I would say that prejudice is about visible and invisible differences and beliefs about superiority.
As George Orwell said in 'Animal Farm':
'ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.' — Jack Cummins

The little boy saved his town by sticking his thumb in the hole of the dam. :grin: Oh dear, I think it is the matter of the heart and that I was blessed with a heart full of love. I was blessed by my grandmother who was a school teacher when teachers believed it was the purpose of teachers to help each child discover his/her talents and interest. Democracy is about everyone working together and each one of us has an important part to play, even if the best we can do is stick our thumb in the dam until someone gets there and to fix the dam.

We used to tell our children moral stories or what some call folk tales, so they would learn virtues and moral thinking. Perhaps science can help us here? The very big things like huge trees or elephants depend on very small things, such as microbes and insects that manage the environment and make life possible. We all have a part to play.

I am not sure to what extent people sit down and tell stories to young children no , spelling out wisdom and morality. I would imagine it varies a lot, but I do think that young children are probably starting to spend more and time on computers. Perhaps people on the forum who have children, or work in education, may be able to speak about this.

Because I think music speaks to the soul, and I love Funk and Soul music, and it kind of speaks to the topic at hand...

You Make Your Own Heaven And Hell Right Here on Earth
by The Undisputed Truth

Born into this world a baby
You're mind is clear as the air
Time passes
You learn to walk and talk
Time passes
You learn right from wrong
Time passes
You leave home seeking a life
Of your own

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heavens and hell
Right here on earth

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make you own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
On earth, on earth, on earth

Time passess
And your values change
Life becomes a strange, confusing game
Suddenly you want the finer things in life
But you find it takes a lots of hard work and sacrifice
(There ain't no such thing as something for nothing, can you dig it?)
Now you're standing
At the crossroads of life
To satisfy your personal wants
Will you do wrong
Or will you do right?
Well one thing you must admit
And you know it's true
The final decision
Is still up to you

I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
Listen to me people
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth
Let me tell you one more time
I'm tellin' you the natural facts
For way this world
You make your own heaven and hell
Right here on earth

Listen people
Life is a giant, invisible scale with two sides;
Good and bad
You and your beliefs
Are the weights
The things you do each day
Determine the balance
Your conscience is a flawless
Judge and jury;
The only question is what you want

:ok:

Thank you, you have managed to upload a very song. Music has such a powerful means to confront prejudice. I am sure that Bob Marley and many other black artists have made an enormous impact in addressing racism. Perhaps the philosophers should stand back in awe at some of the most powerful entertainers, in touching the depths of emotion in conveying truth and wisdom.

I am not sure to what extent people sit down and tell stories to young children no , spelling out wisdom and morality. I would imagine it varies a lot, but I do think that young children are probably starting to spend more and time on computers. Perhaps people on the forum who have children, or work in education, may be able to speak about this. — Jack Cummins

As a parent with teenagers, I’d say there’s not a lot of time spent sitting down and telling stories that spell out wisdom and morality, but I think it does come down to the stories we choose for our children when they are open to hearing them. As parents, we made the effort to control and guide the content of ‘stories’ our children were hearing from a very young age: television, music, books, computer games and internet. It wasn’t only about censorship but about balance of information, and the opportunities we had to discuss the wisdom and morality presented in a context that was relevant to where they were at in their experiences. We often referred to these efforts as their ‘cultural education’. Our children, now 15 and 17, have seen a much wider selection of film and television, heard a wider selection of music, and read a wider selection of literature than most kids their age (we can vouch for this because we also work in education). They don’t cringe at the classics, but are open to the messages they offer. I find that movies are an easy way to bring up a discussion on wisdom and morality with teens - it’s the ‘language’ they’re most comfortable with, and it often ends up being time well spent.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Of course, I would imagine that you have made all conceivable efforts to educate your children as widely and carefully as possible.

I would imagine that there is so much variation. When I was growing up I think that there was a lot of variation on how much input children get on issues of social concern. I have to admit that I was rather shocked at some of the attitudes I came across in my school.

