The GCSE exam concerned was Religious Studies. One question was: “Why are some people prejudiced against Jews?” But the Education Secretary, challenged by the Jewish Chronicle, said, “To suggest that anti-Semitism can ever be explained, rather than condemned, is insensitive and, frankly, bizarre.”
What utter unadulterated PC tosh!
By the age of 15 or 16 a child should have understood some of the the reasons for bigotry, not just the fact that prejudice is unacceptable. Maybe such learning will help them to avoid blind prejudice themselves, not just against Jews, but against other social groups whose mores are unusual, ‘strange’ or ‘abnormal’.
Boadicea's Chariot 
The unacceptability of prejudice is not a fact!
I cannot see why well grounded prejudice should not be perfectly acceptable.
I can imagine the brouhaha should that GCE question be answered honestly! Not much likelihood of a pass.
Prejudice in a proper context is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s when prejudice merges with bigotry that it becomes a terrible thing.
Yes, and truth, flies out of the window, whatever truth is. Facts are also a little elusive.
The point I was attempting to make was that prejudice, when not based on bigotry, does not have to be a bad thing. When walking down a street alone at night seeing a group of drunken chavs should reasonably give one ground to pause and try to find a way to avoid them. One could also hardly be blamed for wishing to avoid establishing a relationship with a methamphetamine addict or hiring a convicted embezzler as an accountant. So long as the prejudice is based on behaviour, something that a person can control, it’s natural — and sensible. It’s when prejudice is based exclusively on ethnic background, something unavoidable, that it takes on a more negative nature.
Christopher, I’m afraid your example is not ‘prejudice’, it is anticipation. The p word is reserved for irrational opinions, like ‘all Jews are bad’.
Janus: then I stand corrected.
I think that avoiding the situations you mention, Christopher are both sensible and rational. Prejudice, to my mind, is defined by unreasonable attitudes with little basis, but held nevertheless.
With the greatest possible respect, bollocks.
Prejudice means judgement before all the facts are known. While it generally carries a negative connotation it need not necessarily be the case. Nor is prejudice necessarily irrational. If all the facts are unavailable or a decision has to be made before they become available then prejudice is a perfectly rational outcome. You do not know me, but you, Janus, have formed an opinion of me which, whether it be be good or bad, is almost certainly inaccurate. That is prejudice, whether you like it or not.
It is not irrational for a mother to say to her child, do not speak to male strangers. Do not accept sweets from men outside the school gates. Do not get into a car with a man you do not know. Etc. Those are all negative sentiments expressed towards a certain sector of society. They are prejudice but not irrational, even though in most cases they are probably over cautious.
When a prosecutor tries to introduce evidence that is not directly related to the trial of a suspected criminal, such as a previous conviction, the judge will rule it inadmissible because it would prejudice the jury. If the judge believed that the jury was capable of being prejudiced and that prejudice was irrational, then by definition the jury is irrational and thus one would have thought unqualified to perform their duties.
Negative sentiment towards, Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Gays, Muslims and what ever other minority group you choose, are generally based on some experience and some knowledge, albeit incomplete. I certainly have prejudices towards some groups. I do not know all members of each group, but I have had dealings with a sufficient number of them to determine that there tend to be traits shared by all or most of the members that I do know. Those traits can be admired by me or despised by me. But it is safe to conclude that if the 50 Muslims I know tend to avoid pork and alcohol, it is likely that most other Muslims will do the same, though I cannot say for certain that that is the case.
The obvious fact of the matter is that for a Jew to be a Jew or a Gay to be a Gay etc they must possess one or more common characteristics that make them Jews or Gays. It is those identifying characteristics which one may like or dislike. But there are other characteristics which do not define the group but which may be closely associated with it. The food they eat, the clothes they wear, the way they talk, the music they listen to, the places they live, sports they play, the people they associate with, the books they write, the businesses they perform, the crafts they learn, their sense of humour, their appearance, their looks etc.
If one were to stand in a walled garden in London and two cars go by, one blasting out ‘thum-thump-thump’ base music while the other is playing, classical opera, it would be a fairly safe bet that the first driver was not a white middle-aged woman while the second was not a teenage West Indian. No guarantee, but a good bet. If one happens to dislike one form of music and enjoy the other, one is likely to associate negative sentiments with the people who play it. That is perfectly rational.
Can I drag this discussion back to what I think is the point of this post – whether is is right to simply state that ‘prejudice’ is unacceptable or whether one should attempt to seek reasons why prejudices exist.
