Some kinds of prejudice OK, others not...?

A friend and I were talking the other day, and he mentioned that “European men” are such-and-such when it comes to negotiations (cheap, greedy; I forget exactlywhat). He meant Greeks, Italians, whoever.

His comment was one unlikely to get one into trouble.

Likewise, I lived in Japan for 8 years and understand how that culture differs. Heck, whole books are written about negotiating with the Japanese, and not all of the content is complimentary. In my personal experience, the Japanese are very passive-aggressive when it comes to negotiating, often reject a win-win proposition because some dude higher up in the org wants to get an additional useless concession, and are in general frustrating if not outright incompetent in their approach (but their approach is often quite effective against Westerners, who always try to feed the negotiations energy to move them along, whereas the Japanese are purposely starving them). I’ve also done some work with the Chinese, who, while very generous and kind to guests in their home, are often excessively price-oriented, demanding, and greedy when it comes to business negotiations.

The above comments are also unlikely to get one in trouble, since Asians are a different culture, etc. It’s funny, then, that making generalizations about African-Americans and Jews is so dangerous. Doing the one can get you labeled a racist, and the other an anti-Semite.

The origins of this danger are fairly obvious: slavery and Jim Crow and horrendous racism for blacks, and horrendous racism and outright genocide for Jews. There has never been a pogrom of Greeks or Irish in the US, so talking one way or another about them these days might make you look like an idiot if your comments are extreme, and you might even make some enemies if your listeners belong to those groups or love those who do. But you are unlikely to be thought a person of true prejudice, as such statements just don’t key easily into the Big Bad Categories.

I myself don’t believe prejudice is a good thing. That is, based on one’s experience or others’ statements about a group, expecting each and every member to match a pattern. A sophisticated person realizes that such a way of thinking is, morally and mathematically, not a good thing. I also think it is an ugly thing to hate or despise a large group of people, even if, on average, they demonstrate tendencies that one dislikes.

But it is similarly poor thinking to embrace the mental copout, “That’s just a generalization.” One can make many good and useful generalizations about the Japanese. In fact, one would be a fool not to use that information in doing business with them (while expecting, of course, many partial or complete exceptions to crop up along the way).

I for one have extremely poor Jewdar. Unless it’s obvious, a Jewish name won’t seem Jewish to me, and I can rarely tell by appearance. Further, almost all my eperiences with Jews have been positive. Once, however, I lived in a building with a gal who seemed to live up to every possible prejudice against her group: extremely Zionist, racist against African-Americans, taking a rather exclusive attitude toward gentiles, etc. (and she was not religious; it was her identity with the Jewish ethnic group that was very strong). I was surprised because I had thought that such attitudes were not real, were merely the what prejudiced people said existed. Of course, I understood then as now that such attitudes, if held by a substantial percentage in the first place, were held by merely a percentage and certainly not the majority. But it was interesting to see my reverse-prejuice (that is, politically correct attitudes) encounter friction with reality. (She was, I must say, overall a decent and very talented person. We got along quite well.)

In a similar vein, we non-minorities (what an obsolete word at this juncture, “minority”) are not supposed, it would seem, to notice any general tendencies among minorities, especially, God forbid, African-Americans. Because that’s–bah baaaahn–racism. But, as said above, it’s not racism to notice tendencies, even negative ones, that pertain to different cultures. Is there not a contradiction in here somewhere?

All of this doesn’t cause me much trouble or grief personally, since there really isn’t a group in this country that bothers me. Nor do I believe that race has much, if anything, to do with our inborn tendencies (intelligence, behavior, etc.–it’s cultural). I am, for the most part, naturally politically correct. But I also have a brain that won’t accept a thought policy (social demand on thought or behavior) without subjecting it to substantial analysis. There is no deep agenda here. I just noticed the contradiction and thought I’d see what our intelligent SDMB group thinks.

Aeschines: In a similar vein, we non-minorities (what an obsolete word at this juncture, “minority”) are not supposed, it would seem, to notice any general tendencies among minorities, especially, God forbid, African-Americans. Because that’s–bah baaaahn–racism. But, as said above, it’s not racism to notice tendencies, even negative ones, that pertain to different cultures.

