By 2100 racism will no longer be a significant phenomenon in most countries of the world.

I think this is a pipe dream. As I feel that the way the reverse racism has metamorphosed into terrorism , we would be more inclined to differentiate. We would at the least become nationalists . I feel that the west fought to erase racism. Iam Indian living in canada no one has been racist to me so far quite honestly....But the middle east is now creating the anti american anti white doctrine.. Racism will still exist only it will be of the reverse variety.
shakti Niranjchana
AUTHOR

Discrimination against people who are perceived as being different is not merely a learned behavior, but also a natural one. As such, it's not likely to be eradicated in the foreseeable future.

However, it's not impossible that cultural changes in the next near-century will eradicate -- in some places -- the concept of "racism", per se. There would still be discrimination by perceived type, but "race", as such, would not be a conscious component of it.

This seems pretty darn unlikely, though. And I don't see many other halfway-realistic ways that racism might likely be eradicated.

Nevertheless, there's another sticking point, the phrase "in most countries". Even if we take the simplest interpretation, that this means "more than 50% of existing countries" and no more, it still seems enormously unlikely.

Racism may be insignificant ... by virtue of being overshadowed by religious intolerance and nationalism.

True, although that's a pretty crappy way to win the bet . . . .

Still, can't argue with your logic.

Are there any countries where, in the author's opinion, racism is not a significant phenomenon in 2003?

There's no way that this bet will be won. The only way I see racism being eliminated is if race is eliminated (through enough interatial breeding). The reason is that each race IS different. Perhaps not in the ways people currently discriminate in (I very much believe that black people as a race are less educated, not less intelligent), but differences exist. For example, the African race is a physically stronger race than others, just as man are the physically stronger sex. It's not about culture, it's genetic. The big problem with this bet is definitions. If you define racism as discrimination, then perhaps it could disappear, but a better definition of racism is stereotyping. And as long as any difference exist in two or more groups there will be stereotyping. It's human nature to group things with common characteristics together.

Hi Thomas,

I do not know of any country in 2003 in which racism is not a significant phenomenon.

I can't point to any group of people and say "They have already done it, all that others need to do is follow their example." I do know individuals who have eliminated much of their own racist ideas and attitudes.

An example of something that has some similarities is the elimination of slavery as a significant phenomenon in most of the countries of the world.

Hi Mike,

I think the most useful defintion of racism is that it is a form of oppression: systematic mistreatment of members of a particular group of people based on their racial characteristics. Of course there will always be noticeable and interesting differences between individuals. Humans will always notice these differences. But, it is my expectation that humans will not always mistreat each other, in an organized way, based on these differences.

How about something like "During the decade ending December 31, 02100, no more than five cases (total) involving racial discrimination will be brought before the highest courts of the governments of the twenty most populous countries" ?

Heh. Of course this could also be true if the twenty most populous countries become _so_ racist that such cases cannot be brought to court.

Quote:
I do not know of any country in 2003 in which racism is not a significant phenomenon.

I'd guess there are contries in which a large proportion of the population would claim that racisim is not a significant phenomenon. Possibly Japan for one.

This prediction will not come true *because* of human nature.

People are always going to have a sense of "Us" against "Them", and if you're not one of Us...

There may be a significant reduction of OVERT racism, but people will hold on to old hatreds and streotypes for a Very long time. It's going to take a lot of deliberate action and education to elimintate racism on this planet, and a Lot longer than a mere century.

My $0.02, BillyName99

Paul Blay said: I'd guess there are contries in which a large proportion of the population would claim that racisim is not a significant phenomenon. Possibly Japan for one.

I don't doubt that a lot of people would claim that racism wasn't significant, but that doesn't make it so, of course, which was probably your point. Japan -- and don't get me wrong; I love Japan -- is actually a very racist country. Much moreso than the US, in fact, although it shows in different ways. Frex, in Japan, if you're a full-blooded Japanese but were born outside the country, many people will never regard you as being 'really' Japanese.

I'll say it again: No matter how homogeneous a society becomes, people find reasons to balkanize themselves and discriminate against one another. Race, per se, may not always be the rubric used, but I doubt it's ever completely out of the mix.

