Racism

Racism was brought to the new world with the first Europeans who came here, and the Native Americans who lived here already probably already had some ideas that we would now consider racist.

Yes.

In 1934 there was a purge of people who opposed their beliefs, but generally they were sent to concentration camps, some were released after re-education, but most remained imprisoned until the end of the war (those who survived). These were the people who made up the bulk of the 'Kapos' in the concentration camps (along with violent criminals).

Perhaps and perhaps not. It is something that only you can examine and it is something that you should seek an answer to. Seek counseling.

yes!!!

well, it depends on the people. like, if you knew someone who was black and you didnt like them but for different reasons, that's one thing.

if you just don't like black people in general, then you are racist.

and many people would call you a bigot too.

The color barrier, among others.

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?
Readings Selected and Introduced by John David Smith In 1954 the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Educationbranded the "separate but equal" principle a fallacy, thereby undermining the legal foundation of the Jim Crow South. The following year, C. Vann Woodward published The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Woodward’s book can be read as a companion piece to the Supreme Court case; contrary to the claims of many southern whites (and most historians of the South), Woodward argued that segregation was not deeply rooted in southern history but rather was a modern innovation of the New South, one which replaced a postwar environment characterized more by relative fluidity than by rigid separation in racial relations. Woodward’s thesis was innovative, if not unprecedented. Strange Career both raised immediate implications—if Jim Crow was a creature of law rather than custom, then laws could destroy it—and established itself as the thesis by which all others would be forced to measure themselves. As John David Smith makes clear, Woodward has always had critics as well as disciples. In his introduction to When Did Southern Segregation Begin?, Smith presents a brief history of Jim Crow as well as its historiography. By perusing the historical studies that follow, students will enter into the debate over the origins of the racial policies that have done so much to shape American history since Emancipation. Fittingly, excerpts from Strange Career constitute the first selection. Woodward draws upon the observations of visitors to the South in the 1870s and 1880s who often express surprise at the lack of racial separation and hostility. (What do such observations suggest about race relations in the North at that time?) Woodward then offers reasons for the imposition of a rigid system of legal segregation beginning in the 1890s. Are these reasons specific to southern society, or do they reflect national concerns as well? Students should consult their other course readings for contemporaneous historical developments and consider the ways such developments might help to explain the establishment of southern Jim Crow legislation. What impact did the Populist movement have on southern race relations? Did the rapidly proliferating Jim Crow laws of the early twentieth century represent a distinct, regional category of racial legislation, or can they be seen more generally as products of progressivism? To pose a question dear to his critics, how does Woodward use such terms as "Jim Crow" and "segregation," and how does his definition of these terms influence his argument? An excerpt from Joel Williamson’s work on South Carolina during Reconstruction suggests how careful historians need be in defining their terms. Williamson was one of the first historians to take issue with the Woodward thesis; in this selection, he argues that racial separation by custom (de facto segregation) was typical well before the establishment of legally codified (de jure) segregation. Once the forced contact between whites and freed blacks of the antebellum plantation system was abolished, what types of racial separation occurred, according to Williamson? To what extent was such separation voluntary rather than coerced? In this connection, students might consider the enthusiasm with which former slaves established their own separate churches, the desire among many freedmen to reside away from the gaze of local whites, and the increasing tendency of South Carolina whites to withdraw from institutions that failed to enforce a de facto color line. Does Williamson’s piece suggest that Jim Crow legislation followed "naturally" from an earlier, customary separation of races? Woodward would concede that de facto racial separation and discrimination existed prior to the mania for Jim Crow laws, but how, or whether, one developed from the other remains an open question. Edward L. Ayers argues that the rise of Jim Crow was more attributable to structural developments than to purposeful racism, as is suggested by his claim that "most of the debates about race relations focused on the railroads of the New South." Ayers, like Woodward, emphasizes a postwar period of flux in race relations. How did rapid industrialization in the New South (and particularly the belated spread of railways) change forms of interaction between southern blacks and whites? Why were first-class rail cars so often the sites of racial antagonism, and why was racial animosity so often directed at well-dressed black men and women? Asking such questions will not only generate debate about the rise of Jim Crow but will also allow students to consider the interaction of race and class in the New South. Barbara Y. Welke adds gender to the analytical mix in her study of the development of railway segregation policies, noting that segregation of the sexes was common on rail lines prior to racial segregation. Did sexual segregation serve as the legal model for its racial counterpart? What does Welke’s examination of court cases based on railroad common law tell us about southern conceptions of womanhood and about the potential for black women to be defined by gender rather than racial standards? (How did the status of "white womanhood" in the South serve as a pretext for white coercion—including extralegal coercion—of black men?) What role did railroad corporations play in the establishment of the "separate but equal" doctrine eventually used to constitutionally justify southern segregation—and why were the companies typically displeased by the prospect of segregating their trains? Woodward’s work alludes to "forgotten alternatives" to legal segregation. One of his critics, Howard N. Rabinowitz, focuses upon what he takes to be the most obvious alternative, arguing that segregation supplanted racial exclusion rather than integration. Further, Rabinowitz claims that the majority of southern whites would have preferred to continue and to extend exclusionary policies, had laws and constitutional amendments issuing from congressional reconstruction not precluded that option. Does examination of the many public and private facilities that excluded blacks prior to Plessy v. Fergusonchange the way students perceive either the impact of Reconstruction or the implications of the "separate but equal" legal doctrine? How did African Americans attempt to shape this process themselves, to their own ends? Students might consider Rabinowitz’s analysis of black boycotts against southern streetcar lines (a presentiment of the Montgomery Bus Boycott?) or examine his evidence that blacks tended not to seek integration any more than whites did, but rather sought facilities of equal quality and, whenever possible, control over them. The emphasis on racial oppression that justly characterizes historical studies of Jim Crow should not blind students to the ways in which African Americans attempted to derive benefits from segregation. Leon F. Litwack reminds readers, however, that at bottom Jim Crow was a means of keeping southern blacks "in their place." According to Litwack, why did de jure segregation spread so rapidly around the turn of the twentieth century? What was the influence of a younger generation of blacks, who had never known slavery and struck many whites as unduly assertive, contrary to white notions of "racial etiquette"? Litwack also analyzes the ideal of southern white womanhood; does gender form as central a component in his explanation of Jim Crow as in Welke’s? Litwack’s piece offers many examples of Jim Crow as it was applied to a wide variety of arenas of social interaction. From the vantage point of the present, many of these examples will strike readers as patently absurd—and appropriately so. Whatever view students take of C. Vann Woodward’s thesis, they will likely agree that Jim Crow’s was a strange career indeed.