It certainly can be racism to “notice” such “tendencies”. The dividing lines between generalizations, stereotypes, prejudices, bigotry, and racism are by no means clear and obvious, and one person’s useful and neutral generalization can easily be another person’s highly offensive racist stereotype.

The gray areas are just more touchy in the case of certain minority groups like African-Americans or Jews, because of our awareness of especially severe consequences of racism in those cases, as you noted.

Aeschines: *A friend and I were talking the other day, and he mentioned that “European men” are such-and-such when it comes to negotiations (cheap, greedy; I forget exactlywhat). He meant Greeks, Italians, whoever. His comment was one unlikely to get one into trouble. […] In my personal experience, the Japanese are very passive-aggressive when it comes to negotiating, […] and are in general frustrating if not outright incompetent in their approach […] I’ve also done some work with the Chinese, who, while very generous and kind to guests in their home, are often excessively price-oriented, demanding, and greedy when it comes to business negotiations.
The above comments are also unlikely to get one in trouble *

Don’t count on it, dude. They may not get you in as much trouble as similar statements about blacks or Jews, but none of them sounds particularly useful or appropriate to me.

To say that there are different negotiating styles in different cultures is one thing. To say that “Group A is greedy” or “Group B is incompetent”, even though perhaps you’re only trying to make an observation about cultural differences in mannerisms and how they’re perceived, can easily come across as a bigoted assertion that Group Whatever is intrinsically worse or inferior. I think it behooves everybody to phrase such statements very carefully and thoughtfully, whether you’re talking about blacks, Jews, Asians, or anybody else.

Aeschines: * But I also have a brain that won’t accept a thought policy (social demand on thought or behavior) without subjecting it to substantial analysis.*

Forgot to congratulate you on your brave resistance to conformity in my previous post. Congratulations on your brave resistance to conformity.

However, there’s nothing particularly profound or original about pointing out that avoidance of racism, like any other social taboo, can become simply a mindless and somewhat inconsistent convention.

There is race and there is culture, those are two different things. The Japanese are a different race that have a different culture. Similarily, the Italians and the Greeks who live in Europe have a different culture than we have here in America.

If someone were to say to me: Japanese people tend to be quiter than Americans.

I would not consider that racism simply because it is what I have observed in my interactions with Americans and Japanese.

If someone were to say to me: That girl over there is Japanese and because of that, she’s going to be too quiet to act in my play.

I would consider that racism.

I would also expect the person to change their views on the group based on scientific data. If it was proven to me that Japanese are, as a group, more talkative and louder than Americans, then I would tell people that if asked.

That was an awful way of explaining it, but do you see what I am saying?

Not if we attribute the tendencies to culture, and not to race.

Yes, but the point is that many people don’t think clearly about the matter. Saying anything about blacks as a group (or even about a subgroup among blacks) invites a cry of “Racism!” even if one doesn’t believe that the group’s genes have anything to do with the tendency.

I know from personal experience that generalizations about the behavior of Japanese people are quite necessary in dealing successfully with them both within their culture and without. And such generalizations inevitably involve positive/negative judgments.

I agree, for political reasons.

There are many times, in fact, in which an opinion about a group is demanded of us: say, in national elections. Democrats and Republicans–what are their tendencies, as it were. Is one party greedy or incompetent?

Ethnic groups are not political parties, but like any group that self-identifies (green-eyed whites don’t self-identify, southpaws do but weakly, and many ethnic groups do) you will find tendencies in the group that pertain to how they behave within it and treat outsiders. Example: At grad school, the Chinese students were extremely ethnocentric, poor at English, and generally uninterested in making friends with those outside their group. In contrast, the Indians tended to room with each other but were not as cliquish and showed interest in making friends widely. Again, a very stark cultural contrast.

Do you mean if you didn’t know whether she was from Japan or not? Yeah, if you think that Japanese genes = quieter, then that’s racism.

Yes, but how is your Blackdar?

Seriously though, I think you have answered your questions in your own post. The hatred of Blacks and Jews exponentially worse than other groups, so many more people are more sensitive to it.

People use prejudice every day, every hour of their lives. We wouldn’t get very far without being prejudiced. We use it to determine pretty much everything we do.

