Historical figures who get too much hate

[Chiki]

holy shit lmao sometimes i can't even tell

Yeah it is. It's more subtle but it's still there.

At times it's not even directly racism. It's discrimination based off of class, judgment based off of class, etc. But there still is a lot of racism.

Yes, there is, but it's nothing compared to the past. We've taken serious steps towards ending it.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Chiki

[blah the Prussian]

It exists, in something as small as personal religious/domestic issues to something as big as discriminatory policies. Hatred doesn't breed understanding, it only breeds more of itself. This isn't something that can be observed as long as you're in the cycle.Hatred is also a choice, and I will leave it at that. While I could say more, it will only serve to reinforce certain views, none of which I feel warrant it.

There is this false perception that hatred is bad. We need to have someone to look at and use as an example of what not to be. If we looked at Hitler with anything other than all the hatred and disgust that his actions warrant, we run the risk of forgetting about the Holocaust. Hatred and regret really are the only ethical ways to look at the Holocaust. Also, the ability to hate is one of the things that makes us human. Hatred is just as necessary an emotion as anything. To eliminate hatred is like eliminating love.

[Rehab]

Yeah it is. It's more subtle but it's still there.

At times it's not even directly racism. It's discrimination based off of class, judgment based off of class, etc. But there still is a lot of racism.

Subtle is arguable, I think. There's evidence to suggest that we see "race" before we see "person," if you know what I mean, and in the U.S.'s case, white people (the ex-majority and still-richest) generally don't look like they're the ones getting the short end of those perceptions. These studies seem to indicate people might not even have to see the person or their income level and what race they are- the way names sounded seemed to produce a different effect for black and latino names versus white names, and among supposedly equally-qualified candidates.

In the U.S. there are endless little (and also a good selection of big) numbers you can find where compared to white people, people of black, latino, various asian and other races are in aggregate not only worse off in material terms, but in many cases perceptions in aggregate as well. E: it's also hard to find many continental indigenous peoples who aren't massively unhappy with their current arrangements with the U.S. (saw fit to add mostly because it's really bad- much worse levels among aboriginals of poverty, depression, substance abuse, suicide, illiteracy, you name it- and didn't feel right to leave out)

And though outright pogroms are, uh, scarce, and blatant outspoken racism is political suicide (or at least a bad idea in most cases with much of any media exposure), violence against nonwhites perpetrated by whites is still larger in proportion than the reverse, and at times it's an uphill battle to get people to recognize both that and the extent of the other inequalities being dealt with, even when data is presented.

And, of course, that's just the U.S.- I'd bet (assume) a lot of places have the "subtle stuff" worse, and (violent) conflict along ethnic/racial lines is still a destructive force in the world (see the Muslim-majority borderland fighting in Russia, the Uighurs in China, Sudan just a few years back).

It might sound like nit-picking on my part if you just mean to say the richest countries in the world don't, like, pour massive resources into and endorse racial genocide, but I think it's important to clearly note that at the very least ramifications of past racial injustice are something we're clearly still dealing with (and not always very well), and that it's a poor choice of words to talk about racism as if it's only in the past tense.

(/derail)

Edited April 6, 2014 by Rehab

[Magical CC]

Equality for women is a bit of a stretch, but he did make the Mongol Empire pretty much the best place in the world to be a woman. Look it up. "That's about it?" The United States of America is still getting around to race equality, and Genghis Khan had it in the Middle Ages. That is kind of a big deal. By any moral system? What about the moral system that said it was okay to torture Jews to death that was practiced across most of Europe? Or the system practiced by the Aztecs where they committed horrific acts of human sacrifice on innocent people? Or the one practiced by Arabia, where women were only good as bartering tools to secure political alliances. About the torture, one of the many complaints about Genghis is that he poured molten metal down the throats of those he captured. The only ones he did that too were the Turks, and that was because they had done the same thing to Mongol soldiers that they captured. While I do not deny that the tactics he used were terrible, his rule was no worse than any other average monarch of the age. In fact, I would say it was better than most. I am not trying to paint Genghis as some heroic messiah, saving humanity from themselves. However, most if not all of the good things he did go unrecognized, and that is unfair.

