What do you think it would be like?

You know, if stereotypes were reversed?
If males were thought to be 'inferior', made to stay inside all day?
If females were thought to be the ones who should go out and do things?
If, throughout history, it had been black people oppressing white people?
If white people were still thought to be inferior?
Personally, I think it would be rather similar to how it is, but reversed...
Wondered what you guys thought.

...None of the views, by the way, are mine; I think that everyone is equal, whether male or female, black or white, or any of the other billion-and-one things used to discriminate. No-one should be thought inferior if they, as an individual, haven't proved that they are, which I don't think anyone can. Besides that even if they did, it would be no reason to discriminate against a group of people.

Why do people use the actions of one person, or small group of people, to discriminate against a larger group? They don't deserve it.

Haven't you basically described the entire scenario already? What's there left to discuss?

<Joseph: Night SHADE> said:

Why do people use the actions of one person, or small group of people, to discriminate against a larger group? They don't deserve it.

Click to expand...

This sort of dominance over each other has existed for centuries. Humans are psychologically programmed with stimuli that they enjoy or is pleasureful to them and stimuli that they may dislike. In the case of other races, discrimination may exist due to dislike for the other race through whatever reason - thinking of them as inferior due to presumed superiority in one skill or another. They certainly do not deserve it, but would humans truly care of egalitarianism to this degree? I would not believe so, and it has only appeared recently - even then, this discrimination is practiced throughout the world.

See also: The Wife of Bath's Tale.

People tend to use Inductive reasoning, just because it is easier, and never look at the total picture. Just like what my math teacher said, "If a person walked into a school, and the first ten people were males, he may assume that it is an all-male school." However, this is not necessarily true. Since humans have a hard time of saying that they are wrong, when he tells everyone that it is an all-male school, and happens to see a female, he makes up a reason and says that it is an exception to the rule. Thus, he has pretty much created a stereotype of the school.

I think about this and straight away consider the idea of a reversed Australian history. Say it had been Caucasians (probably English since that's the nationality we're we originally) instead of Australian Aborigines that originally lived down under... and the Aborigines were the ones to come and press their religion onto a race smaller in number and at the time not as technogically advanced, steal children with the sole (and extremely close-minded) intent of 'raising them correctly', going on mass slaughters; sometimes wiping out whole clans.

My, how things would differ in 2010. We'd be called horrendous names, judged, discriminated against. We'd be at the bottom of the economy and the health system, we'd be born into a world where we were the petrol sniffers and the bums on the side of the road begging with a throwaway coffee cup. "Got a dollar, luv?" The small extra funding from the government would - should we be born into a ghetto - be wasted on alcohol and cigarettes.

Gods, I can't STAND racism. Even the prospect of having to be a victim of it scares me. But should the roles be reversed, it is my race which should have to pay the price.

The only thing which frustrates me more than racism and sexism and ageism (etc) is the inability of some people to put themselves in the place of those they are discriminating against. I just don't understand why people can't (or won't) for simply a minute think about what it would be like if the stereotypes were actually reversed. "But they're not," is NOT the correct answer!

*gets off soap box*

The small extra funding from the government would - should we be born into a ghetto - be wasted on alcohol and cigarettes.

Click to expand...

Small? The funding is not the problem (the funding is actually quite substantial unless you're talking about really rural areas like alice springs and such); it's much more to do with education. Unfortunately a lot of indigenous families who do get money end up wasting it because they lack sufficient education to do much else with it other than spend it. :C It's also because their culture is vastly different to ours and thus it clashes horribly with our education system. There is so much funding being wasted because the government doesn't really seem to be interested in doing a lot more than throwing money at them and expecting it to get better, which it's not. :/ Hopefully this'll change with kRudd's 'closing the gap' thing.

We'd be at the bottom of ... the health system...

Click to expand...

Despite the fact that in Australia, we have a national health system and I'm fairly sure there's a benefit from the govt. for families who can't afford healthcare.

I'm all for Indigenous rights and such, but it's not nearly so bad as people make it out to be; coming from a school that was about 50% indigenous students I've seen how much funding goes into indigenous relations, education and wellfare, and it's not small, not by a longshot. It's just that the current generation don't really know what to do with it, because for the most part, they're poorly educated.

It'd be ... exactly the same as it is now, but with differently coloured people and cocks instead of tits.

It probably wouldn't be the same though because women are not as quick to violence, and that could mean that some wars might not happen and that other things could change. It is very interesting.
________
buy a condo in Pattaya

Mariodjw said:

It probably wouldn't be the same though because women are not as quick to violence, and that could mean that some wars might not happen and that other things could change. It is very interesting.

Click to expand...

Are they not? I know some very bloodthirsty women. The thinking that women are "meek and mild caregivers" comes from socialisation (granted, the "caregivers" part is kind of related to anatomy) and I don't know that we'd think the same thing if it hadn't been decided already.

The only way women would have been dominant is if they were more violent than men.

The reason patriatrchal societies beat the the others, is because in male-based societies, testosterone is obviously more abundant. If that makes sense.
So the more violent tribes defeat and absorb the weaker/peaceful tribes, and are in turn defeated and absorbed by even bigger, stronger tribes.

So it's not 'women would make the world a better place' and more 'women would be considered the violent gender'.

As for the black over white thing. Eh~ Exactly the same. The only way it would be different would be if there were fundamental differences between black and white minds. Which I don't think there aree.

Though, of course, I'm talking out my ass here.