Unconscious Racism is a Personal Failing, Not a Moral Failing

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
You think that the military isn't racist, because it's not racist against itself, whilst it's racist towards people from foreign countries.

That makes it racist.
Perhaps as a middle ground we could say the military has done a great deal to eliminate racism with itself because racism within the ranks isn't good for the comradery military effectiveness depends on. War is us against them, not some of us against them and maybe the rest can't be trusted, while racism against an enemy in wars between nations is a typical response, but perhaps in the modern day, one on the decline. At any rate I don't think this is an either or kind of thing. Both of you sound right to me in the areas you selected to make your points.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
Perhaps as a middle ground we could say the military has done a great deal to eliminate racism with itself because racism within the ranks isn't good for the comradery military effectiveness depends on. War is us against them, not some of us against them and maybe the rest can't be trusted, while racism against an enemy in wars between nations is a typical response, but perhaps in the modern day, one on the decline. At any rate I don't think this is an either or kind of thing. Both of you sound right to me in the areas you selected to make your points.

The problem is that he says it's not racist, because soldiers don't dehumanize against themselves, and that it's not racist for them to dehumanize foreigners. Of course it's racist, it dehumanizes foreigners.

To draw a parallel, it's like saying Peter Sutcliffe is not violent as he didn't self harm.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
When I was a yout, I was prejudiced against developmentally disabled folks mostly due to fear of the unknown. I learned better after working with them. I also believe the armed services are one of the few successes we've had in the war against racism. They have been successful because the culture within the military doesn't accept it. There is a lesson to learn here in our respective cultures.

Racism is a subset of Tribalism. In military culture you're all part of the same unit (tribe by any other name). The "others" are not in your barracks with you. So of course racism is defeated in close knit group settings. Teamwork forges a brotherhood. Place people on the streets however... and when there are still mono ethnic neighborhoods and crime rates... people are quickly stereotyped as coming from those bad locations based on the color of their skin and other factors.

It is the existence of varied interests and varied cultures coming together and clashing that gives fuel to our primitive instincts. Racism is just a tool in the belt of tribalism... to quickly ID people as being "other". A means to an end. An ill of the greater human condition.

Racism is taught.

That is a vast oversimplification. Aspects of it can be passed down, but so too is hatred a contagious disease. The ability to spread it does not stop it from also being an inherent trait. In a safe and controlled environment, children of a different race will happily regard each other as belonging together. It's true that racism would have to be "taught" to them. HOWEVER, without a safe and resource happy environment, and especially as the "tribe" grows over generations, divisions will form over time.

Unity comes easily to smaller groups. Divisions more easily to larger groups. We will never be done grasping for our better angels.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
The problem is that he says it's not racist, because soldiers don't dehumanize against themselves, and that it's not racist for them to dehumanize foreigners. Of course it's racist, it dehumanizes foreigners.

To draw a parallel, it's like saying Peter Sutcliffe is not violent as he didn't self harm.

So now you are not only an idiot but wilfully ignorant and dishonest too? I brought up the point that demonization of the enemy is made by political powers as propaganda for civilians and you still apply it as a military thing? I brought up that it was done against the reds of the Soviet Union and you couldn't muster a fucking reply?

Why not? Because reality doesn't matter to you and your mind is set in stone no matter what? You cannot for the world of you EVER admit that you are wrong, can you?

You are as useless as the Trumpsters, same wilful ignorance and same rejection of reality to further a false agenda.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
Your own words.







If you can't remember your own thoughts, you should get checked for Alzheimer's.
More trolling. None of what I said agrees with the military being racist. Yet you have out and out lied about what I did say. Not only are you a troll, you're a bad one.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
Racism is a subset of Tribalism.

No, no it is not.

Tribalism depends on warring between enemy tribes, racism is hatred towards others within your own society based only on their "race".

The rest of your post depends on your misunderstanding so it's not worth replying to.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
So now you are not only an idiot but wilfully ignorant and dishonest too? I brought up the point that demonization of the enemy is made by political powers as propaganda for civilians and you still apply it as a military thing? I brought up that it was done against the reds of the Soviet Union and you couldn't muster a fucking reply?