Yeah, sure. But actually, he is not the first or "a few" ruler who has moral decision, equality for women, multi religion, race equality....some other rulers have already done these things before. May be you would want to read more about Ashoka for example.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, sure. But actually, he is not the first or "a few" ruler who has moral decision, equality for women, multi religion, race equality....some other rulers have already done these things before. May be you would want to read more about Ashoka for example.

True, Ashoka did many of those things too, but people who did things like that were in the minority, and I don't think that there was anyone who did anything like what Genghis did in the Middle Ages. In addition, far more people were affected by Genghis's reforms due to the great size of the Mongol Empire.

[dondon151]

Subtle is arguable, I think. There's evidence to suggest that we see "race" before we see "person," if you know what I mean, and in the U.S.'s case, white people (the ex-majority and still-richest) generally don't look like they're the ones getting the short end of those perceptions.

i don't think it's possible to not see race before person. at some subconscious level, i'd hypothesize that race is one of the first things that people notice about a stranger.

[Rehab]

Yeah, and I don't think it's an inherently bad thing, for us to perceive on some level that "this person is somehow different from me." For example, one could take that observation and from it realize that said person may've had social experiences that go outside the limits of one's own imagination.

That's different from a value judgment, conscious or not, which people are concerned is happening. In the linked cases (IIRC), a statistical difference was found between the rate of callbacks that names more associated with blackness received, and the rate that names more associated with whiteness received, supposedly absent any (other) significant differences in resumes or relevant records.

Not counting circumstantial factors like being exposed to a society/culture in which it happens (like ours, it's essentially argued), I haven't come upon evidence that that kind of judgment is naturally inborn.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Rehab

[Chiki]

It is a bad thing. We're biologically programmed to be racists. https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/aboutus/newsandevents/news/newsarticles/newstudyfindstrustworthypeopleareperceivedtolooksimilartoourselves.aspx

[blah the Prussian]

It is a bad thing. We're biologically programmed to be racists. https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/aboutus/newsandevents/news/newsarticles/newstudyfindstrustworthypeopleareperceivedtolooksimilartoourselves.aspx

Different doesn't mean inferior.

[Chiki]

Different doesn't mean inferior.

=_= Did you even read the link I provided? It says we don't trust people who look different as often.

[blah the Prussian]

=_= Did you even read the link I provided? It says we don't trust people who look different as often.

No, not actually.

[Comet]

People are scared of things they can't understand.

[Rehab]

That's an interesting study, but, for one thing, I'd be interested to see it replicated in different places, to see if peoples who may have differing cultural values to the ones surveyed (London English?) follow a similar distribution in their results. (not that I doubt the conclusion's likelihood terribly, I'd just be interested in seeing even single-digit percent differences in other locales)

For another, in the event that it is a thing that's somehow inherent/hard-wired into our brains, now that the possibility has been suggested to us, we'll be able to stop ourselves and think, "is there any part of my first impulse/feeling towards this person that's less than totally rational?" when it may be relevant. As in, that's a thing that I think humans at large are capable of doing. So, even if we really are stuck with this base perception (which I'd say is pretty clearly a) less than purely rational, and b) potentially harmful if unchecked among our thought processes), we're still capable of coming to judgments that at least attempt to compensate for it. Basically, I'd hardly say it's good that we may be like that, but it's a (potential) downside to recognizing differences between one another that I think can be overcome. Or, again, compensated for, in the worst-case scenario.

On that note, I'd also like to make the distinction that "having assumptions about somebody's character because they look different from you" is only a smaller compartment of "evaluating what the differences between us (in appearances) do and/or don't mean," and one that's clearly swinging in a certain direction that it isn't necessary to completely follow.

You can look at figures which show, for example, that groupings of people somehow different from you (like of another race) are in aggregate likely to have different frequencies/distributions of opinions on particular subjects than have been seen among those surveyed of your race/group.* One thing you may be able to take from these figures is it's possible that, for whatever reasons, people of your two groups/races are likely to have had social experiences which somehow differ, and that in turn may've lead them to be likely to hold certain opinions/positions which somehow differ from each other. (or for them to be likely to have different distributions of people holding the same opinions)

*here's a straightforward, old-ass example, literally the first thing I pulled off duckduckgo

And I would assume/hope that one can do all that with being a racist arse about it.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Rehab

[euklyd]

That's an interesting study, but, for one thing, I'd be interested to see it replicated in different places, to see if peoples who may have differing cultural values to the ones surveyed (London English?) follow a similar distribution in their results. (not that I doubt the conclusion's likelihood terribly, I'd just be interested in seeing even single-digit percent differences in other locales)

A...related(?) study is Robert Putnam's (relatively) famous work in which he demonstrates that ethnically homogeneous communities are much more tightly knit, trusting, and have an overall higher quality of life than heterogeneous ones...

