Is racism equivalent to genocide?

Question

If so, to what degree and in what specific ways? Especially in the context of African Americans and U.S. history in the 20th century. If not, why?

Answer 1

No, judging people based on their race is not equivalent to murdering every member of a race.

Racism can play a role in genocide, but that doesn't make them EQUIVALENT -- that is, exactly the same thing.

Although there's been a lot of racism directed toward African Americans, it's not true that every African American has been murdered.

Edit in response to email prodding for elaboration:

My point was that, although the two concepts are sometimes linked (that is, some cases of genocide are based on, inspired by, racism), they aren't the same thing at all.

For one thing, genocide might not have to do with race at all,but by culture or religion, or wanting to clear out a territory.

And although, say, concluding everyone of a given race is stupid is itself stupid (and racist), that's not the same as actually murdering everyone of that race.

They're just different phenomena, in the same way that insulting someone, beating someone up, and killing someone are not the same thing.

The "passion" you were seeing in my original answer was more a passion for clarity of thought and expression.

As wrong as racism is (and it IS, completely wrongheaded and immoral), it just isn't the same as mass murder.

Another difference is that one is an attitude or belief (or set of beliefs); the other an action.

The kind of thing they have in common is dehumanizing others (which racists do in their beliefs that those of other races aren't fully human, or as valuable as humans as their own race; and which people who participate in genocide do, in order to be able to slaughter people -- so much easier to kill, when "what" you're killing isn't a human being, if you follow).

I guess what set me off in response to your question was the idea that someone who uses a racial epithet is just not in the same moral category as  someone who murders a lot of people.

Both wrong, but hardly equivalent.

Again, it's about making distinctions, and using words carefully.

There have been racists (in the sense of believing peopleof another race to be inferior) who have been polite, helpful, even kind to people of the other race.

So, while one doesn't approve of their beliefs, at least they don't act on them in a completely ugly way.

Even if two things are wrong, it doesn't mean they're equally wrong.

Hope that helped.

Answer 2

No.  

Racism / Nationalism / Sexism / Ageism / Etc:  Perceptions of "ranking" or spectrum of "value" between different human groupings, usually dichotomous "them against us" rivalry.  Dichotomy requires that both "sides" survive.   Slavery requires both master and slave.  It is a social contract of sorts.  A social contract states that we can live together and not kill each other if we agree to some cultural terms, such as slavery.  The perceived value of life is less for the slave than it is for the master because the slave surrenders his free will to another.  Without self-determination, the slave is perceived as livestock without souls.  Christianity equates free will with "soul".  Historically, Christians tend to allow "soul-less" humans to survive if they agree in some social contract to hand-over their free wills to them as a commodity in a barter, a barter that slaves, too, have a part in the making.   Master / Slave paradigms (The Christian/Judeo culture) need LIVING slaves.  

Genocide:  Genocide is much more primitive than racism.  Early humans raided other nearby groupings and cannibolized their young and weak, not so much for food as for genocidal urges to cull in deliberately horrifying ways other groupings that encroached too closely on their territory and sense of security.  Perceptions of which human groupings should survive and which should not survive, are usually universal, they are aimed at ALL other human groupings.  If possible, genocidal groups would eliminate all other humans but their own single grouping.      

A social contract, even one that includes slavery, requires a human conscience, both individual and group-mind.  Within the human conscience, we must believe in the concept that "Life itself is precious" in order for us to form social contracts and all live together without killing each other.  Genocidal people /groupings, on the otherhand, are pre-human or deformed and damaged in conscience development.  They do not hold "Life is precious" as a concept set at all.  Genocide is found in the absence of social contracts and human conscience.

Answer 3

Genocide would be the most extreme example of racism...