One thing I did not agree with was the attitudes towards hierarchical banding. One day, when I and a couple of friends from the lowest class were standing on a piece of grass which was technically 'out of bounds', I got called into the deputy headmaster's office and told to stay with the people in my class. I nodded but did complain of the attitude of the teacher to my fellow classmates, and they seemed to agree with the teacher that I should not be spending time with people in the lower band class.

Recently, I was in conversation with someone from school, who was in the lower band, and I heard how it was such a devastating experience being ranked in a low class. I am not saying that banding can be eliminated completely, but I think that there is a danger if ideas about superiority and inferiority are entailed. I do think it calls for sensitivity and that was not what I saw at school, especially in the way teachers spoke about the classes, especially as one was also often referred to as the 'remedial' one.

I don't know how banding systems vary and how much it has changed but I think that this can be a whole subtext of prejudice, as the people in the lower grades are likely to be the ones from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

I have gone off the topic raised by Athena, I am afraid. But I am sure that family attitudes and stories, and whole systems of values are so important. I probably would not be writing this post if I had not come from a family which valued questioning the social order.

I think removing the desire to attribute characteristics to entire groups as if the group itself was an individual is a good place to start. That way lies stupidity and bigotry. There is too much diversity within groups than between them to come to any rational conclusion about this or that individual by referring to any classification.

I would agree with you, but it is so complicated because certain attribudes are so deep. In particular, this thread is hovering next to the one questioning the deletion of one about a thread containing the word defect. From my point of view, I would never use the word defect to describe any other human being at all, because I see it as a term of abuse. However, other people see differently. So, what does one do? If people who use such language are prevented from certain expression it will surface in another way.

I think that prejudice arises in the collective unconscious and at this very time aspects of hatred are permeating the world, even this site.

That is what was happening in the time of Nazi Germany and, at the moment, I think we are on the potential brink of a new dark age. I am just hoping that it can be averted, or dissipated somehow. There are many positive attitudes and signs as well as the negative ones. Perhaps philosophy can help in this.

It is complicated, agreed.

I would argue censorship is one big problem. Not only does it deny the hater’s right to speak it, but it also denies our right to hear it, ridicule it and prove it false. The Nazis were routinely censored up until they seized power and Weimar Germany had fairly modern hate speech laws. Such rules proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. And they used their own persecution as justification to persecute others.

So, in my opinion, prejudice of the type we’re speaking about needs to be met in the open and without fear.

Yes, I agree and I am even still getting into discussion on the term 'defect' in the thread I have spoken about. I believe in talking about prejudice without fear. I am not someone to wish to sweep it all into hidden corners. I suppose that the art is to be able to address it without it becoming overwhelming. So far, this thread has not been one into which people have thrown their prejudices and I am grateful for this, as when I composed this I was a bit fearful about what I might unleash.

If at any point this thread became swamped by prejudices, I would probably bow out of it, at least for some time, just to maintain my own sanity. But so far, the discussion is positive. I am not saying that I want people to avoid discussing any conflicts, because I believe that everyone has some negative attitudes. I am not in favour of everything being politically correct. It can be all surface without any deeper corresponding value.

You may be interested in the Virtues Project.

The Virtues Project™ is a global grassroots initiative to inspire the practice of virtues in everyday life, sparking a global revolution of kindness, justice, and integrity in more than 100 countries through Facilitators, Master Facilitators, Champions and Virtues Connections.

The Virtues Project empowers individuals to live more authentic meaningful lives, families to raise children of compassion and integrity, educators to create safe, caring, and high performing learning communities, and leaders to encourage excellence and ethics in the work place. It has inspired and mobilized people worldwide to commit acts of service and generosity, to heal violence with virtues.

The Five Strategies™ awaken the gifts of character, through inspiring programs, books, and materials that help us to remember who we really are and to live by our highest values.