Why not? Because reality doesn't matter to you and your mind is set in stone no matter what? You cannot for the world of you EVER admit that you are wrong, can you?

You are as useless as the Trumpsters, same wilful ignorance and same rejection of reality to further a false agenda.

You seemingly leave out the military's influence and role in the dehumanization, as well as propaganda created by the military. But I find no issue with you stating that political organizations and the populace itself engage in racism; I agree completely, but leaving out the military's role is dishonest. After all, it was the military that coined the term Zipperhead.

You also glossed over my admission that the military could very well not be racist towards it's own soldiers, a point that I contested earlier in the thread.

More trolling. None of what I said agrees with the military being racist. Yet you have out and out lied about what I did say. Not only are you a troll, you're a bad one.

You plainly stated that dehumanizing an enemy isn't racist. Which it is. And now you say that you didn't say it? I bloody quoted your exact words stating such.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
You seemingly leave out the military's influence and role in the dehumanization, as well as propaganda created by the military. But I find no issue with you stating that political organizations and the populace itself engage in racism; I agree completely, but leaving out the military's role is dishonest. After all, it was the military that coined the term Zipperhead.

OK, so let me get this straight, you think the military rather than civilian leadership thought up that propaganda even though the military has never had anything to do with that?

The military doesn't do propaganda, that is left to the civilians.

Tell me, or better yet show me what part the military took in this civilian propaganda war.

Be honest.

That military personnel often use derogatory terms for their enemy is beyond dispute, this is, as previously noted, not related to racism.

I wouldn't call an Asian I met on the street beloved patriot, I wouldn't even think it, but when I was in Afghanistan I used that term for the enemy and it had fuck all to do with their race or religion, it was a descriptive and perhaps derogatory term assigned to our enemy.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
You plainly stated that dehumanizing an enemy isn't racist. Which it is. And now you say that you didn't say it? I bloody quoted your exact words stating such.

He is correct about that, it has nothing to do with racism.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
The problem is that he says it's not racist, because soldiers don't dehumanize against themselves, and that it's not racist for them to dehumanize foreigners. Of course it's racist, it dehumanizes foreigners.

To draw a parallel, it's like saying Peter Sutcliffe is not violent as he didn't self harm.

I get where you are coming from but I can't see it quite the same way.

The thing is, from what I can see, the US military as a domestic institution seems far from 'backward' when it comes to race. It's appears to be less racist than many parts of US society, maybe even (if one is being really provocative, and also not being too careful about disentangling class and race) less so than some elite liberal institutions.

Analogies with an individual like Sutcliffe doesn't account for the fact that the military plays a role in US soceity as a whole, and doesn't (as far as I know) go round being gratuitiously racist to non-military Americans.

In relation to the outside world it is likely to be exactly as racist as the US body-politic wishes it to be. Which can be pretty damn racist, but even then it's not likely to be substantially _more_ so than the centre-of-gravity of the civilian US. It's an arm of the US state, so it will carry out the state's racist instructions if so ordered, and it's troops may well become as xenophobic as required to meet the demands placed on it, but it's not going to start a foreign war against the wishes of that state out of it's own prejudical impulses.

I mean, hell, if it comes down to a confrontation with North Korea, who, in the very short list of people with a say on firing off nukes, is more likely to have ignorant racist views about Koreans? The civilian Trump or the one general who might be in a position to reject the order to launch?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
He is correct about that, it has nothing to do with racism.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you as well, while I'm disagreeing with everyone.

Demonising the enemy can easily take a racist form, and be exacerbated by racism, if the enemy happens to fit into existing categories of racial animosity. Enemies of the 'wrong' race will be subject to extra-special-super-demonisation.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
I get where you are coming from but I can't see it quite the same way.

The thing is, from what I can see, the US military as a domestic institution seems far from 'backward' when it comes to race. It's appears to be less racist than many parts of US society, maybe even (if one is being really provocative, and also not being too careful about disentangling class and race) less so than some elite liberal institutions.