I think that's related, at least.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/full

I wrote a (relatively short) research paper on it; it's fascinating stuff, despite it being something most people would rather believe is not the case.

ofc this study was conducted entirely in the US, so it won't be a wildly different culture...

[Lord Raven]

Yes, there is, but it's nothing compared to the past. We've taken serious steps towards ending it.

Such as?

And I'm speaking steps in the past decade or two.

Subtle is arguable.

I meant subtle to refer more to the fact that we're not directly stripping minorities of their right to vote or anything. There are heavy racist undertones in a lot of things in our everyday lives. I didn't really read the article you linked but I've actually seen the perception applied in person.

Anyone seriously arguing that Hitler's actions were a step towards anti-racism is probably ignorant of the functioning of the modern world. You know that the media is more likely to slice a piece about a minority committing a major crime to bits, then proceed to chuckle off a white person committing major crimes?

The most egregious example recently was the Richard Sherman vs Justin Bieber and the mayor of Ontario bull shit. Richard Sherman trash talks after making the last play in a game that gets his team to the fucking Super Bowl and he's actively portrayed as a thug (despite being a "thug" with a degree from Stanford, and that's without fudging grades like schools do with certain athletes so they stay in athletics) whereas the mayor of Ontario has yet another felonious scandal and he's just a goofball.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Chiki]

Such as?

And I'm speaking steps in the past decade or two.

I meant subtle to refer more to the fact that we're not directly stripping minorities of their right to vote or anything. There are heavy racist undertones in a lot of things in our everyday lives. I didn't really read the article you linked but I've actually seen the perception applied in person.

Civil Rights Act? Not gathering up 6 million Jews to kill?

Some pretty big steps! I'm not denying it's a major problem, but it's not a big one in the sense that global warming is big.

It's trivially true that Hitler's actions were a step towards anti-racism. See: formation of Israel. Israel was formed so Jews wouldn't be discriminated against. Anyone who suggests otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. But of course, followers of the Quran think racism against Jews is justified because they're pigs, not people. They don't count right?

Edited April 10, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Anyone seriously arguing that Hitler's actions were a step towards anti-racism is probably ignorant of the functioning of the modern world. You know that the media is more likely to slice a piece about a minority committing a major crime to bits, then proceed to chuckle off a white person committing major crimes?

one can still make the claim that hitler "contributed" towards the phasing out of racism and reconcile that with its continued existence. if the holocaust weren't a reminder that ethnic cleansing is bad, then what's the point in remembering it?

[Lord Raven]

Yeah and I don't just think the Holocaust showed that. People reviled the holocaust at the time (upon finding out) and many people were put on trial because people are generally disgusted by genocide. It wasn't so much that Hitler showed the actions were horrifying so much that the actions themselves were horrifying to begin with, and Hitler ordered them to occur. It's not like this was the only holocaust or case of ethnic cleansing; it IS being taught in schools the horrifying treatment the Native Americans had gone under, and the Holocaust seems like more of a reminder of what is propaganda and why it can a terrifying thing - because it leads to horrors. The horrors being horrible are relevant but not the take-home message.

Civil Rights Act? Not gathering up 6 million Jews to kill?

Some pretty big steps! I'm not denying it's a major problem, but it's not a big one in the sense that global warming is big.

Im speaking the past 2-3 decades, not much has changed since the Civil Rights act in all reality. Racism today is more nuanced and based in culture than law. Cultural issues in general aren't as important as global issues so comparing it to global warming doesn't say much.

It's trivially true that Hitler's actions were a step towards anti-racism. See: formation of Israel. Israel was formed so Jews wouldn't be discriminated against. Anyone who suggests otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. But of course, followers of the Quran think racism against Jews is justified because they're pigs, not people. They don't count right?

i don't quite see the connection between the last two sentences and the rest of the paragraph.

