Discrimination

AN oil embargo helped end apartheid in South Africa. Another thing that helped end apartheid was that in 1991 the South African government repealed apartheid laws.

Discrimination of Jewish people is baseless and is not only practised by Americans but by people across the world in general. During World War 2, the fanatical misanthrope, Adolph Hitler managed to convince Germany, Austria and their allies that the Jewish people were the cause of the world's poor economy. Under threats of retribution, he also forced many other countries to "give up the Jews" and rid the world of them. During their long history stretching back over 2000 years, the Jewish people have always been an industrious and hard-working people such that they were seen to be possessed of wealth. Eventually, the Nazis also added many other groups of people to their discrimination list: Jewish sympathisers, Roman Catholics, political opposition, homosexuals and the Romany (Gypsies).

Many religious groups especially the Roman Catholics, were encouraged to look upon the Jewish people as "the murders of Jesus Christ" in that they convinced Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus. As a former Roman Catholic, I can say that the Church, in days gone by encouraged their faithful in this belief. There are also other fundamentalist religious groups including the notorius Ku Klux Klan and Neo Nazis who still believe in the extermination of the Jews. Discrimination of any group of people including the Jewish people, for any religious or cultural reason is totally abhorrent.

Racism rarely played a direct role in imperialism but was an important factor nonetheless. States generally act in their own interests, and in a way that maximizes those interests. However, Europeans (just like anyone else) are people, and people aren't comfortable with subjugating others in a general sense. Imperialism was something that was viewed as beneficial to the national interests of European states, and so they pursued imperial aims, but in order to justify those aims they generally ran to racist arguments; for instance, the British "burden of the white man" or the French "spreading civilization". All of these actions were taken to further the national interest but were justified in humane terms. Because they were uniformly manifested as the "whites" helping the backwards "others", subconscious racism was certainly involved, although never the chief objective.

For more than 40 years, people inside and outside South Africa protested against the practice of apartheid. Many Black Africans, including Nelson Mandela, were jailed for there opposition to it. The United Nations declared apartheid "A crime against humanity". Many countries cut off trade with South Africa.

Unfortunately there are still many forms of discrimination.

Please see the related question and the links from there. The extermination camps were in Nazi occupied Poland. Many of the ordinary concentration camps were in Germany, but there were also some in Poland.

yes but if ur half emo ur not called emo ur called scene.ppl dat r scene have a emo hair cut but hav color stricks. they hav emo clothes but its more colorful. i should know im scene, used too be emo any more Q just ask me.... XxXxXxXxX conversechick XxXxXxXxX

There was not any "one law" of segregation. Segregation was a social and legal practice and custom which, during the time it was in effect, was supported and imposed by MANY local, state, and national laws, as well as social mores.

African-Americans used a combination of boycotts, sit ins and marches early in the Civil Rights movement to challenge Jim Crow laws and gain equal rights. Activists also pushed for and won legislation that struck down barriers in education, housing and employment.

It is unfortunate to have prejudice against any human on the basis of religion, race, color or country. All human beings are the off-spring of a single couple - Hazrat Adam (AS) and Hazrat Eve (AS). As such we are all brotheren. All of us have equal fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, practically it does not happen. Different people have prejudice against others. It is not the case only with the Muslims or Arabs. Anyhow, sane minded persons don't nourish prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. The Muslims are living in many countries of the world. No one dislikes them if they abide by the law of the land.

As concerns terms, Prejudice towards Muslims can be called Anti-Mohammedanism and Islamophobia, and Prejudice toward Arabs is typically called Anti-Arab Sentiment.

Yes WWII was caused by racism lots other things have been caused by racism that is not a war like how Holland decided to burn the Qu'ran every year and in the USA some man tried to do it aswell but he rethinked the idea. The BNP wants everyone who is not white deported from the country(UK).

its the usual: look,stare,smile, and flirt.

The Constitution isn't necessarily racist, but rather a reflection of the time it was written. The USA had the Articles of Confederation at the time, which were a total disaster. For the Constitution to be ratified, 9/13 votes were necessary. Slavery, at the time, was a big thing among the Southern states, and if the creators of the Constitution were to abolish slavery and give the slaves equal rights as other men, the Southern states would've denied it and not look back, and then it never would've been ratified.

Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem are two "second-wave feminists." The first wave of feminism began in the mid-1800s (starting in 1848, at Seneca Falls, NY). Many people believe the second wave began when Betty Friedan published her book "The Feminine Mystique" in 1963. Throughout the 1960s and beyond, Friedan and Steinem were leaders of the social movement that came to be called "women's liberation." The two women came from very different backgrounds and life stories, but they worked together tirelessly to improve conditions for women and to fight against sexism in the popular culture.

I believe they did and still do, and if you want a simple example, then go search and read about all the ugly murders of black people in Germany by locals , and that didnt happen long time ago. And ofcourse we all know how their history is loaded with hatred against the Jews, specially in Nazi Germany, but to be fair most europeans hated the Jews too and discriminated them.

