A few months ago James Watson of Double Helix fame, got into trouble for saying that coloured people are not as bright as white people according to provable, scientific fact (Gallileo'But it moves'). If this is so, then why the furore? If it was propaganda, aimed at keeping black people in their place, then yes it should be disputed but if it is true then it is a position to be worked from. As with Emotional Intelligence this doesn't mean we poor white people aren't better adapted for the heat than our darker skinned cousins and for us to be out in the Tropics is itself stupid and that maybe we should get back to where we belong, rather than force ourselves to live in conditions we're not properly adapted to.
I'm not just on about colour but sexism, homophobia and attacks upon people because of their beliefs. The scientific, rational (nuetral) stance is of difference/ same/ similar as political hatred talks of better/ worse (emotional reaction). The knee jerk reaction of Islamic countries to something like a cartoon or a film, is over the top and is itself proof of fear - not amongst Muslims themselves but the frightened wannabe's amongst them, out to prove their worth (A rational person is a rational person and their sex, sexual persuasion, race, beliefs (political or religious) is not affected by the fear that drives the insecure.
Prejudice is a defence reaction to percieved threats (not necessarily real ones), by those who fear loss of the loved one/ belief. It keeps 'the other' at arms length, for fear of contamination (contagion abberation). This is seen most often in the mentally challenged (Those with learning difficulties) as opposed to those with physical problems because they don't have the mental weaponry to defend themselves with (innocent). This is why in the playground they are more likely to get bullied or be upset by it.
This is why prejudice is a generalised attack because the truth is never known or investigated (Passive prejudice excludes as with appartheid or the Berlin Wall - active prejudice is the attempt to push away the feared individual or group, through verbal or physical abuse and the former is sometimes the only way to control that violence by creating physical barriers between the fighting factions: 'Good fences make good neighbours').
Why is it that some people in certain groups get attacked but other do not? Could it be trying to force groups together rather than letting them find a common ground, only makes the situation worse? (Freedom of choice works - force and trying to do the right thing (Political Correctness), only keeps the wounds of hate open). Segregation is as necessary (Ghettoes)for people to feel safe with what they consider their own kind as No Mans Land is necessary, for the exchange of differences by those bored with the limits of their existences (conformist culture/ beliefs).
I hope these few thoughts will stimulate a few new ideas because this is not the end of this debate and I'm sure new thoughts, new inniatives can come from moving this out into the open (Not too much hatred I hope but I expect some people will react without reading all of the post)
----------------
Author of 'Empty Thoughts from an Empty Head' and other trivia including 'Logic Lists English, the cure for illiteracy (allegedly)
'.