How is splitting a country apart due to race a big stride towards solving racism?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Lord Raven

[dondon151]

Yeah and I don't just think the Holocaust showed that. People reviled the holocaust at the time (upon finding out) and many people were put on trial because people are generally disgusted by genocide.

i'm not so sure about that. if you're taught that a certain group of people is less than human, then you're not going to be disgusted by ethnic cleansing targeted against that group of people.

let's be fair, here. unfair treatment of native americans happened long before the holocaust. it didn't seem like many people cared about it back then.

[blah the Prussian]

i'm not so sure about that. if you're taught that a certain group of people is less than human, then you're not going to be disgusted by ethnic cleansing targeted against that group of people.

let's be fair, here. unfair treatment of native americans happened long before the holocaust. it didn't seem like many people cared about it back then.

And that was a half century ago. Society changes.

[Chiki]

Yeah and I don't just think the Holocaust showed that. People reviled the holocaust at the time (upon finding out) and many people were put on trial because people are generally disgusted by genocide. It wasn't so much that Hitler showed the actions were horrifying so much that the actions themselves were horrifying to begin with, and Hitler ordered them to occur. It's not like this was the only holocaust or case of ethnic cleansing; it IS being taught in schools the horrifying treatment the Native Americans had gone under, and the Holocaust seems like more of a reminder of what is propaganda and why it can a terrifying thing - because it leads to horrors. The horrors being horrible are relevant but not the take-home message.Im speaking the past 2-3 decades, not much has changed since the Civil Rights act in all reality. Racism today is more nuanced and based in culture than law. Cultural issues in general aren't as important as global issues so comparing it to global warming doesn't say much.i don't quite see the connection between the last two sentences and the rest of the paragraph.

How is splitting a country apart due to race a big stride towards solving racism?

The reason there hasn't been major steps recently is because it's not a big problem anymore. It's a meaningless question.

There've been many steps towards racism against Jews, such as the formation of Israel. I'm implying that you don't consider that to be a major step, since you more than likely think they're just pigs.

[Snowy_One]

Not to mention that, because something bad happened to you, it doesn't give you the right to hate back.

One of my former friends was part Native-American. I had no problem at all with that and gladly attended several of the festivals he went to, even the ones at Foxwoods. I didn't enjoy them as much and found them pretty boring on the whole, but attended cause they mattered to him. However, as long as we were friends, any time I said something that could even remotely be considered 'negative' about his people, he would accuse me of being a racist. For example, if I said I didn't like the image where the Native American cried because someone tossed litter out on the road cause I felt it was pandering hard to guilt/shame to keep the roads clean, he'd say the only reason I thought that was because the person was Native American (as opposed to what? A white woman?).

[Rehab]

The reason there hasn't been major steps recently is because it's not a big problem anymore. It's a meaningless question.

Did you catch my post, which I meant to communicate that there are still people who feel affected by racism, though it may be less "overt hatred" (sometimes) to them than something "baked into the system?" I can at least tell you it's a problem from the perspectives of a lot of people who feel affected by it, who probably wouldn't appreciate being told otherwise.

Again, yeah, it's not literally "death camps explicitly for [race]," but at least to these people, the term (uhhhg huh hugh, here we go again) racism encompasses more than that.

The reason there hasn't been major steps recently is because it's not a big problem anymore. It's a meaningless question.

There've been many steps towards racism against Jews, such as the formation of Israel. I'm implying that you don't consider that to be a major step, since you more than likely think they're just pigs.

You might wanna take a couple'a steps back there, chief

I don't remember Raven stating his religious identity (though I might've missed it I dunno). It's not like you have to be any particular religion, anti-semitic, or even non-Jewish to think the creation of Israel has at least lead to people being split along race lines. And having problems with the modern government/state of Israel isn't the same as having (racist) problems with all Jewish people.

And, uh, do you realize how it sounds when you say "followers of the Quran think racism against Jews is justified because they're pigs, not people?" You're talking about a lot of people that don't all have the same opinion, for one thing. For another, IIRC the Quran itself has at least one bit of instruction for Muslims to treat well "the people of the book," supposedly meaning Christians and Jews. Calling your statement "presumptuous" would be light.