When it comes to people, it gets tricky. It is OK to use prejudice when dealing with a known factor - making a rational decision based on previous observations. There is a fuzzy line where the thoughts stop being rational.

There is no such thing as an objectively different race. Race is a cultural construct. So there is ONLY culture. Culture is everything when it comes to observable differences.
The problem is that when someone says “Japanese people are so quiet,” they mean it like it’s a bad thing. In the context of Japanese culture, its a good thing. People are culture-centric when they’re not being racist. Which isn’t an intrinsically bad thing to be, but you need to stop and think about what you are saying.

Stereotypes are useful generalizations about national characteristics. E.g., in Japanese culture, nude co-ed bathing is not infused with the illicit and sex-charged sense Americans would put on it. True statement about traditional Japanese culture (how valid it is 150 years after the Meiji Restoration and 60 years after Modern Postwar Japan began, I don’t know). In general the French people have a high regard for their national culture and take criticism of it as insulting them personally and collectively. They’re accurate (I believe) cultural generalizations. These may not be true for individual Japanese or Frenchmen/-women.

Take some people I’ve known over the years:

[ul][li]Clarence was 5’4", weatherbeaten, nearing 70 years of age, singlehandedly ran a dairy farm in Upstate New York. He was crusty, a man of integrity, tough as nails and with strength of character.[/li]
[li]Grace is extremely active in church affairs. She’s in training to be a counselor, mother of two adoptive daughters with special needs, in church virtually every Sunday and most special occasions, and is firmly opposed to sex outside of marriage.[/li]
[li]George is a hard-nosed businessman with an eye for contrarian speculative investments, who honors all his contracts to the full, and demands the same of anyone he does business with. He will protect his legal rights to the full, by lawsuit if necessary.[/ul][/li]
You’ve got perfect stereotype pictures of these three, right?

But Clarence is also a retired Army master sergeant, an accomplished classical clarinetist, and author of two excellent books on local history of his area.

Later this year Grace will celebrate the eighth anniversary of taking Margie as her life partner and spouse in holy matrimony. She’s a donor to HRC and GLAAD, formerly very active in Integrity (Gay Episcopalians) but now inactive to devote her activism time to advocacy groups for handicapped children.

George is a student of yoga, a natural foods buff, highly compassionate towards children and youth and the poor and disadvantaged, very interested in historic preservation and Eastern philosophies.

Grace and George are good friends of mine; Clarence, unfortunately, passed away a few years ago.

People don’t fit into the pigeonholes we build for them.

And that is exactly why it is so important to draw stereotypes in our minds of “the enemy” and not think of them as individuals with strong beliefs and loyalties and families that they love. The more we know their individual “stories,” the more difficult it is to want to continue to destroy them. It will be the same for them.

After the wars are over, then we meet and see that most are not so different from us after all.

Then in another thirty years or so, we will again be convinced that all of the good guys were born here and all of the bad guys were born somewhere else – just by coincidence. Where will it be next time?

Meanwhile, we all want basically the same things. The differences are not in the inborn mentality, but in the traditions that affect the culture.

If you make a decision based on known factors and previous observations of the person you are dealing with, then you have not pre-judged her. If however, you meet one rude American and assume that all Americans are rude, then you are pre-judging.

Polycarp,

I agree with you, and I think I indicated it in the OP, that we should always be prepared to see an individual as s/he really is.

The flipside of the pidgeonholing you rightly warn against is this: I’ve seen many Japanese people struggle to be individuals, almost make it, or make it in significant ways–yet get sucked back to the planet of their culture, not reaching escape velocity.

So often it’s been:

Me: So, you agree that I’m right on this?
S/he: Yes, I think so.
Me: So, we’re going to do it the way I suggest?
S/he: I’m not sure.
Me: But we agree that doing it the same old way [i.e., the stupid Japanese way] won’t profit you [your parents, the company, anyone, etc.]?
S/he: Yeah, that’s right.
Me: So we can try things a new way, right?
S/he: No, I don’t think so.
Me: Why?
S/he: It’s just the way things are [in Japan].

They work awfully hard to cram themselves and their fellows into that small pidgeon hole.