Analogies with an individual like Sutcliffe doesn't account for the fact that the military plays a role in US soceity as a whole, and doesn't (as far as I know) go round being gratuitiously racist to non-military Americans.

In relation to the outside world it is likely to be exactly as racist as the US body-politic wishes it to be. Which can be pretty damn racist, but even then it's not likely to be substantially _more_ so than the centre-of-gravity of the civilian US. It's an arm of the US state, so it will carry out the state's racist instructions if so ordered, and it's troops may well become as xenophobic as required to meet the demands placed on it, but it's not going to start a foreign war against the wishes of that state out of it's own prejudical impulses.

I mean, hell, if it comes down to a confrontation with North Korea, who, in the very short list of people with a say on firing off nukes, is more likely to have ignorant racist views about Koreans? The civilian Trump or the one general who might be in a position to reject the order to launch?

One thing I like about you is that you can reconsider and change your position, one thing I hate about you is that you'll never admit that you did just that.

You're quite the American in some ways.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
Well, I'm going to disagree with you as well, while I'm disagreeing with everyone.

Demonising the enemy can easily take a racist form, and be exacerbated by racism, if the enemy happens to fit into existing categories of racial animosity. Enemies of the 'wrong' race will be subject to extra-special-super-demonisation.

You just agreed with me but not to my face.... Are you actually Donald Trump and want to agree with everyone but never to their face which is his MO?

Demonising an enemy even if it DOES take racist form is NOT racist, that is the point and your made up idiocy of "special racial" enemies is a made up point that does not exist anywhere outside of your mind and that you cannot, if you search until kingdom come, can find outside your mind.

Don't be a kent, son... It's unbecoming.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
I dont know how many of you served but I can tell you this much: When I left in 2006 there was plenty of racism still hanging around.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
One thing I like about you is that you can reconsider and change your position, one thing I hate about you is that you'll never admit that you did just that.

You're quite the American in some ways.

I think you'll find that my position has remained quite constant! Feel free to show quotes to prove otherwise.

You just agreed with me but not to my face.... Are you actually Donald Trump and want to agree with everyone but never to their face which is his MO?

Demonising an enemy even if it DOES take racist form is NOT racist, that is the point and your made up idiocy of "special racial" enemies is a made up point that does not exist anywhere outside of your mind and that you cannot, if you search until kingdom come, can find outside your mind.

Don't be a kent, son... It's unbecoming.

I think you are being deliberately blind in not seeing that enemies who are racially-demonised will be treated differently from those who are not (I mean, just look at how the Germans treated different POWs differently according to race).

The earlier cartoons here demonstrate this. The anti-Japanese cartoons were racist, with additional racial aspects that were not present in anti German propaganda. It might be understandable in time of war, but it still has an effect - in the atttitue of US troops in the Pacific to their enemies compared to that of US troops in Europe to the Germans, and in side-effects on the treatment of Japanese-Americans.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
I think you'll find that my position has remained quite constant! Feel free to show quotes to prove otherwise.



I think you are being deliberately blind in not seeing that enemies who are racially-demonised will be treated differently from those who are not (I mean, just look at how the Germans treated different POWs differently according to race).

The earlier cartoons here demonstrate this. The anti-Japanese cartoons were racist, with additional racial aspects that were not present in anti German propaganda. It might be understandable in time of war, but it still has an effect - in the atttitue of US troops in the Pacific to their enemies compared to that of US troops in Europe to the Germans, and in side-effects on the treatment of Japanese-Americans.

Jesus fucking christ.... the civilian war propaganda created by artists by doctrine of civilian leadership intended for the civilian public that we previously agreed has nothing to do with the military is now brought up as something applying to the military?

I'm sorry, I was wrong about you, there is no saving grace for you, you're a moron.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
I dont know how many of you served but I can tell you this much: When I left in 2006 there was plenty of racism still hanging around.