I mean, saying "Israel is unpopular in the middle east" is obviously a big fat understatement, and a grand lot of voices calling/having called for the death of its people is no good or desirable thing, but IIRC Israel is unpopular in a lot of ways with a lot of Europe, even among countries that think it should exist and had a hand in creating it, particularly with regards to its treatment of Palestinians. You know it's not like the state of Israel was just carved up from land that nobody was living on beforehand, right?

[Lord Raven]

The reason there hasn't been major steps recently is because it's not a big problem anymore. It's a meaningless question.

Tell me about your religious and cultural background. Speaking as a minority from an islamic family I can straight up tell you, from my experiences, that this is not true.

I grew up in a neighborhood and town that was 90% white then moved to another that was 60-70% white. I'm also studying physics, whose programs aren't well known for diversity. I can guarantee you there is racism involved, even if it's not restricting my rights it's most definitely in their attitude.

I have plenty of stories. It's subtle, but it's annoying and it often singles the minority out. Makes them feel different and like an outcast, in general. If you want proof and stories, and once again I have a plethora of them, I will gladly tell you. But first I'd like to know what kind of person I'm dealing with, and what the social makeup of your area is.

There've been many steps towards racism against Jews, such as the formation of Israel. I'm implying that you don't consider that to be a major step, since you more than likely think they're just pigs.

You mean towards fixing racism? If so, then the division of two races due to racism is not a cure, I'm thinking of it like the guy who prevents the bully from beating down on the nerd. Doesn't fix much in the long run, all it does is prevent the nerd from getting hurt. I also think of segregation. That's my point.

In that sense it's not a major step. Splitting two races apart does not incite tolerance, it prevents violence. There's a difference.

I don't know what that has to do with me thinking they're pigs and I have no idea even still where that's coming from; it's almost like you're putting two and two together and getting circle.

As for my actual religion I'm quite weakly agnostic; I'm uncertain to the extent that I outright refuse to choose or deny any religion.

i'm not so sure about that. if you're taught that a certain group of people is less than human, then you're not going to be disgusted by ethnic cleansing targeted against that group of people.

let's be fair, here. unfair treatment of native americans happened long before the holocaust. it didn't seem like many people cared about it back then.

May I ask what you think I'm arguing? Cause I'm arguing - purely based on the west - the western world found the actions atrocious to begin with and the social taboo existed prior to that.

Though I'd imagine treatment towards Native Americans was seen with disgust at the time but I'm not going to argue something I know little about (the integrity of US education in the WW2 era). I will however state that racism isn't necessarily about viewing someone as not human but as either an inferior or superior human due to their heritage. I believe that the Germans viewed them as inferior and conniving which led to the Holocaust; if anything it teaches us that a leader who gains leadership through racial scapegoating will lead to horrible events. It also showed that the loser in war should not be treated in the same way that we treated Germany, otherwise you have no idea what kind of leadership would arise from that. A desperate nation will resort to desperate measures if it means escape from the hell they had been through in the 20s. I believe the idea of the League of Nations or the UN (my post WW2 history is murky) was formed as a result of this.

But to say that Hitler should not be reviled nearly as much as he is as a result is trivializing that aspect of him. The reality is that Hitler had no war acumen or war ability and caused needless death in the war. His only strength was that he was a great speaker, but he was horrible at also everything else and his inability to acknowledge that led to atrocities around the world. Who is to say the world is better or worse off with or without Hitler? We can't for sure, but his actions were beyond atrocious and it had a lot to do with him being completely full of himself (also - he had mental blindness, which is basically a form of tunnel vision, resulting from WWI combat).

Edited April 15, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Rapier]

It's hard for me to remember any historical figure that gets too much hate that isn't justified (it'd be way easier if it were the other way around), but if I have to pick one that is controversial, that would be Pinochet, the Chilean dictator. I'm not saying that he was good however, as his crimes still need to be considered and I'm against any form of totalitarian government, but he got rid of Alende, who was quickly leading Chile into ruin (ironically, most people remember him well, as if he had done any good thing for the country). If Chile managed to recover and develop to what it is now, it's because he intervened in Alende's business before he ruined the country.