Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: defining racism -- Laura on compassi
Message-ID: <28200432@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Dec-85 00:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200432
Posted: Wed Dec 25 00:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:06:01 EST
References: <336@l5.UUCP>
Lines: 57
Nf-ID: #R:l5:-33600:inmet:28200432:000:2695
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 25 00:05:00 1985


[Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780 or amd!}!ubvax!tonyw]
>>Hatred and frustration are basic, racism (or homophobia or  reli-
>>gious  bigotry etc.) is an outlet for them. Close one outlet, and
>>some good may be done because people don't *exercise* their capa-
>>city  for  hatred so much; but it only helps if the deep wells of
>>frustration are exhausted. Otherwise, new outlets will be  found,
>>as bad or worse as the old ones. 

>>It is the Manichaean view of the  world,  acquired  in  formative
>>years;  it  is  the  passion  for invidious *comparisons* that is
>>responsible: "we are poor *because* others are rich" ; or "we are
>>the good guys *because* we are not like the bad guys".
>>
>>Children have a great capacity to *enjoy* differences, proved  by
>>their  love  for *animals*. If they can only be taught to enjoy a
>>person of different race, religion or social class,  as  much  as
>>they enjoy a squirrel or an elephant - social harmony won't be far
>>away.

>Jan's point about children sounds foolish to me.

That may be, in part, because I was rebutting a thesis no one had
made  -  not currently. I should have stated it explicitly first.
The thesis was that interracial repulsion proceeds from a *natur-
al*,  instinctive distaste for *difference*; that it is therefore
ineradicable; that all that can be done is preventing that  feel-
ing from developing into *racist behavior*.

I believe that the animal, biological human nature  is  not  like
that;  there is instinctive *attraction* for different creatures,
perhaps based in attraction between sexes and in  the  attachment
of  adults  for children. Both are biological, hormone driven. It
would be interesting to know if the same hormones are produced in
the  presence  of animals.  Probably yes, judging by the feelings
of some childless people towards pets.

When deciding about human nature, one naturally turns to children,
the younger the better - before nurture screens nature from sight.

>Children have a great capacity to exploit difference,  proved  by
>their  exploitation  of  other  children.   Which example is more
>relevant, loving animals or mistreating different children?

Exploitation? Doesn't ring any  bell.  Mistreatment  -  yes,  some
children  or  groups  of  children are apt to mistreat anyone de-
fenseless.  Same  children  usually  torture  animals.  But  this
sadistic  attitude  *clearly*  proceeds  from frustration; and it
appears at a much later age than loving animals.

>(Maybe neither -- most children grow out of both)

I disagree: most adults like animals too. I only invoked children
for the reason stated above: to check if the attitude is culturally
induced.

		Jan Wasilewsky