Considering that you are living with your mum and can't move out I find the notion of you, a 30+ something that served and managed to fuck all of his money away as absurd.

Where did you serve?
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
You plainly stated that dehumanizing an enemy isn't racist. Which it is. And now you say that you didn't say it? I bloody quoted your exact words stating such.
I suggest you parse your own words carefully. I speak American, English, some German, a little Norwegian, a smattering of Vietnamese and, Spanish. None of. those languages twist the meaning of dehumanizing of enemies by soldiers to mean racism. I'll say one thing , you're a uniquely bad troll.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,504
5,028
136
Ummm.....I think you're refuting yourself in your argument. I've heard this sort of argument made and it still is illogical.

For instance, you first maintain that racism is inherent in humans. Then you say racism doesn't have to be inherent in children provided they're safe and have vast resources. But then flip again to say racism is learned over time because we aren't raised with a "safe and resource happy environment."

So which is it? Babies are born racist/having inherent racist attitudes? Or is it learned behavior from their social group (their parents) at a young age from seeing their parents' behavior almost exclusively for the first years of growing up?

You've made both arguments and for one to be true, the other cannot be true also.

I fall into the camp of racism is taught/learned, and mostly from parents/grandparents/etc. during a child's early life.

True, other influences do come into play later in life, such as church, school, but by that time, the die is cast.


The ability to spread it does not stop it from also being an inherent trait. In a safe and controlled environment, children of a different race will happily regard each other as belonging together. It's true that racism would have to be "taught" to them. HOWEVER, without a safe and resource happy environment, and especially as the "tribe" grows over generations, divisions will form over time.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
I suggest you parse your own words carefully. I speak American, English, some German, a little Norwegian, a smattering of Vietnamese and, Spanish. None of. those languages twist the meaning of dehumanizing of enemies by soldiers to mean racism. I'll say one thing , you're a uniquely bad troll.

Dehumanizing IS racism. This isn't hard to understand; making out foreigners as evil-bad boogeymen is racist.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
OK, so let me get this straight, you think the military rather than civilian leadership thought up that propaganda even though the military has never had anything to do with that?

The military doesn't do propaganda, that is left to the civilians.

Tell me, or better yet show me what part the military took in this civilian propaganda war.

Be honest.

That military personnel often use derogatory terms for their enemy is beyond dispute, this is, as previously noted, not related to racism.

I wouldn't call an Asian I met on the street ***************************, I wouldn't even think it, but when I was in Afghanistan I used that term for the enemy and it had fuck all to do with their race or religion, it was a descriptive and perhaps derogatory term assigned to our enemy.

Why do you think a military is completely compartmentalized and sectioned off from the Government it's a branch of? Moreover, why do you think it's not civilians that enlist? Soldiers are civilians given the occupation of soldier; they came from the same country, from the same cities, from the same towns.

As for how the military took part in propaganda, that's easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_during_World_War_II

The Government disseminated propaganda. And the military is a part of the Government, else how would politics directly affect it? Construction of equipment, selling of arms, invading specific countries, etc. etc., is handled by both the Government, and the military that is a branch of it.

And yes, your dehumanization of "the enemy" is racism. The very act of dehumanization is racist; you consider other humans to be less than human. You probably also killed human, which makes you a murderer; you end the lives of other humans, ones you were commanded to do so by the Government after you chose to sign up.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
Why do you think a military is completely compartmentalized and sectioned off from the Government it's a branch of? Moreover, why do you think it's not civilians that enlist? Soldiers are civilians given the occupation of soldier; they came from the same country, from the same cities, from the same towns.

As for how the military took part in propaganda, that's easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_during_World_War_II

The Government disseminated propaganda. And the military is a part of the Government, else how would politics directly affect it? Construction of equipment, selling of arms, invading specific countries, etc. etc., is handled by both the Government, and the military that is a branch of it.

And yes, your dehumanization of "the enemy" is racism. The very act of dehumanization is racist; you consider other humans to be less than human. You probably also killed human, which makes you a murderer; you end the lives of other humans, ones you were commanded to do so by the Government after you chose to sign up.