The Virtues Project was founded in Canada in 1991 by Linda Kavelin-Popov, Dr. Dan Popov and John Kavelin. It was honored by the United Nations during the International Year of the Family as a "model global program for families of all cultures".
https://virtuesproject.com/homepage.html — The Virtues Project

I have the 52 pack of virtue cards and have used them with friends and children. I hope to return to sharing the cards when the pandemic passes. They can be used as morning meditations, or whenever having a problem. My friends and I gathered once a week, we thought of something troubling us, and then drew a card out of a bag. Each of us would read our card and thought about it, then we took turns sharing our card and saying how we thought that particular virtue would help with what was concerning us. You can see the cards at the link.

For the children, I bought a book of virtue stories and I have DVD's of virtue stories which are the old classics. I can't imagine not reading to children because that was so basic, but the DVD's are wonderful too. The Public Broadcasting Station has programs for children teaching the virtues but I have a problem with them because it is usually kids behaving like adults and they do not present the relationships of older people with normal children. Not that long ago, Public Broadcasting had shows with adults and children in their correct positions, often in family relationships. Does it seem that is now outdated? Mr. Rogers was a favorite and we still honor him.

Speaking of children's TV programs, Sesame Street was amazing at crashing through the prejudice barriers and creating a place where puppets looked different from each other and had different personalities and people representing different gene types normalize people of all colors and shapes living together in a community. Before we can manifest it, we have to imagine it and that is what Sesame Street did, help us imagine a community with people who look different and all get along.

Then there is the commandment, look for God in everyone and "there but for the grace of God so I". — Athena

Who commanded that?
What makes this person our commander?

We are all in this together so it behooves us to make things as pleasant as we can. :wink: I will do what I can to get to kumbaya-happy.

While those with prejudice laugh at you and win in the battle of life.

What makes something true is how well it works. I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.

The Neanderthals became extinct except as part of some people's DNA. It is believed the genes of the second migration of humans out of Africa, replaced the Neanderthals because they had better social organization. I think humans right now are working with a faulted concept of reality and that this is changing through our abundance and science.

In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.

The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.

How rapidly we move into a New Age, depends on our ability to imagine it because it is as we think it.

That is what was happening in the time of Nazi Germany and, at the moment, I think we are on the potential brink of a new dark age. I am just hoping that it can be averted, or dissipated somehow. There are many positive attitudes and signs as well as the negative ones. Perhaps philosophy can help in this. — Jack Cummins

The comparison is apt imo, the key features being: convincing the public that certain people present an existential threat to them; convincing the same public that we are the only ones with the means and will to destroy this threat and restore the nation.

It's a motif we've seen a few times recently and it remains successful. The medium of its success is propaganda, the same means by which we convince people that they have a problem with their lives and this new gadget or lotion is the only thing that will solve it.

I don't think we can tolerate propaganda and be free from prejudice. If it's that easy to convince hundreds of thousands of people that a pizza shop with a secret tunnel hosts Satanic cannabal paedophiles in government, it's going to be easy to convince people that Jews have yet another secret world domination plan or some such.

I do think that philosophy would help a great deal, both as a self-defence against psychological warfare and as a means of understanding the irrational nature of one's own prejudicial arguments.

If we taught our children the basics of logic, of empiricism, and of critical thinking, along with some history of our failings in these regards, I think that would go some way to reducing their susceptibility to propaganda and therefore prejudicial beliefs. And yet (and not wishing to pick a fight with anyone) we tend to do the opposite, and frighten children into believing incredible things without evidence with the threat of harm for thinking critically, for doubting.

What makes something true is how well it works. — Athena

Then threatening people with eternal hellfire and burning them at the stakes are good practices, for they work!

I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.

Yes, the Holy Inquisition were "looking for God in everyone" as well.

In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.

But today is not yet the end of the story.
Take Nazism, for example: it's being rehabilitated. If the current trends are anything to go by, it might not take that much before it rises to power again.

The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.

Read again. Whose letters are you using to write this?