(Note that this doesn't necessarily apply to "societies" below a certain minimum size. Very small populations do not always feel the same inside-outside psychological pressure that larger populations inevitably deal with. But the lower threshold is somewhere near the natural 'band', ie, tribe number, probably not more than around 100 individuals.)

We could do with a better definition of 'signficant'.

How about ... an organisation* (such as Amnesty International) will record less than __ incidents alleged to be of a racist nature in the period of __ years up to 2100.

* One that tracks govermental (and other) abuses on an international and (generally) impartial basis.

Hi Paul,

The question I would be asking, in general, is something like “Does race/skin colour really make no significant difference in this society?” Some ways I can think of to measure this:

In a country we could look at the distribution of wealth, health status, educational level, etc. Are people of colour poorer, more likely to be sick and less likely to get good health care? Do they have less formal education?

We could look at the representation of people of colour at all levels of government, on boards of directors, and in high status occupations and professions. Are people of colour represented in these places at approximately their percentage in the overall population?

The other day I saw a picture in the local newspaper of George Bush sitting with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. Probably not an unusual picture to see if you live in the U.S., but it seems to me to indicate a substantial change in attitudes in the past 100 years regarding the role of women and African-Americans in the important business of the U.S. I am not saying that the U.S. has reached some heaven of racial harmony, but that these kind of things are important in measuring how racism affects people.

Appeals to ‘human nature’ are usually about someone’s basic assumptions about human beings. I don’t see these kinds of assumptions as arguable -- they are the basic truths one takes into the world to make choices and decisions. Perhaps racism is inherent in human nature, and perhaps it is not. I would say, tho, that one may choose assumptions. I think it is a more powerful and hopeful position to take that racism is not an inherent part of human make-up, but rather a learned behaviour. (I think there is pretty good evidence that it is learned, but of course, I already go by this assumption, so my viewpoint is biased.) If it is so that racism is a learned behaviour, then there is a chance that something else could be learned in its place. I think that is a chance worth betting on.

In a country we could look at the distribution of wealth, health status, educational level, etc. Are people of colour poorer, more likely to be sick and less likely to get good health care? Do they have less formal education

You have a tough bet to win then. Let's take the example of the U.S. and assume that over-night it becomes perfectly free of prejudice-based-on-racial-background/appearances.

It, however, remains as capitalist and flawed in other ways as it presently is.

The U.S. population of 2100 would then be (statistically) significantly dependent on what has been handed down from the present one. If a particular 'ethnic group' is presently much poorer their children and their children's children will be affected by that lack of wealth. Both directly in terms of money handed down, and (more importantly) in terms of the environment and opportunities parents can make available to their children.

All lack of prejudice can achieve is the removal of some barriers and so allowing a gradual improvement. It won't, of itself, actively encourage a fair distribution of wealth.

Three boundary conditions of the bet seem overly elastic:
(a) what's "significant" mean?
Is the threshold for significant racism:
When no one gets dragged to death behind a pickup in Texas for three years?
When people stop listening to Al Sharpton and David Duke?
When we realize that in the 21st century global village, we' ALL belong to racial minorities?

(b) what is "racism" for the purposes of the bet?
Being dragged behind a pickup or otherwise assaulted for your skin color?
Enduring personal rudeness for your skin color?
Not being admitted to the school of your choice for your skin color?
BEING admitted to the school of your choice for your skin color?
Not getting the same pay, quality of health care or respect as others in your society because of your skin color?

(c) what does "most" mean?
50 percent of the declared nation-states on Earth plus one?
50 percent of the global populace plus one?
A majority of the voting members in the General Assembly of the United Nations (who have so far only managed to single Israel out for sanctions when other members of the UN practice slavery, racial genocide, and other indicators that race relations aren't what they ought to be)?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I would also hate to have to decide whether the bet had been won or lost.

For what it's worth, I have an abiding faith in the ability of people to both transcend their worst difficulties to behave decently and also to stupefy the most jaded observer in their ability to abandon decency, common sense, and morality in their treatment of others.

Case in point - the former Yugoslavia. The coalition of states held together by Josip Broz Tito starts falling apart after Marshal Tito dies. Slobodan Milosevic sees his chance and takes it, hauling the bodies of Serbian Orthodox saints with him on a tour of Serbian communities and preaching a war between neighbors based on religion and nationality.

