NWR: Prejudice vs Bigotry *possibly touchy subject*

Re: NWR: Prejudice vs Bigotry *possibly touchy subject*

• CMGragain member

  

  May 2014 edited May 2014

  My late mother had no problems with gays, but she was a racial bigot.  She had a hissy-fit when daughter was dating a very nice young man with African American heritage.  She was very unhappy about daughter marrying a man who is of Asian heritage.  Fortunately, she didn't come to the wedding.
  They visited her two years ago, and she behaved herself while he was present, but made some insulting comments later.  She was a piece of work.
  I am a Christian, and a member of the United Methodist Church, and I have no problem with gays in my church, married or otherwise.  There are older people in my congregation who would disagree, but I know that my minister would be fine with marrying a gay couple if the UMC Conference would allow it.  It is being discussed, but no new decisions, so far.
  In my grandmother's day, the Methodist Episcopal Church (That is what it was called, then.) forbade dancing or drinking alcohol.  Now this is allowed.  I truly hope and belive that my church is moving towards accepting gay marriage.  It will take time.  In the meantime, gays are welcome in our church.
  
  PS.  My 80 year old grandmother came to me and asked me what "gay sex" meant.  She said that when she was growing up, nobody talked about sex at all, and she wanted to know what this was that everybody was talking about.  She wasn't shocked when I explained it.  I also gave her a copy of "The Joy of Sex" (popular at the time) so she could learn about anything else that she was curious about.  She was delighted.  She said she didn't want to ask my mother because she would be too judgmental!
  
  

  

  Report5 Reply
• ohannabelle member

  

  May 2014

  The two words are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same, and don't indicate degrees of bigotry.

  
  

  A prejudice can be any preconceived idea- to pre-judge a person or idea or thing of any kind. If someone thinks British food is gross, for instance, having never eaten it, they have a prejudice against a type of food, even if they don't dislike British people. Or you might have a prejudice against rural living, not having ever lived in the country. A jury might be prejudiced in one's favor, so the word works either way, if your pre-judgement is either positive or negative.

  
  

  Bigotry is only applied to people, not things or ideas. It is specifically disliking/having negative prejudices against any group of people. 

  Report5 Reply
• SapphireCounselor member

  

  May 2014

  ohannabelle said:

  The two words are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same, and don't indicate degrees of bigotry.

  
  

  A prejudice can be any preconceived idea- to pre-judge a person or idea or thing of any kind. If someone thinks British food is gross, for instance, having never eaten it, they have a prejudice against a type of food, even if they don't dislike British people. Or you might have a prejudice against rural living, not having ever lived in the country. A jury might be prejudiced in one's favor, so the word works either way, if your pre-judgement is either positive or negative.

  
  

  Bigotry is only applied to people, not things or ideas. It is specifically disliking/having negative prejudices against any group of people. 

  I would love to treat this theoretically prejudiced person to a real English breakfast. One of the amazing meals on the planet!
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• HisGirlFriday13 member

  

  May 2014

  I'm a practising Roman Catholic, and I think gay marriage should be legal. I have no problems with the gay people in our church -- in fact, the organist for my wedding was gay. I think the younger generations, especially, have less and less problems with gay marriage/homosexuality, and I think when the old guard in churches dies, that prejudice and bigotry is going to die with them.

  
  

  DH's grandmother is an interesting mix of racial prejudice and bigotry. When DH got confirmed, she attended the confirmation Mass, and afterwards, she said to me, 'You know, a lot of that was like my church.' (She's Lutheran.)

  
  

  I said, 'Well, yes, probably, because Martin Luther was a Catholic monk first, before he broke off during the Reformation.'

  
  

  She kind of looked at me blankly for a minute, then said, 'What does that nice coloured boy who got shot have to do with any of this?'

  
  

  I about rolled my eyes out of my damn head and said, 'Well, DOCTOR Martin Luther KING JR., the civil rights activist, has nothing to do with your religion, but MARTIN LUTHER the German protestant, founded Lutheranism.'

  
  

  And she just kind of looked at me and I could tell she wasn't processing what I was saying.

  
  

  On the other hand, she voted for Obama, twice.