No, not as a whole. You cannot generalize to a single race. There are evil people in every race, even if it seems to you that one race or another has more evil people. Income level tends to have some bearing on this, as the people at both extremes have more opportunities to become evil. If you are very poor, nobody cares about you or notices you, so there is a vacuum in which you can develop evil.

If you are very rich, you can use your wealth, power, and connections to very evil things. For instance, consider a certain white political family living in the US, with key critics of theirs just disappearing or appearing to have committed suicide in impossible ways. So why aren't they convicted for making their opponents and whistleblowers who could get them sent to prison disappear? Because they are powerful. I mention this only because it is an example of evil happening from people other than what was asked, and thus nullifies the scope of the question and shows that any race can have evil people in it.

Im pretty sure when you aboriginal and have been a victim of racism it emotionaly harms you. And if you are the person saying these racial slures then you must have some emotional problems urself. It cant be very fun hurting someone like that. And what would make you do that in the first place. Lets just say your a whire person and you walk up to someone and call them a racist name like 'Chef' or 'Prairie N.' how would you like it if they called you cracker or trailer trash. Not very much i bet. and even then there isn't that many racist names you can call a white person other then that. So really it Effects the victim and the person saying the racial slure.

The Black Panther Society/Party was founded in 1966 by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton.

The white minority ruled South Africa. -apex

economic sanctions would seriously damage the south african economy :) novanet cheeter

Apartheid was all about a small group of people, led by supporters of the National Party, denying access to power to a much larger majority. The end of Apartheid was defined by that minority group losing power and the majority, led by supporters of the African national Congress Party, assuming power.

