[coldtea]

When you live in a country with actual history (as opposed to rural Iowa where nothing ever threatened it), it's not racism.

You don't start because you believe the neighbors are somehow inferior, you start because you know that you have dangerous differences, or that they occupy some parts of you country that should be freed, or because they are in the offensive every now and then and so on.

Words have a meaning. Not all situations where a group is cautious or even hates another are racism. The same way blacks in the US being cautious of whites is not racism -- they do have a long history of suffering in their hands that justifies that as the prudent behavior.

[meri_dian]

That's the critical point about racism that no one seems to mention though. Every racist person is racist ultimately because of fear. Regardless of how justified their fear is, they hate because they are consumed by fear and mistrust of the other, which is a natural human reaction. We may not empathize with their fear but to them it is very real.

When you understand racism in this context it becomes clear that the narrative of people being racist because they are hateful is far too shallow. It goes much deeper than that.

[coldtea]

>That's the critical point about racism that no one seems to mention though. Every racist person is racist ultimately because of fear.

The thing is, fear can be totally rational and even justified and not your fault. In which case, it's not racism.

E.g. a black in the 30's south fearing of whites (for lynching, beating up, etc) is justified.

But a white feeling superior, and believing those blacks are animals, to be kept in their place, etc, that was actual racism.

[Added] If fact actual racism, from the first land grabs in Americas, to the development of official theories of "race" back in the 18th and 19th centuries (Gobineau, Galton and so on IIRC), is strongly tied to power grab -- painting the other as inferior to morally justify taking other their land and enslaving them. Racism was used as a tool to justify European colonialism, US slavery, Japanese conquests, etc.

Racism without having the upper hand, is hardly racism.

[lotyrin]

You don't have to have the upper hand to be racist, and you don't have to be voluntarily racist, and you don't have to be at fault to be racist. Blacks in the 1930s making generalizations about whites is still racism, regardless of how justified or disadvantaged they may be.

I know this means that there's an uncomfortable category, a shade of gray that is "justified racism" and there are situations where not being racist might mean you're putting yourself at risk by trusting someone (e.g. your historical violent white man example) that due to historical circumstances has the "upper hand" and might use it to cause you harm, and these aren't very comfortable or popular ideas, but ... too bad?

When you can wrestle with the idea that racism can possibly be justified or a useful heuristic, you can possibly relate to the people who are racist, understand their fears and mistrust, and possibly bridge a gap to where you can explain to them that they don't have much to fear from the other.

[teawrecks]

But the rational fear they once had is no longer justified. The judge on that TV show has no reason to be weary of the contestant's husband at all, it's completely irrational. And anyone that looks at that situation and says, "actually, history shows he's justified in his xenophobia" is making the same irrational mistake.

[coldtea]

>But the rational fear they once had is no longer justified.

That's not how it works in those places though. The neighbor countries can (and historically have) turn around and attack the other neighbors again and again, and there are tension and provocations and such even after periods of relative peace.

And you can't tell someone who lost their loved ones due to this or that incident involving some people, that it's now all "water under the bridge". Healing from such things takes many decades, and even generations to actually heal.

If X murdered your father, you didn't want any relation with them, even decades later, even if there wasn't anything else to fear from them. And you probably wouldn't be best buddies with their relatives in general either. Now, imagine that in a more widespread way, where whole countries were under attack, with perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions dying, and you having multiple people you mourn from that time.

[pbhjpbhj]

I don't for a minute buy the "racism is fear" line, seems like greed, ignorance, innate tribalism (at least) are all equally strong motivators.

[mistermann]

You make it sound as if it can be nothing but emotional, whereas there actually can be an objective, reasoned aspect as well.

[teawrecks]

So you're saying the contestant's husband poses an actual legitimate threat to the judge? Or is it just a stereotype he's reacting to?

[coldtea]

He's taking a stance for many, and treats the other as if he equally represents many.

He is not ready to "forgive and forget" and put "water under the bridge" for what he thinks those many did (or continue to do) to his country.

That's not a response to a "legitimate threat", but it's the expression of a legitimate (as far as that person is concerned) grievance.

[mistermann]

> So you're saying

You're aware of the meme going around regarding this phrase I assume? :)

No, I'm saying there can be an objective, reasoned aspect as to racism, that is doesn't have to be purely based on "fear".

[meri_dian]

No one is objective and we are very often ruled by emotion.

[coldtea]

Which is neither here, nor there.

We might be "very often ruled by emotion" but there's also an objective reality out there. A black guy flirting with a white woman in the 20's Alabama would indeed find themselves hanging from a tree -- whether they were "objective" or not.

[meri_dian]

And that would happen because of herd mentality outrage fueled by anger that ultimately derives from fear.

[coldtea]

If that was true, it could happen towards any group and at all times, but it usually happens to specific groups in specific scenarios.

The anger and outrage helped keep blacks down, and thus their wages down, and keeping them for asking for more and competing with whites. Just like before the civil war it helped justify their being kept as slaves, and thus function as profit centers.

So it's not just irrational fear.

[essayist]

And so the question becomes: who drives those fears, and what makes the fearful ones resistant to new information?

[Cyph0n]

I tend to agree that history is important to consider in such situations, but only if you apply this concept equally instead of picking and choosing when and on whom to apply it. Otherwise, it's nothing more than hypocrisy.

A thought experiment: would you react the same way if the original example was of an Egyptian singer being interviewed on an Egyptian channel and revealing that he/she was married to an Israeli?

[coldtea]

On the contrary, I think we should apply it selectively, and chose when and on whom to apply it.

For history is important to consider but not all historical situations are alike.

We could justify a reaction from whatever side, if they had equally suffered from the other side.

History is painful, and we might say "but she's just married to an X citizen, what's the harm", but the other's that got offended might have visions of their family or friends or themselves being killed, or treated badly because of being non X. It might not have been that particular X citizen that did those offenses, but they didn't see other X citizens rushing to their rescue either -- on the contrary, they might have seen a lot of them cheering for it. (And I'm sure the same would hold if an Israeli woman was revealing in a Israeli channel that she was married to an Egyptian -- and it could still be justified and understood under their experiences).