Since I am a great believer that bans and prohibitions without reasons are almost as bad as blind prejudices, I think it is essential that the reasons behind widespread prejudices should be examined, explored and discussed.
It is only by exposing some of the ‘myths’ behind universal generalisations that one can truly dispel prejudice.
Hi Boadicea, I think the problem with doing what you have suggested is that I am not sure that we can all agree on the meaning of the word ‘prejudice’. How does it differ from ‘bigotry’? I find similar problems when people use the word ‘racism’. It means different things to different people and a lot depends on the context. When it comes to such words it is not a case of one size fits all. There are degrees.
Many of these words have been hijacked by certain sectors of society and have been made inflammatory and used in a variety of inappropriate circumstances. ‘Rape’ is another word that is abused.
One would also have to define what it means to be a Jew and whether it is prejudice towards the individual or the common characteristics of those who describe themselves as Jews. By definition, they must have something in common that is not shared by non-Jews. It is my opinion that most prejudices are directed towards the perceived characteristics of a group rather than the individuals themselves. Hence, the cry, ‘I am not a racist/anti-semite/Islamaphobe/homophobe…. I have lots of black/Jewish/Muslim/gay friends… but!” They really do have those friends, but there are common characteristics that piss them off.
I do not trust the motives of the exam question or any of the articles and ministerial comments, or indeed this post. They all suggest a discussion, but only one outcome is acceptable. “It is irrational and wrong to be prejudiced against Jews”.
This is what Janus says. “The p word is reserved for irrational opinions, like ‘all Jews are bad’” Discussions like this are designed to ‘flush out fascists’. They are not designed to uncover and eliminate whatever problems exist
To answer the question directly:
Discussion on the subject of prejudice is valid. Prejudice can be rational and is not always unacceptable. Uncovering the reasons can be useful to some but not to necessarily to all, especially those whose actions lead to prejudices being formed.
I have had experience. I have been screwed, therefore, I have prejudice. I believe my prejudices are justified and rational. My prejudices are not extreme, are subject to change and are tempered with decency and good manners. Those who are the object of my prejudices for the most part would be unaware of them, still less harmed by them. However, my prejudices sometimes play a part in how I behave and interact.
In my view there are two types of people in this world. Those who have prejudices and liars.
The exam question looks straight-forward to me, and cannot be misinterpreted. Bollux to you too.
Janus, it is not straight forward, any more than the French GCSE curriculum text book justifying bigamy and burqas (I kid you not.) The problem with an oversimplified, one size fits all curriculum that consists of pop music, fashion and the importance of mobile ‘phones, instead of say Rousseau and the French revolution, is that it tries to be all things to all men. In trying to be sensitive, by treating anti semitism with the great white kid gloves of double speak and generalisation – (‘some people’; who are ‘some people’?) – the question has the opposite effect of being as heavy handed as it is idiotic. Apologies if I am, again, sounding rather Hard Times about all this, but if I am, it is because our education system has gone Soft Times. Teach the facts on anti semitism; the cold, historical facts. That is all that is needed, in my view.
‘In my view there are two types of people in this world. Those who have prejudices and liars.’
Spot on!
And those that are both prejudiced and lie are called hypocrites.
BB, the question is an attempt to study history but it is side-tracked by PC bigots and anti-Semites as demonstrated here.
Janus
It would seem that you and I, as students of history, have a different outlook to most of the rest of the world! It is not enough to know what happened – one must know why it occurred.
I really do not see how one can
without including some analysis of what caused normal, rational, and otherwise civilised humans to act the way they did in Germany under Hitler. Understanding is not the same as condoning, but it does provide an insight into the way that we all can behave in certain circumstances and, thus, provides a way of avoiding the re-occurrence of similar events in the future.
I don’t see that there is any need to discuss what prejudice means when one is talking about the sort of prejudice that leads to the determination to annihilate a whole race.
Bleuebelle
While I, as a free, white, female brought up in the Christian tradition, condemn both bigamy and the burqa, I can very easily understand why bigamy and wearing the burqa was practised in Eastern cultures in earlier times. That does not mean that I am justifying either practice in the 21st century.
It is my belief that one may far more easily persuade people to relinquish irrational prejudices and out-dated beliefs by providing the knowledge as to how those prejudices and beliefs arose rather than to simply tell them that they are wrong.
I’m a great believer that Knowledge is the Great Illumination – and that only understanding the reasons (whether logical or not) behind events like the Holocaust or practices, like wearing the burqa, will ever change the way people think.