Do the relatively well-off Serbs of the former Yugoslavia tell Milosevic what he can do with his ethnic cleansing? No. They start fighting Milosevic's war, a war whose casus belli went away with the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

As long as people are capable of astounding feats of stupidity and evil such as the ones committed in Bosnia and Kosovo, all bets on the demise of racism would seem to be off. Racism is just another in a long list of excuses people use to do things they know are wrong.

Paul Blay writes: "Let's take the example of the U.S. and assume that over-night it becomes perfectly free of prejudice-based-on-racial-background/appearances.

It, however, remains as capitalist and flawed in other ways as it presently is."

First, capitalism isn't a flaw, Paul, it's a "feature." Pure capitalist states, as opposed to crony capitalist states or socialist states are the least racist of all because the money is sent by Adam Smith's "hidden hand of the market" to the most adroit, the ablest, the best people of their trades. Unfortunately, the USA is far from a pure capitalist state, and it shows in the inefficiencies which the Federal Government props up with commodity price supports, soil banking, oil and gas depletion allowances, guaranteed loans to prima facie unsound businesses big and small... not enough space here for all of them.

Yep, we're flawed as all hell. And yet, we're less flawed than many places that think nothing of lecturing the US on its race relations. Paul, you're English, right? Compare and contrast the Los Angeles riots of the 1990s with the Brixton riots of the '80s.

"The U.S. population of 2100 would then be (statistically) significantly dependent on what has been handed down from the present one. If a particular 'ethnic group' is presently much poorer their children and their children's children will be affected by that lack of wealth. Both directly in terms of money handed down, and (more importantly) in terms of the environment and opportunities parents can make available to their children. "

Certainly. And yet, the government of the US has been open-handed in its spending on programs to reduce or altogether eliminate those disparities.

Example: school voucher programs (for non-US residents, a school voucher is a means of using the money that would be spent to educate a child at a government-owned school to place the same child in a privately-owned school - because of restrictive and in some cases competitive admission policies, privately-owned school are often safer, better places for children to learn).
In the states where school vouchers have been adopted, the predominant way in which they are implemented is to allow at-risk kids from poor neighborhoods to attend better schools. This strikes me as a very affirmative step towards eliminating the differences to which Paul refers.

"All lack of prejudice can achieve is the removal of some barriers and so allowing a gradual improvement. It won't, of itself, actively encourage a fair distribution of wealth. "

"Fair distribution of wealth" meaning different things to different people.

Most of the world is coming around to the idea that the people who actively create wealth deserve to get the wealth after the bills and the user fees for civilization we call "taxes" are paid. It's called "capitalism".

The alternative would be, under the most favorable conditions, President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society," in which people who make wealth have a lot of it taken away by a huge bureaucracy and what's left after the bureaucrats are paid doled out to those who know how best to stroke the welfare machine. We tried it, it didn't work (for reasons obvious to anyone who took and passed thermodynamics in college), and we're fixing it.

Revision: How about "During the decade ending December 31, 02100, no more than five cases (total) involving racial discrimination will be brought before the lowest courts of the governments of the twenty most populous countries, and none of these countries will define race by statute"? I believe this avoids the dystopian "so racist you cannot bring discrimination cases" possibility, since such extremity would seem to require a legal definition of "race." By changing the court level from "highest" to "lowest," the Pro side would also fail for, e.g., the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws.

"All lack of prejudice can achieve is the removal of some barriers and so allowing a gradual improvement. It won't, of itself, actively encourage a fair distribution of wealth."

"Fair distribution of wealth" meaning different things to different people.

To give an admitedly uptopian and unobtainable definition, given that every human being is born with his or her own potential to achieve, to what extent that potential is actually achieved should be 100% independant of racial, cultural and monetary background.

Hi Paul,

You wrote:
"All lack of prejudice can achieve is the removal of some barriers and so allowing a gradual improvement. It won't, of itself, actively encourage a fair distribution of wealth."

I wanted to be clear that I am not just defining racism as racial slurs, derogatory terms and overt racist harassment. Some of the participants in the discussion have focused on these aspects, maybe because they are obvious and also distressing to witness. They are one aspect of racism, but not the only one. Even if a country were eliminate these things and become ‘polite’, it still could have hurtful racist elements.