I think that both of us and others are concerned about what could be happening, or going to happen in the world. Remembering back to snippets of discussion I had with you In another thread, you spoke about how I saw ideas about superiority as problematic and you disagreed. I still see prejudice as a problem arising in relation to the dynamics of people trying to assert their sense of superiority over certain others. How do you view the source of the problem relating to a new wave of Nazism in the world?

Jack, you're such a romantic, such an idealist ...

Yes, I remember someone telling me that at work last year. I am still interested in hearing your point of view on the problem we have facing humanity, regarding the rise of Nazism once again.

I was raised not so much to question the ‘social order’ as to recognise multiple hierarchies of value and potential within it. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, after all, and there are many ways to ‘measure’ a man. My favourite catch-phrase of teens today is: ‘don’t judge’.

I think the first step in overcoming prejudice is to recognise it in ourselves and deconstruct it. I am essentially a white European, middle-class, university-educated English-speaker with a secure white-collar job, a happy marriage and two healthy, intelligent kids in private education. The capacity I have to understand the difficulties others face is limited, and starts with me recognising that I contribute unconsciously to a defence of the hierarchical structures of prejudice that edify me. When my ego takes a beating, when my sense of value or potential is low, I rely on these hierarchical structures to avoid suffering from experiences of loss, lack, pain or humility in how I relate socially. Most of the time it’s just a passing thought that reassures me quietly, but sometimes I have to choose between suffering and prejudice in my words and actions. The more I am already suffering, the more likely I am to choose prejudice. I am unconsciously motivated to act in ways that my conceptual structures predict will redress my internal balance of affect in the short term. This is how consciousness works.

But I also know that I am capable of enduring much more pain, humility, loss and lack than I’d like right now - and the more I experience incrementally, the stronger I get. This is how we build our capacity as human beings: our muscles are designed to be stretched just beyond their capacity, torn or ‘damaged’ and then built back stronger.

Your discussion of the relationship between suffering and prejudice raises some important points. I would say that it is so easy when one is feeling negative to see faults in others. Suffering can lead us to restrictive seeing or it can pave the way to compassion. I would say that I have found certain experiences of suffering have made me more opposed to prejudice. A simple example is how being teased a lot at school for many reasons probably made me dislike bullying of any kind. I think that there is a clear relationship between bullying and the oppression arising from prejudice.

Yes, we are all in various hierarchies. When I was working in mental health care, I was in the relationship of power over others. People had to to approach me to meet their needs. In that respect I was in the position of authority, and had to be mindful of the way I used power. We are living in a variety of situations involving power dynamics and it is useful to think of the way we face prejudice against ourselves or against others in those situations. I know that in many group situations that I am not that good at asserting myself. But it also makes me aware of others not being able to do this.

In many life situations, it is about us seeing how our preconceived ideas about others impact on the way we interact with them. Often, people judge by appearances. One book which I found useful for thinking about this, is 'Stigma' by Erving Goffman. In this book, Goffman speaks about how one characteristic of a person can stand out to the point where it clouds the perception of that person. I think that I have seen this when staff treat in public places, such as libraries or pubs treat certain individuals who may be dressed shabbily in an unpleasant way.

One particular group of people who are subject to prejudice are the mentally ill. I have been in social situations where I see people who are unwell mentally being treated without respect. However, I think that some people regard me as a bit 'strange' or eccentric, so I have a certain sense of being an 'outsider.'

But you are correct to say that we are all within various positions in various hierarchies. It is useful basis for reflection, as well as the way we relate to suffering. When we are feeling downcast, we can direct our energy negatively towards other or perhaps begin to feel compassion for others.

I am still interested in hearing your point of view on the problem we have facing humanity, regarding the rise of Nazism once again. — Jack Cummins

Romanticism and idealism are impotent against Nazism.

I can see that I am idealistic and that this has limitations. I am fearful of any rise in Nazism or any oppressive regime. Personally, I think the whole problem is extremely complex, but I am interested to know of what potential solutions you see, if any. Okay, I may be idealist but, surely, this is a better option than indifference.

Also, in consideration of prejudice I am not just thinking of collective movements, but the existence of prejudice in daily life.

