2. “Asians are better at math” is an example of racism, as I understand it, because it attributes a universal characteristic to a group otherwise identified primarily by appearance. So no, inferiority is not always an element.

There is *no way* you can make a point out of this as it can be expressed from within a viewpoint that Asians are inferior to whitey. Sweeping generalisations about supposed ethnic characteristics usually are.

See my point #2.

3. Dominance is the issue. I refer you again to Authoritarian Personality. Try reading Altemeyer.

That’s what I said:

” My understanding of the term ‘racism’ is that superiority of the dominant group is automatically assumed and that the supposed inferiority of other groups is the core definition of the racist outlook. ”

So not sure what you are driving at?

I agree that tribalism is a loaded term but unsure how else to characterise the mutual antipathy between groups where each believes itself to be superior.

Some points:

1. “Tribalism” carries its own baggage of the colonial era. You or I might understand a nuanced interpretation, but it is one of those terms easily employed in aid of the very thing we are arguing against.

2. “Asians are better at math” is an example of racism, as I understand it, because it attributes a universal characteristic to a group otherwise identified primarily by appearance. So no, inferiority is not always an element.

3. Dominance is the issue. I refer you again to Authoritarian Personality. Try reading Altemeyer.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Racism perhaps works better with more Authoritarian individuals because it is simple. But it isn’t “innate”; if it were, we wouldn’t have that filthy miscegenation going on all the time.

However, the potential for Authoritarian behavior is innate, much as many otherwise educated and intelligent people would like to deny it. When chimps commit genocide, it isn’t because they think the other group is “inferior”, it is because following their aggressive leader without question has been a successful evolutionary strategy.

That is often not a feature of racism in other areas. Often, each group believes themselves to be dominant.

Might we not rather call this tribalism? My understanding of the term ‘racism’ is that superiority of the dominant group is automatically assumed and that the supposed inferiority of other groups is the core definition of the racist outlook.

In this respect, ‘American’ racism is identical to the colonial mindset underpinning white British racism even today.

Nice discourse, but I am being misunderstood I think.

I am not equating the group identity concept with racism. I am saying that your check-out clerk’s “USA specific racism” exists, is internalized, and maintained, because it is a way to establish and maintain membership in her group. Likewise, as Edgar points out, rejection of Evolution and other science, and acceptance of origin myths, and so on.

So, your original point about changing racist’s mind being really hard is correct, but not because there is something compelling about racism on an individual level. It’s because he and she don’t want to be rejected by their peers.

It may be that racism in particular is more appealing to those for whom group identity is most important, but as I said, we are all capable of being swayed in whatever direction the group leads. The more we mature and develop spiritually, of course, the less that is the case.