Yes, the effects do linger. The effects of slavery have remained in the US long after its abolition. The damage done by racism could linger long after racism itself was eliminated. I think there are a couple of aspects to the damage. One, as you have pointed out, is the handicap that people who have been the object of racism for centuries would have in ‘catching up’. They would be ‘behind’ in a number of areas, and it could take them a long time to catch up to a point where statistical measures would not capture the effects of the past injustice.

The other aspect is the internal damage – the effects on the individual human psyche from the repeated hurts of racism. I think there needs to be a clear idea of how individuals can effectively recover from these hurts.

I don't think this is an easy bet to win, but I am not really interested in winning on a narrowly defined definition of racism. I would like to win because it is pretty clear to everyone that racism is over and done with. I do think that the questions that are coming up in this group about how to measure racism, what does 'significant' mean are important. And I am sorry that I won't be around to see how it comes out.

Hello Vance,

You wrote:
“I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I would also hate to have to decide whether the bet had been won or lost.”

Well, I don’t think this decision looks easy at all. Maybe it will be easier in 90+ years, as people move closer to the end of racism and the decision re winning or losing the bet will become clearer.

Re your questions of definitions
a)“significant” – I have used the example of slavery before. Slavery still exists in some places in the world, but it is not a significant part of the economy of the world. I think few would argue that racism is not a significant phenomenon right now in most places in the world. If I win my bet, racism would not have much of a place in the social, political or economic lives of people. In 2100 racism would be see as mostly an historical event, with perhaps a few present day remnants in the odd place in the world.

b)‘racism’ I think a useful definition of racism is that it is a form of oppression characterized by the systematic mistreatment of members of a particular group of people based on their racial characteristics.

c)‘most’ –Most, to me at least, means only a few are not included. Perhaps I should have written ‘almost all’, for which ‘most’ is often substituted.

I think your example of recent Yugoslavian history is an excellent one. I have a friend who emigrated from there in the middle ‘90’s. She is in her 40’s and grew up when Tito was the leader there. She says that identifying people by their ethnic origin was actively discouraged. Equality (and I am not sure what that meant in practice) was actively encouraged there. There was a lot of intermarrying among various ethnic groups and many families, including hers, were torn apart by the ethnic violence. My supposition is that people did not figure out effective ways of recovering personally from the damage caused hundreds of years of ethnic conflict. The effects of this hurt lay dormant in many people, waiting to be exploited by Milosevic. Without ways to recover from the damage caused by racism people are vulnerable to manipulation by it.

Hi, Bill!

You said:
"Re your questions of definitions
a)“significant” – I have used the example of slavery before. Slavery still exists in some places in the world, but it is not a significant part of the economy of the world. I think few would argue that racism is not a significant phenomenon right now in most places in the world. If I win my bet, racism would not have much of a place in the social, political or economic lives of people. In 2100 racism would be see as mostly an historical event, with perhaps a few present day remnants in the odd place in the world."

Unfortunately, real, no-kidding slavery with people in racial or religious minorities is still very active in the southern part of the Sudan, where Christians are still being kidnapped and sold into slavery by the state-backed Muslim majority.

While the population being enslaved may be small compared to the world's population, the disconcerting thing is that there are over a hundred UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing or even calling for sanctions against Israel and none against the Sudan. As long as that happens, we not only have slavery and racism, but a condition where world government (or what passes for it) has nothing to say about it.

Other examples of what I am talking about are
- the mess in the Balkans to which I previously referred;
- the popularity in Kenya (as shown by election results) of the idea of deporting people of Indian descent and seizing their businesses and goods;
- pervasive racial violence in South Africa;
- state-sanctioned racial violence in Zimbabwe;
- the resurgence of violent anti-Semitism throughout Western Europe, notably in France;
- and (of course) all the fun and games in the Middle East.

In the interests of keeping the letter brief, I failed to mention a number of other instances in which racism is alive and well, such as the plight of Chinese in Indonesia, aborigines in Australia, native Americans in North America....

"b)‘racism’ I think a useful definition of racism is that it is a form of oppression characterized by the systematic mistreatment of members of a particular group of people based on their racial characteristics."

Then we trip over the definition of "systematic."

"c)‘most’ –Most, to me at least, means only a few are not included. Perhaps I should have written ‘almost all’, for which ‘most’ is often substituted."