I hope my brieft answer helps you.

she was a champion of women's rights in the vein of Betty Friedan and the like, remembered for her activism and was the face of the women's rights movement in the 60's. She famously said "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle".

Massacre is called mass killing.

For committing a genocide, one may no even have to kill any one.

Genocide may include the following points present in this article given below ;

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

If one migrates to a foreign country it's usually a disadvantage to have a name that is difficult to pronounce for people in the new country - for example, the kind of name that is written with clusters of 3-5 consonants. However, it takes much more than a change of name if one is to avoid persecution in an intolerant environment.

Answer 2

Sometimes they did - context was everything. In late 19th/ early 20th century Britain, for example, many Jewish immigrants from Central Europe already had "Germanised" versions of Hebrew names - eg Neumann, Weiss etc - and often these were "Anglicised" to "Newman", "White" etc. Ironically, they feared not so much anti-semitism per se, but rather anti-German prejudice.

Sephardic names (eg Shapiro) were less problematic, mainly because Jewish arrivals often lived alongside the large Italian community in London, and such Jewish names sounded Italian to most people anyway. Jews from Russia, Galicia, the Baltic etc often adopted names that were common in the areas into which they moved: frequently, therefore, in London, & other large cities like Manchester, they took Irish names like Brady, Donovan, Casey, Moody etc, or common Anglo-Scottish names like Mitchell, Green, Armstrong, Lawson, Brown, Fisher etc - usually choosing ones which approximated most closely to their original names. A lot of this was for administrative convenience (officials, bank staff etc had fewer problems recording such familiar names than names of Russian or Polish origin) as much as to avoid anti-semitism.

Finally, it's worth noting that some prominent British Jews actually adopted names which explicitly proclaimed their Judaism - the best example being Benjamin Disraeli, the reforming Conservative politician & Prime Minister in 19th century Britain. Disraeli was largely responsible for the 2nd Reform Act (1867) which nearly doubled the electorate, and he was a forthright critic of British policies in Ireland. Disraeli was a favorite of Queen Victoria (there were even rumors that they were lovers), and in 1876 he was made Earl of Beaconsfield.

Although a convert to Christianity, Disraeli was always proud of his Jewish heritage, & most believe his very name was the indicator of where his spiritual heart lay. Certainly, his commitment to social reform (eg a major Public Health Act, 1875) was consistent with Jewish thinking, and his attainment of the highest public office was an indicator that Jewish origins were no longer a significant bar to advancement in Britain.

Any person who believes he or she has been directly harmed by false negative statements made by an individual has the option to file suit to recover damages. Please bear in mind that states establish laws and criteria for filing any civil suit and it might be wise for the interested party to discuss the matter with an attorney or legal advisor before taking further action.

A quote by Robert Louis Stevenson. It means to hide the truth by not saying anything. Example: one spouse is cheating on the other. The knowledge that the cheated on spouse would leave if the cheating were discovered, so no confession ever comes. The silence is a lie, because it is allowing the other to believe everything is fine when it isn't. - A lie of omission is the "cruelest of lies," because it takes away the power of the other person to act.

You're not born with racism, but you are born with a tendency to place things into groups and stereotype. You're also born with a sensitivity to skin color, so most the human groups your brain forms are based on skin color and race. When you begin describing these groups based on skin color, people you are around who are already racist affect your descriptions of the racial groups. Also, you look closer at people with different skin colors, and so you are more likely to notice flaws found in all humans. You believe that they are characteristic of only the race since you never notice these in people with a "normal" skin color that you don't analyze as closely.

The problem with violence is that it reinforces the self-belief of the racists themselves. Physically attacking a racist may make the victim of racism feel good for a while, but nothing changes. Avoiding violence or returning abuse may allow time for other solutions to work. Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and many others have shown that non-violence can be more effective. Having said that, I think everyone has the right to self-defence, if the racist actually resorts to physical violence. The above answer is most certainly correct, although, as pointed out some kind of violence may be necessary as a last resort. If so, this should only be done by the relevant authorities, after due process and not as a measure for retaliation but only protection.

It also depends what one's ultimate aim is. If one fights fire with fire, then often this just produces an escalation of violence, and a vicious cycle of violence and one is ultimately no better off than before, and in many cases worse off, even if one was originally innocent.

Attacking racism with knowledge is one important non-violent measure. This is so, since it really is the inner attitude of the racist person that needs to be changed. Realizing that scientifically and Biblically we are all 'of one blood' helps to dispel racist myths about superiority.

Interestingly, in regard to medical donations such as blood and tissue donations, a person of a different colored skin can actually be a better match than a person of the same skin color. This is so because humans are essentially genetically the same regardless of skin color. This shows how superficial racism is. Knowing that white people can donate to black people and vice-versa, and can even be a better match than a fellow black or white person, should help to attack the fallacy of racism at the practical and factual level.

Promoting such knowledge is a non-violent attack on racist attitudes.

Yes, there has been racism since mankind was first created.