Holy fuck you are an idiot, not only do the military not have any say in the propaganda spread by the politicians, in the US the military branches serve as a propaganda tool at the politicians disposal and as expendable tools to do their bidding no matter how much of a lie it is based upon.

In the US the military, the Pentagon, all of the Generals have an advisory role, the politicians are the people that are making decisions and it has become a parody of bullshit or did you not note the second gulf war?

Your link doesn't support your bullshit at all, in fact it contradicts it because the military is separate from the government by definition, if it wasn't it the fucking nation would be under fucking military rule you retarded imbecile.

Others may think this seems like harsh language but I have tried to explain this to you for half a day and you STILL don't get it or more likely you do get it but you cannot for the world of you admit that you are wrong.

Just like your standard Trumper.

Let me apply this retard standard to YOU.

Government is racist, it's a government of the people.

Hurrrr... you's racist!

That is akin to your supposition and the only reply you'll ever deserve.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,476
523
126
Dehumanizing IS racism. This isn't hard to understand; making out foreigners as evil-bad boogeymen is racist.

How do you explain WWII against Germany? Mostly white versus white(er). Some people who's families where from Germany living in the US, fighting against Germany. Some wars were against their own people, several civil wars in the books too. Families fighting against families. Same race, same blood. But that's racist? Please, you're embarrassing yourself again.

Oh yeah, I forgot. To you all military are murderers and rapist, living on welfare. You've posted that many times. Your opinion is highly valued on this topic.
 

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
How do you explain WWII against Germany? Mostly white versus white(er). Some people who's families where from Germany living in the US, fighting against Germany. Some wars were against their own people, several civil wars in the books too. Families fighting against families. Same race, same blood. But that's racist? Please, you're embarrassing yourself again.

Oh yeah, I forgot. To you all military are murderers and rapist, living on welfare. You've posted that many times. Your opinion is highly valued on this topic.

Forget about that argument, I tried it earlier.... No response.

He has decided what he wants to believe and no amount of reality will change it.

Has he actually said that?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,974
7,891
136
Jesus fucking christ.... the civilian war propaganda created by artists by doctrine of civilian leadership intended for the civilian public that we previously agreed has nothing to do with the military is now brought up as something applying to the military?

I'm sorry, I was wrong about you, there is no saving grace for you, you're a moron.


Wow. You are even more erratic than Moonbeam. Is it possible you have some sort of mood disorder? You react to an uncontentious post in a relatively easy-going debate with a sudden burst of complete derangement. Are you actually much younger than I thought? You are so weirdly over-excitable. (Feel free to continue to throw around words like 'retard' if you want - I gather that word is considered acceptable among you scroffulous infants).

To try and respond rationally to your peculiar outburst - the propaganda was in no way exclusively aimed at civilians - I am mildly astonished you aren't aware of that and that you appear not to grasp that the particular posters linked previously are not the entirety of the genre.

It's well-documented that the degree of dehumanisation that was present on both sides in the Pacific war was much greater than that between the US and Germans in Europe. It was perceived partially as a race war, on both sides, at home and at the front. And those here trying to argue that 'dehumanisation' is somehow unrelated to 'racism' are clearly operating with some other form of logic than the standard one, no matter how many languages they speak.

Was 'the military' independently responsible for the racism? I don't think so. That's where I don't agree with MajinCry (and I wish he could find a way to back down on that without giving a victory to even more misinformed people like yourself). I don't believe it's justified to single out the military as being especially racist. On the contrary, in many contexts it can be and has been less racist than the civilian culture.

But if you actually read the post you were responding to, you might note the comment I was responding to in turn. In which you claimed that existing racism made no difference to attitudes to the enemy during war. It damn well does, both for civilians and the troops, and that is blindingly obvious to anyone..well, anyone not a moron.

I find it beyond bizarre that you can make such a ludicrous claim and then accuse others of stupidity. Right back at you, mate, you appear to be engaging in projection there.
 
Last edited: