average Indonesian as compared to Indonesians making as much as the average American on welface (granted, this is an oversimplification – that whole East Timor situation and such makes it a little more complicated).

7

These bigots include all races right?

8

I don’t know that there mote be any sophisticated theoretical connexion between racism and economics big guy; I’m much more apt to think that it’s as simple as they are them and we are us. Different racial, cultural, language and econonomic groups just don’t interact too much. Besides business and couples (and exploitation), we just feel more comfortable around people who are like us. ‘There’s no place like home.’ Turks don’t like Blackamoors poking around, Koreans prefer not to see 외국인, Chinese 鬼佬, Spaniards gabachos, Jews גוים and so on. For example, in Malaysia, the Moslem Malay, Indian Tamils and Chinese hardly mix at all, ditto Singapore --or Chicago.

9

Bigotry is just fear of the unknown. It’s as simple as that.

10

I think fear of the unknown is a naive explanation.

After all, Blacks were a known in the South at the time of the founding of the KKK, and had been a known for some time. Likewise, I do not know anyone from Macau, but I do not fear Macaunese.

Though I do agree that racism does decrease with integration.

11

I see three main points here:

  1. economic deprivation

  2. loss of status or fear of that loss (the one I’m trying to put forward)

  3. us versus them

I wonder if we’re all talking about three different types of bigotry rather than just one type.

I find it a little strange (as seen in the feminist thread) to compare the kind of discrimination that I experience in South Korea with American lynch mobs in the early part of the 20th century.

Is American bigotry concerning blacks historically specific to that country?

12

Being a bully is different than being a bigot. you can be both or one without the other. I have enjoyed many conversation with with interesting kind and witty people until the converstaition some how gets turned into an us /them. Its like a switch is turned on in them. From nice to evil in a split second. It amazes me. It is particularly amazing and somewhat scary when sweet little old ladies do this.

I have seen the evil come out in black, white, brown, red, yellow skinned elderly ladies when they speak of other ethnics, religion or politics. It is us/them. Sheeez. Sweet little grandma turns into vile hate monger then back to sweetness and good. Over all these females are good people. Until us/them. They don’t fit the stereotyped hate monger at all or what I imagine a hate monger is. Is there a typical personality or trait that one can pick up on to perceive such vile hate?

13

Yes, but don’t you see that that has happened before? Christianity was a resentment movement by the deprived, powerless and downtrodden (it originated with the Jews, within the Roman Empire). Contemporary Western society, still predominantly Christian or “humanistic”, still supports the “underprivileged”, ignorant that this creates new underprivileged groups. The “bigot” is “our” social outcast, because “we” are as much bigoted in regard to “our” own opinions and prejudices (modern ideas like democracy, equality, and the like). “Our” “truths” are not self-evident.

14

It is always fascinating to witness the effects of social and cultural integration, expressing themselves through moralistic, politically-correct conceptualizations.

We then see terms like “ill” or “dysfunctional” or “bigot” being used to define the non-conforming individual or what is different than an us.

Interesting that we often expand on our psychoanalysis of those we deem “abnormal” but we never do so with those we deem “normal”.

I would admit that underlying all human ideas and beliefs and activities is a chasm of need and dissatisfaction, but to claim that if you do not adhere to social and cultural norms that you are “ill” shows an illness in itself – a retardation.

15

Surprise, surprise.

I always think there is a reason why one is “deprived, powerless and downtrodden.”

It is because there is a fairly high probability they are ignorant, and an equally high probability they are stupid to boot.

ie: Easily led.

Bigotry is a instinct we have from childhood - show a child of ethnic origin X pictures of other children of ethnic origin W, X, Y, & Z then ask them questions regarding trustworthiness, nastiness, friendliness etc. And lo and behold - positives are ascribed to X and negaitves to W, Y, Z.

The Arayan guys, or whatever, simply take this instinct and breathe a little more kutzpah into it.

16

And I think you’re wrong. It’s not a complete explanation, but it’s definitely part of the complete explanation. Ignorance is definitely essential to bigotry.

17

Same shit, different day.

If so, the word is being used incorrectly.

Why is that interesting? Psychoanalysis woudn’t be needed if everybody were normal – whatever that means.

What does that have to do with bigotry? You are simply defining the word in the wrong way.

18

Don’t sweat it Brad. You live in a place where bigotry is so normal and everyday that you can’t identify with the ‘say-no-to-racism’ crowd anymore. Yes, most of the world is bigoted and that’s okay. Westerners think they need to over-turn this because of the Liberal and multi-cultural character of their society. Homogenous cultures don’t need or want racial and cultural tolerance. And after living with homogenous people long enough you realize, hey, maybe it is okay if Jews don’t want non-Jews mixing in their country and their blood, maybe if Russians don’t like Asians then that’s okay. Don’t let the Liberals and New-Worlders get to you.

If it’s any consolation, tolerance in the West is fundamentally an economic policy, not in the sense that it’s been discussed in this thread --the exact opposite: tolerance makes money for New Yorkers and Londoners.

It is no coincidence that tolerance.org/ is in English only. That the Seoul Metro has English signs has nothing to do with tolerant ideology, and everything to do with helping American business travellers get from Seoul Station to Yeouido. And that’s really what anti-racism boils down to back home too: making money.

19

Children aren’t raised in clinical conditions where they are shown pictures of people of different ethnic groups. They pick up what in their own cultural niche-- especially if they’re naturally low in intelligence – comes most easily. It’s quite the opposite of “khutzpah”, since it would take more backbone to buck the trend. Minorities are vulnerable targets, and that attracts weak parties seeking a weaker quarry to gain a fleeting sense of strength.

I’m not giving myself a clap on the back, but hen i was a kid and I saw vulnerable kids getting bullied I joined forces to even up the numbers. And when I saw minority kids my instinct was biased in their favor. It might be because I am an Anglicized Armenian and empathized. But bigotry is not a natural instinct, it’s a secondary trait that results from a feeling of weakness, a need for compensation, and a culture that accommodates such people

Khutspah would be demonstrated if they were to take on black members of a football team. Or the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam or any number of gangs from East LA…

20

Hey Ric,

Absolutely - the point of these experiments was to highlight children’s natural unelicited responses. ie: Children are naturally ‘racist’. Tolerance/acceptance of qualities that mark out others as ‘foreign’ is a learned trait.

It might just be indeed. If you’d been the blue-eyed, lantern-jawed darling of the football team, you’d probably have been beating up on your own camel-humping ass. :laughing:

Seriously, when you joined the side of the outcast, the underdog, you didn’t ‘join’ at all - you were already on that side by default.

Of course it is. Bigotry keeps you alive. It is a refined, more cultural version of the sense of ‘me-notme’ → ‘myspecies-notmyspecies’ → ‘ourgroup-notourgroup’ and when competition for resources or mates is rife, it’s a helpful factor in group-coherence/recognition - and a well maintained bigotry acts as a uninhibior during conflict, it is easier to kill someone whom you regard as, though perhaps not fully ‘inhuman’, certainly ‘not as human as me’.

Though let’s face it - the English did once hang a monkey, believing it to be a French spy. Ignorance as I said - and default behaviour: Kill what is strange.

Back in the day, when roaming rival groups had a lower frequency of interaction and therefore less enticement to cooperation/peaceful exchange, and behavioural recidivism, in the form of outright conflict/betrayal of a pact was more likely - then a degree of culturally-sanctioned bigotry could act as a kind of emotive tribal ‘memory’ in future dealings between groups who had betrayed eachother’s trust in the past.

A pre-emptive proto-cultural ‘immune’ response, if you like.

Bigotry only becomes a problem when population size forces different ethnicities to live together. Where the bigot and the target of intolerence become neighbors.

Until the EU, it was completely okay for the English to think all Frenchies were onion-sporting limp-wristed sodomites. And for terms like Spic Wop Frog Nigger to be bandied about the dinner-table with only polite squeals of feminine laughter in response. We never had to actually meet them, you see.