After the end of Apartheid, the power was in the hands of the political leadership of the African National Congress. The ANC at that time was led by Nelson Mandela.

There's no true way to solve racism. But people are racist because they don't understand the beauty of different cultures, or their hearts are are weak. Remember though with time comes change and that change can be bad or good.

But just remember this my friend:

All living things born unto this world are born with the right to life. And there's no one who can take this right away.

And who are we to take the life of another or judge another?

If you remember this then we as human beings can solve racism. You could have all races mate and blend into a single race. In time this may happen, you can't have racism with only one race.

Louis Farrakhan had a huge impact on the world by making them believe that you can fight racism and slavery only if we try and stand up against bad racist pen the world that try to put people down and ruin their lives and that is how he changed our lives in the world

Bigotry is intolerance or prejudice, especially of a religious or racial nature.

well most of all because he was African American involved i the civil rights movement and they strived for African Americans to have their freedom and be treated as equals towards whites.

also because he believed in peace, and non-violent activity so he wanted everyone to be able o live together in harmony and didnt believe an the violent activity that most whites put upon blacks.

that's most of why, but theres alot more to it. :)

well most of all because he was African American involved i the civil rights movement and they strived for African Americans to have their freedom and be treated as equals towards whites.

also because he believed in peace, and non-violent activity so he wanted everyone to be able o live together in harmony and didnt believe an the violent activity that most whites put upon blacks.

that's most of why, but theres alot more to it. :)

well most of all because he was African American involved i the civil rights movement and they strived for African Americans to have their freedom and be treated as equals towards whites.

also because he believed in peace, and non-violent activity so he wanted everyone to be able o live together in harmony and didnt believe an the violent activity that most whites put upon blacks.

that's most of why, but theres alot more to it. :)

well most of all because he was African American involved i the civil rights movement and they strived for African Americans to have their freedom and be treated as equals towards whites.

also because he believed in peace, and non-violent activity so he wanted everyone to be able o live together in harmony and didnt believe an the violent activity that most whites put upon blacks.

that's most of why, but theres alot more to it. :)

No. Saying someone is a "white female" or a "black male," for example, is not racist.

No. He was one of a good number of Southerners who opposed slavery. He was actually quite the Southern Gentleman, more of a gentleman than Grant was. Lee never smoked, drank alcohol, or cursed in public. Many of his superiors in previous years viewed him as the best soldier since George Washington. He definitely wasn't racist.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained."

General Robert E. Lee, May 1, 1870

It is clear that Robert E. Lee was not waging a war because he was in favor of slavery. His valiant efforts were to protect Virginia and other Southern states from Union invasion. At best his chances of success were always 50-50 or less.

It is also important to separate slavery from racism. It's clear that in those days and farther into the future, even some abolitionists were against slavery but did not believe in the equality of races. If that were not so, then men like Martin Luther King Jr. must have been wasting their time. Racism is real in almost every part of the world. And it covers evil voices of any color or race one can think of.

They are not, no more than any other group of people.

This prior answer below is an excellent example of stereotypical and offensive racial bigotry and gender/sexism bias, and is totally incorrect:

Blacks typically come from low income households. Low income households generally do not make enough to feed all of their children, so black children are especially hostile because their parents can't afford proper food for them. On another note, Blacks are typically single parents. Black females make bad decisions roughly at the young age of 16 and get impregnated with multiple children. These children, of course, lack all sense of discipline and get ... [okay, THAT's enough!]

See the related question below about why blacks are tough, for more information about bigotry and stereotyping this way.

Racism is not a subculture but a common belief that members of a subculture known as "skinheads" share.

It destroys community cohesion and creates divisions in society

He Spoke Up & Made Sure That His Words Were Being Heard.'! He Fought, As In Didn't Let Anyone Control Him Because Of His Race.'! He Marched For Segregation To End. He Did A Lot. I Cannot Give Everything So Go To The Library Or Something..

No they are just mythological creatures talked about in fairy-tales and fictional stories. Their is a lot of evidence proving that they don't exist. We like to think some where out there humans do exist but at last, they don't. It would be pretty cool to see a real live human, but there is just as a chance of seeing a unicorn, or giant man eating slug.