I'm unsure of exactly how many people are impacted by racism worldwide, but entire countries (Tibet, for example) are still occupied and colonized by people of an entirely different racial group.

Going back to the example of Tibet, the Chinese Communists have found it expedient to suppress self-government by Tibetans and the practice of the local religion, to establish a two-tiered social system where the Chinese and a few collaborators have electricity, clean drinking water and reasonable social amenities, while most Tibetans do not.

I think that brutal subjugation of the entire native population of a country is evidence of racism continuing to exist. Fewer than 2 billion people are impacted, but you can't say that racism is no longer a problem on Earth when mainland China is running other countries and killing the locals when they object.

97 years is too far in the future to predict but we can hope for world wide progress during the next 7 years. My guess is we were making rapid progress until 9-11-01. The net may be zero since then. Some of the extreme liberal definitions of discrimination are neither realistic nor desirable. Lawyers typically are despicable, so court decisions are not a good guide and court actions started are only indicative of bad lawyers. Neil

Someday, all of us will be mixed enough, physical differentiation will be difficult. We'll all look the same. We should still see local variation. It may get reduced if we're more freely able to travel around the world. Free Public world transportation?

Cultural and religious dislike will never disappear. You don't agree with me about how I should raise my kids? You think my clothes are weird? We see enough of that in front of us. Personal dislike between people sitting in one cafe is not unrelated to racism. All of us have our ideas of proper behavior.

When we can openly discuss any topic, anywhere, any time, racism may have a chance of being forgotten.

I was watching Kinsey a few nights ago. When will sex become completely open? When will mixed sex public baths come back? When will we all be comfortable with seeing sex in front of them? People eating at a cafe? no big deal. People having sex in one? why not.

When we are comfortable with difference, when we no longer are personal, when we ourselves become public, maybe racism will go away.

I have some doubts about this.

Race is inseparable from cutlture. Much of what we define as race could be said to be customs and beliefs. As far as people living together, we may be able to co-exist yet we're merely superficially accepting each other. It's no less difficult for races to get along than for Christians to accept Jews. Eventually perhaps. I hope so.

Media, availability of travel, population grow perhaps, someday a world identity--these may accelerate some of the necessary conflict of talk and getting to know each other.

The increased craziness of modern life, of the modern age probably won't help. Poverty and the necessity to work to merely live will force even greater stresses upon ourselves which we'll have a harder time to hide.

Consider Blacks. 200 years after slavery, have the effects disappeared? Has segregation really ended? African Americans live in ghettos. They're stuck there and will be for sometime.

There is some hope in socialized housing and some guaranteed necessities of living. When the day comes when we need not worry about rent or how we will pay for dinner, we'll have the chance to grow. Teachers and leaders may admit that they not much better off than children, that they have not become educated experts in directing human life. Maybe we'll have time to learn, from each other.

Race won't be a significant issue someday, but I imagine it'd take at least a millenium.

I am surprised that someone hasn't taken up this bet. It is so clearly wrong.

Not only is it factually wrong, the bet is also morally wrong. Its suggest we do not really need to deal with racism and prejudiced, it will go away of its own accord. It won't

For that reason the bet is better taken by someone with the standing and authority to prove it is wrong. I would happily sponsor that person.

The bet simply does not understand that racism is an economic issue. To say that racism will cease to exist is to say there will no longer be scarcity of resources or services and therefor no competition for them. In fact that competition will increase as medical science advances increase human longevity.

The only way this bet can be won is if within 100 years all races have so intermarried that there are no significant racially different characteristics remaining in the world's population. That is impossible. Maybe in 1,000,000 years

The person making this bet should have watched the recent UK C4 reality show Big Brother. It gained world wide news coverage because of this issue. The whole issue was portrayed in that programme.

It is only freedom of speech and social learning that legitimated the Big Brother programme and this bet. Another basis of racism and prejudice is ignorance of the kind shown in the bet.

So who wants sponsorship to counter the bet? My sponsorship is dependent upon a comprehensive and authoritative explanation of the counter bet printed in the London or New York Times.

In the era of accelerated change of technology and politics, I wonder, wouldn't it be a surprise if Human Race could remain exactly as it is today by 2100 e.g. even genetically. Hopefully yes up to 2100 but doubtfully beyond 2150.

I believe the question of future Racism is subordinate to structure of future Human Race.