Predictable possibly because accurate no matter how little you want to believe it.
This country was BUILT on a near-genocide against the native population! The South at least was BUILT on slavery of a kidnapped race!
I call that racism. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. What do you call it?
What is genocide if not at least in part racism?
(Ok, Why is Putin murdering Ukrainian Russians along with other Ukrainians? Why is he destroying a culture that is basically Russian (well, Russia is basically Ukrainian since Ukraine is the older culture but you take my meaning? Does this mean there is no racism in Putin's actions? Then what do we call it? Just evil? Just hate?)
You can call it a lot of different things--in the simplest and most direct description it is US versus Them--in group and out group.
When the boundary between Us and Them has a visible component (skin color, other physical characteristics), then we tend to call it racism. The reality is that the visible difference is simply seized upon to justify the Us/Them dynamic--just as a difference in religion or language or whatever is used.
Ideological or religious or cultural differences don't have a handy label like that, but are often more important.
You are more likely to reach people talking in terms of inherent bias, if you are trying to have an actual discussion. Racism, as a term these days, basically closes the door to conversation other than the tired conversation of I am not racist and yes you are.
Race is an artifact that is socially constructed. On a genetic level (so far as we currently know) there is more variability between individuals than there is between the "races."
In order for the Us/Them dynamic to come into play all you need to do is create some difference--and this difference can actually be very small and almost meaningless in the larger scheme. This is how Russians can kill Russians that are living in Ukraine (and who do not identify, themselves, as Ukrainian).
It is (sadly) a standard human practice that most likely has arisen through selection over the course of evolution with the "end" being the propagation of a particular genotype--we have just revised and extended it for our own purposes.
Again, it is simply a matter of perceived similarity versus perceived difference and may often be more a matter of narrative than fact. It seems rather cold and neutral when described that way, at that remove (but that is where the understanding comes in) and the reality is invariably hateful and almost always evil--at least from a certain distance. Those inured in the dynamic see it as a good.
Loke most social constructs, it all depends upon where you are standing.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.
Predictable possibly because accurate no matter how little you want to believe it.
This country was BUILT on a near-genocide against the native population! The South at least was BUILT on slavery of a kidnapped race!
I call that racism. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. What do you call it?
What is genocide if not at least in part racism?
(Ok, Why is Putin murdering Ukrainian Russians along with other Ukrainians? Why is he destroying a culture that is basically Russian (well, Russia is basically Ukrainian since Ukraine is the older culture but you take my meaning? Does this mean there is no racism in Putin's actions? Then what do we call it? Just evil? Just hate?)
You can call it a lot of different things--in the simplest and most direct description it is US versus Them--in group and out group.
When the boundary between Us and Them has a visible component (skin color, other physical characteristics), then we tend to call it racism. The reality is that the visible difference is simply seized upon to justify the Us/Them dynamic--just as a difference in religion or language or whatever is used.
Ideological or religious or cultural differences don't have a handy label like that, but are often more important.
You are more likely to reach people talking in terms of inherent bias, if you are trying to have an actual discussion. Racism, as a term these days, basically closes the door to conversation other than the tired conversation of I am not racist and yes you are.
Race is an artifact that is socially constructed. On a genetic level (so far as we currently know) there is more variability between individuals than there is between the "races."
In order for the Us/Them dynamic to come into play all you need to do is create some difference--and this difference can actually be very small and almost meaningless in the larger scheme. This is how Russians can kill Russians that are living in Ukraine (and who do not identify, themselves, as Ukrainian).
It is (sadly) a standard human practice that most likely has arisen through selection over the course of evolution with the "end" being the propagation of a particular genotype--we have just revised and extended it for our own purposes.
Again, it is simply a matter of perceived similarity versus perceived difference and may often be more a matter of narrative than fact. It seems rather cold and neutral when described that way, at that remove (but that is where the understanding comes in) and the reality is invariably hateful and almost always evil--at least from a certain distance. Those inured in the dynamic see it as a good.
Loke most social constructs, it all depends upon where you are standing.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is how old slavery actually is. Joseph, for instance, was sold into slavery.
The other thing I've been thinking about is how little those with Some or Much care about those with Little or Less. That makes it an economic motive. And I do see that in much of what Republicanism is and has been. At least Democrats for the most part seem to care however bad they are at it.
Slavery is likely older than recorded history. Many civilizations relied upon it or more limited forms of it on both the social and economic levels.
Slavery in Rome was not a racial thing as it was in the US or in other places--at least it was not usually seen or talked about in those terms. It WAS still an in/out group thing... either on the basis of straight out power, of civilized v. barbarians, rich v poor.
Slavery was often characterized as something of a mercy--to those defeated in war it was supposedly better than death (though it usually simply meant a delayed death, often in unpleasant circumstances, plus it meant greater profit for the victor)--to those on the edge of starvation it meant potential life. People would sell their children or themselves into slavery in order to survive... because there were no social insurance programs.
In the end, machines largely replaced slavery because it was more economical, and you didn't have to worry about rebellions.
I read an excellent book last year, "Dark Places of the Earth"; much more than just the story of the slave ship Antelope. But clearly you are right that it isn't based on race but money and conquest.