"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:eb3l28pf6huj5j7mc...@4ax.com...
Putting the word in quote marks doesn't support your contentions. One can
quickly find history and definition of such terms as "racism" and "racial
discrimination" that include "Anglo Saxon" racism. And culture is not strictly
divorced from racism as regarded today, although it is a word you decided to use
in argument. I think it suffice to say that the Anglo-Saxon "world" is not
defined by a single culture, and "the French" are not defined as a single
culture in a geographic sense. "The French" can be regarded as an ethnic group,
as can "the English". Definitions and uses of the word "race" as applies to
"racism" is not separated from ethnic or cultural bias, and can be applied to
such concepts as "tribes" and "nationality"; there is a good reason why the word
is not well defined. Individuals decide what "race" is and who they discriminate
based on those ideas.
You say different "cultures" think differently. Does that mean that all French
individuals think alike? Are those that believe that French thinking is superior
to Jewish thinking, "bigots" or "racists? I think you placed yourself on a
dangerous path here, one that is liable to backfire on you. If how certain
individuals "think" is "different" from how another "thinks", it sounds less
like a "cultural" difference than a biological difference. Cultural differences
involve *what* is "thought of", not in the process of "how" people think.
However there has been much talk about those holding religious beliefs think
differently than more enlightened ones. There have been even been suggestions
that this is biological and evolutionary. Are these wordviews best described as
motivated by a fear or hatred? Remember, bigotry is identified by
discrimination, fear and hatred. Racism is not necessarily identified by the
inclusion of bigotry.
Here's one example of "Anglo-Saxon" racism:
"In a letter from Charles Darwin to John Fiske, dated from 1874, the naturalist
remarks: "I never in my life read so lucid an expositor (and therefore thinker)
as you are."
Nineteenth-century enthusiasm for brain size as a simple measure of human
performance, championed by scientists including Darwin's cousin Francis Galton
and the French neurologist Paul Broca, led Fiske to believe in the racial
superiority of the "Anglo-Saxon race". However, Fiske's racism was tempered by
commitment to African-American causes. Indeed, so anti-slavery was he that
twenty-three years after the cessation of the American Civil War, he declared
the North's victory complete "despite the feeble wails" of "unteachable
bigots."[2] In his book "The Destiny of Man" (1884), he devotes a whole chapter
to the "End of the working of natural selection upon man", describing it as "a
fact of unparalleled grandeur." In his view, "the action of natural selection
upon Man has ... been essentially diminished through the operation of social
conditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fiske_%28philosopher%29