I thinks its time to clarify that the two dreaded “ism’s” racism and sexism didnt get defeated at the end of the second world war, or even sometime after it ? Humans are inherently “ist” against people that are not in their immediate or familial circle, its a shortcut to save us having to understand people in a tribe, that is to large to comprehend. On a Daily basis we make thousands of little judgements about other people based on sight alone, most of the time unconsciously, and sexism and racism are the tip of the iceberg im afraid. These are just some of the types of unwarranted prejudice we are liable to use on a daily basis.

Prejudice against :

Race (No Law protects in this area)
Sex (No Law protects in this area)
Sexuality (No Law protects in this area)
Disability (No Law protects in this area)
Religious Groups (No Law protects in this area)
Minority cultures (No Law protects in this area)
Child rearing (No Law protects in this area)
Height (No Law protects in this area)
Weight (No Law protects in this area)
Intellect (No Law protects in this area)
Uglyness > “the big daddy” (No Law protects in this area)
A persons nature or personality (No Law protects in this area)
People by their financial standing (No Law protects in this area)
Class or social standing (No Law protects in this area)
People of limited power (No Law protects in this area)
The ill informed (No Law protects in this area)
The moral (No Law protects in this area)
Relationship Status (No Law protects in this area)
Hair lack of too much or in the wrong place (No Law protects in this area)

Now heres how you tell real racists apart ?

I’ll give you two options :

you can choose to be either >

option 1 (A short white male man who is both ugly and thick)

option 2 (A tall black woman who is both a attractive and intelligent)

this could also be done with less adjectives this way.

chose one of the lists and pick two from it you are happy to be.

you are white and can choose two of the following qualitys :
fat, ugly, thick, short, poor, meek, male, failing, lower class, single, childless

you are black and can choose two of the following qualitys :
trim, handsome, intelligent, tall, rich, confident, female, successfull, higher class, in a relationship, with children.

This in a way is a question which highlights which prejudices are far more devastating, truth is skin colour or sex is far less devastating an injury than many other ism’s. Truth is we are being prejudiced every hour of every day almost continuously and usually bi-directionally, we associate with those that are often similar to us and make bonds with others often by the strangest of alliances.

For instance some people who didnt do well at school might be prejudiced towards those who did, and the reverse is also true. The rich have been known to hate the poor and the poor almost certainly hate the rich. People on both sides on the skin colour front have been seen to criticise inter-racial relationships, especially if they themselves are single. Tall people most often in work environments use height to assert dominance or mass to assert presence based dominance. Those who are trim often criticise the fat people for being unable to control their weight, and fat people are often to ridicule the slim vain dieters of the world. Sex prejudice extends Bi-directionally, advertising currently very often portrays the stupid husband, yet in the fiftys it might have been the reverse, the stupid one in the scenario is often the one without the expendable income, who isnt the purchase decision maker, in the targeting eyes of the advertiser.

Truth is … unfounded and unwarranted prejudice, or intimidatory practice is still rife and rampant, and legislating against all of it would be impossible ? So why have we stopped at protecting against only those few prejudices first listed above ? The reason weve protected against the prejudices above is because those groups were very vocal against those forms of prejudice. Why do we use so much prejudice on a daily basis, well truth is as social creatures we are presented with lots and lots of decisions, in fact too many in a tribal groups as big as ours, to have the time to make properly evaluated accurate judgements, so visually conclusional shortcuts about people which maybe false are made all the time, to enable us to get on, without having to really evaluate a person at all. without prejudice social interaction would probably slow down to a crawl as we attempted to truly evaluate and understand each other, something we dont really have time for.

The sad thing today in england is, we have much more to be divided by than we did in the past, and this leads to a great deal of dissent, As prejudices which have more impact than either race or sex are not legislated against.

In a way the problem with prejudice relates to the binary nature of decisions, that humans seem keen on expressing, ie something is either good or bad and this enables us to make a clear decisions about it. Clear decisions being perceived as somehow more honourable and are certainly more expedient, but the more you look at the world and nature very rarely things take one of two routes diametrically opposed to each other, things bifurcate and curvingly branch indeed, but right angles are rare to be found, the human obsession with the idea of binary decision making and logic in its purest form is very much a human desire to impose something artificial on situations or decisions, such that they can then be easily justified without complexity, whereas in reality nearly all things are truly complex, and this easy artificiality most often is in the service of those with an agenda, which is why it is discovered there in the first place, this binary nature is most often used by those who fear and do not have the capacity to handle real complexity in the raw.

Most of the political mistakes of the last 40 years are due to overswing and unforseen circumstances stemming from binary decisions, where if the decision had been holistically moderated and tempered the resulting damaging unforseen circumstances would have in turn been moderated. Natures decisions and systems, seem always to try and settle toward balancing themselves, this is because theyre are often circular and massiveley interlinked with every single thing having several other things that act upon it, in order to acheive a wider balance and harmony. The human world in comparison seems most often engineered to be as linear as possible, and linear things usually demonstrate an imbalance and often suffer from awkward runaway sticky endings, this linearity is formed through imposing unsustainable binary decisions upon a world of circular balance, the advantage of this is while the balanced circular path flows a linear one can extract from it allot of free profit or energy, but in the end the angular energy that sustained the circular balance motion is depleted such that the balance fades and some of the intricacy and diversity of self balance is lost.

Natures paths could be considered as like drops of rain on water where thousands of circular paths intersect and interact with each other to sustain their whole, and human activity is like a length of rod it has a begining a middle and an end. what we really need is all middle in our processes and no beinning or end, then we will create processeses that are harmonious and immortal, such as nature does.