Personally, I think the whole problem is extremely complex, but I am interested to know of what potential solutions you see, if any. — Jack Cummins

The Sun going nova.

Okay, I may be idealist but, surely, this is a better option than indifference.

I'm not indifferent, I just don't see a viable solution.

Also, in consideration of prejudice I am not just thinking of collective movements, but the existence of prejudice in daily life.

I think that in order to overcome prejudice of any kind, it would be necessary to have an outlook on life that would be both positive and realistic, so that people wlll look forward to internalizing it and live accordingly. An image of life where people can actually live together without prejudice.

There are limited settings in which people seem to be able to live together without prejudice -- such as forced labor camps, prisons, patients in mental health institutions. But nobody is looking forward to live in such a setting.

But as long as natural resources are scarce and it takes a considerable amount of work to obtain them, there is going to be a battle for survival, and as long as this is the case, prejudices are a necessity, with several functions, here to note some: as a heuristic for categorizing people into those that can help one in the battle, or those that don't; as a psychological tool to create boundaries between self and others; as a cognitive tool to make sense of the competition for resources.


Rather than dismissing prejudices right off the bat as bad and as something to overcome, it would be more profitable to look into the purposes they serve and take those as a starting point for talking about prejudices and overcoming them.

One thing I notice in your comment is that in the final paragraph you speak about the 'purposes' which prejudices serve and how this is 'a starting point for talking about prejudices and how this can be overcome.' This is an important point because it is connected to the question of whose advantage it is to overcome prejudice. This is where the power issue lies.

I would say that the whole history of liberation has involved questions of advantage and power. The most obvious ones are gender as well as race. These inequalities were addressed because they involved majorities. Half the population are female, so addressing sexism had to occur and white supremacy had to be addressed because it is not as if white people are really in the majority throughout the world.

The whole question of survival through competition for resources throws many questions open too. What has happened in the time of the pandemic is that the needs of the vulnerable have been a key concern. In particular, we do live in an ageist society in many ways and, at the same time, certainly in England, the whole focus of concern has been protecting the vulnerable. If we had been at an earlier stage of history, it could have been that there had been less concerned for the elderly. I do believe that we are at a stage in the life of humanity which has transcended the emphasis on 'the survival of the fittest'.

I am inclined to think that one of the problems with any current rise in Nazi values is more of a backlash against the way in which most people have already overcome a fair amount of prejudices already.

I think removing the desire to attribute characteristics to entire groups as if the group itself was an individual is a good place to start. — NOS4A2

That's all very well. But take the group of cunts. They're all cunts aren't they? They just are. Same with wankers, there's no non-wankers among them.

I just noticed your paragraph on the issue of prejudice in institutions and this is quite a topic in itself.

I can only speak from the basis of working within mental health institutions. One thing I was aware of was internalised prejudice in many ways. I believe that racism, sexism and the whole spectrum of prejudices were taking place in the organisations but it was hushed up, hidden away. However, on this hidden level prejudice was rife, but many staff were aware of it behind the scenes, closeted beneath policy agendas. Some of this was a backlash against attempts to overcome prejudice.

Also, many unwell patients had psychologically internalised prejudices. Here, I would say that it was not always the white patients who had prejudiced views against black people but the black ones too. There were a fair amount of black patients who wished to engage with white staff only.

Organisations and institutions are a very interesting area in which the whole dynamics of prejudice, and attempts to overcome it, may be seen in abundance.

Is that some dark humour?

Yeah, maybe. To be honest I don't know what it is. It struck me as the sort of thing a philosopher might say.

Actually I suppose there is a sort of point. You can make generalisations, and in doing so you create a group that that generalisation holds true for. But the act of generalising precedes the group. Or does it?

EDIT: I also find the cunt/wanker distinction interesting. These are undefined empty insults on the face of it, but they have an intuitive sense to me. There was a RHLSTP episode which included a brief discussion about it with Mark Steel.

https://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_lst_podcast/rhlstp_182_mark_steel/