Racism

The missing word is determined.

B) Some governments have used it as a means to exert power even though the basis for racial discrimination is unfounded.

Answer 1

Palestinians Lebanese Jordanians are considered Europeans so yeah they are white.

Answer 2

It depends on how "dark" a white person can be before they are considered a different race. According to the United States census, Arabs are not sufficiently dark to merit being their own race and are lumped with Europeans under the term Caucasian. Most people, in their day to day lives, do not consider Arabs to be ethnically the same as Europeans and in this case, Palestinians would be an Arab population.

Black people are not, as a group, any more ignorant than any other ethnicity or nationality. Condi Rice, as a single example, is arguably one of the most intelligent people alive today; she is black and no credible individual could ever call her ignorant. There are certainly millions of extremely intelligent black people in the world, just as there are groups of ignorant and undereducated people of all races.

In the end, it all comes down to opportunity, motivation, health, and financial ability to pursue education. If a parent has the financial ability to be home from work to be with the child to properly teach and guide them in all aspects of life (education being one of the most important), then that child will have a better chance to become another Condi or Obama, as long as they have the normal capacity to learn (which is in no way race-specific) along with opportunity, motivation, health, and finances. Without proper guidance from parents or another role model, the child can have less curiosity and a lowered desire to learn.

But, obviously, in the US nowadays, there is an enormous imbalance in opportunity and finances between the rich and the poor and the middle class becomes smaller and smaller as the economy and lack of jobs pushes them into the poor category.

It is the social inequity that makes educational opportunity less available to people of all types in the US rather than genetics. That means more than before, better education is being provided to those who have the financial means to go to school rather than to the general public through government programs and opportunities. The poor have to work many more hours (if they are lucky enough to be employed) to support themselves and family, leaving precious little time for educational pursuits.

There is absolutely no way to know when racist thought began; however, we can extrapolate the reason for its existence.

First, consider that every single person who lives, has lived, and will live is racist to some degree. Racism originates from the instinctive behavior of identifying differences. People, like animals, instinctively identify the alien (or perceived alien) among them. Animals (I include people in this) are naturally cautious of the "outsider," and for good reason. The outsider may represent a threat to the individual or the community as a whole. Therefore, there is no wrong in being aware and cautious of someone you perceive as different. Blind acceptance of what other perceive as difference however is a relatively new concept in the history of the human race, and a path down which lies many potential dangers.

Second, there are two types of "racism." There is racist perception, that is the natural propensity to identify someone who is visibly different than oneself, that which is discussed above; and, there is racist behavior. There are far too many examples of racist behavior to list. Consider though that racist behavior is any sort of action by an individual or group that is unfairly and needlessly aggressive to another simply due to the color of that person's skin or their perceived ethnicity.

People do not have the right to act aggressively first to anyone. Simply put, leave action until action is necessary. No one can support racist behavior with any compelling evidence. It is knee-jerk, reactionary, and often simple bullying. There is only one effective way to deal with bullying and that is to introduce the bully to the receiving end of such.

The argument can be made that "this only proves that bullying works. It completes the circle, so to speak. It teaches that violence is OK."

While violence can never be okay, it remains occasionally necessary. I hate to use this as an example, but a recent event lends itself well to making my point. Several weeks ago, a gunman opened fire in a Tuscon, Arizona shopping center, killing six and wounding fourteen others. Bystanders, who themselves were unarmed, grabbed the gunman, wrestled him to the ground, and disarmed him, holding him there until law enforcement arrived. They did not try to reason with him. They did not stop to explain to him the error of his ways and how his actions might be harming people around him both physically and emotionally. They put him on the ground and held him there. They did not do this in a gentle, loving way. They did it with violence.

I recognize that not all people are capable of such quick thought or action, or even able to determine when an appropriate violent response is warranted; however, the inability to recognize that violence is part of human nature--be it racist acts, simple discrimination, or separatist beliefs--some things need to be stood up for and addressed, and sometimes in addressing them, violent response is the only option. One other quick example to support the argument. In 1938 the Nazi party sent the German military into Poland and WW2 began. Racism was a central issue in this war. Millions of people were sent to the gas chambers and gunned down for no other reason than they did not fit the ethnic ideals of those in power. The world did not stand by and try to reason with Hitler and the Nazis, to convince them that they were hurting others because of perceived differences related to ethnicity. No, those countries who fought back did so with bombs, and bullets. And when the fighting was done, they put the perpetrators on trial, convicted them of war crimes, and then stretched their necks.

The identification of the origins of such that cannot possibly be identified only clouds the issue. Sometimes understanding what a thing is, is all that is necessary to try to combat it.

Sentences using the noun equality - (being) the same in, for example, quantity, status, value or measure - include:

'My clients tried to demonstrate equality in their workplace by providing both management and office staff with new computers; it cost them a lot and simply made everyone cynical.'

'All the staff can see there is no real equality in that corporation and cannot be: someone must run the place.'

'To achieve a desirable perception of equality it would cost less and make more sense to offer all staff similar privileges, and constraints, where possible.'

'An equality of surface is essential when maintaining a tennis court.'

We frequently view the word 'equality' in terms of people, and especially in terms of the rights of people: human rights.

In one of the most famous examples of this, the US Constitution, the concept of the equality of man means that all men are deemed equal and thus automatically have the common right to equality in all aspects of their lives.

However, there are other definitions of equality when it comes to human society. For instance, an ambassador from one country is considered equal in rank to an ambassador from another country; people holding an official position are considered to possess equality of rank with their counterparts in another city, another state or another country.

These people will take precedence in order of rank at, say, an official reception when being introduced to the guest of honor. Outside of official duties their office or title might also accord them privileges not available to those of lesser (unequal) rank.

However, where human rights are concerned, these rights are considered by many nations to transcend any question of rank, so that the poorest newborn in a country would be said to be automatically entitled to the same rights as the child born at the same moment to the ruler of that country. In theory.

In practice, who among us can swear with utter honesty that we'd offer equally generous treatment to our head of state and to a beggar on the street?

Perhaps a good example of equality might be our likely equality of response to that question.

It has been said that many people want equality on the condition that it's equality with those they consider superior to themselves. The worker wants equality with their boss, who wants equality with the corporation owner, and so on.