  
  

  On the other (other) hand, when we went to church with her last year for Mother's Day (a mistake we will not repeat, EVER), they had a visiting missionary from somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa (I think Nigeria, but I could be wrong and anyway it doesn't matter), and she gave a lovely presentation about her country and the work the church is doing and so on, and of course she spoke English with an accent.

  
  

  After the service, during the social hour, DH's grandmother went up to her and said, 'You talk good for a coloured person. I could hardly tell you were coloured.'

  
  

  DH about died of embarrassment and I about died of laughter. 

  
  

  She just doesn't see anything wrong with saying things like that or with calling black people 'coloured folks' or with commenting on their appearance -- i.e., she said to someone else once, 'You could almost pass for white.' None of that occurs to her as being inappropriate.

  
  

  She claims to be OK with homosexuality, but when one of her niece's kids came out, she suddenly stopped wanting to sit next to him at family functions, and she said, often, 'It will be so sad when he dies of AIDS, but all gay people get AIDS, and they just can't help it.'

  
  

  I would like to just say, 'Oh, she's 86 and set in her ways,' but I'm pretty sure she was mean when she was younger, too. The stories people have told indicate that she was a mean, vengeful person always, although, as with @CMGRagain's mother, she's sweet as pie to anyone NOT related to her. It's just those of us who are or who have married in who get the acid-tongue treatment.

  
  

  But, @jdluvr, I agree with you that I have a lot more patience for older people who are set in their ways or who have a bunch of pre-conceived ideas that you know you're not going to change than I do for people my age (30s) who have prejudice and bigotry.

  

  
  

  
  

  I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'

  Report1 Reply
• theartistformerlyknownas member

  

  May 2014 edited May 2014

  This isn't an accurate description or distinction. By definition, prejudice (literally pre-judge) is a preconceived judgement for or against something, not based on experience. It's not necessarily a sliding scale though, and people can be prejudiced against a certain thing just as strongly as a bigot, and treat people just as poorly. It's just a wider-ranging attitude than bigotry - like annabelle said, you can be prejudiced against anything. Bigotry is utter intolerance toward a belief that is different from one's own. Both feelings can result in people being discriminated against. All bigots possess prejudice, but not all prejudiced people are bigots. That doesn't mean those acting upon prejudice are good people.

  
  

  (Note: the adjective used to describe people or actions is "prejudiced." The noun which defines that feeling is "prejudice.")

  
  

  I do agree with your friend's assessment of the politician as prejudiced, since he was acting with tolerance according to the law despite his contrary beliefs, while a bigot is defined as intolerant. I just don't necessarily agree with the rationale that got him there. And nothing is saying that the politician would display the same tolerance when it came to personal decisions like selecting his staff - it just means he agrees with the legality of separation of church and state.

  ---

  
  

  
  

  Report1 Reply
• SapphireCounselor member

  

  May 2014

  HisGirlFriday13 said:

  I'm a practising Roman Catholic,either d I think gay marriage should be legal. I have no problems with the gay people in our church -- in fact, the organist for my wedding was gay. I think the younger generations, especially, have less and less problems with gay marriage/homosexuality, and I think when the old guard in churches dies, that prejudice and bigotry is going to die with them.

  
  

  DH's grandmother is an interesting mix of racial prejudice and bigotry. When DH got confirmed, she attended the confirmation Mass, and afterwards, she said to me, 'You know, a lot of that was like my church.' (She's Lutheran.)

  
  

  I said, 'Well, yes, probably, because Martin Luther was a Catholic monk first, before he broke off during the Reformation.'

  
  

  She kind of looked at me blankly for a minute, then said, 'What does that nice coloured boy who got shot have to do with any of this?'

  
  

  I about rolled my eyes out of my damn head and said, 'Well, DOCTOR Martin Luther KING JR., the civil rights activist, has nothing to do with your religion, but MARTIN LUTHER the German protestant, founded Lutheranism.'

  
  

  And she just kind of looked at me and I could tell she wasn't processing what I was saying.

  
  

  On the other hand, she voted for Obama, twice.

  
  

  On the other (other) hand, when we went to church with her last year for Mother's Day (a mistake we will not repeat, EVER), they had a visiting missionary from somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa (I think Nigeria, but I could be wrong and anyway it doesn't matter), and she gave a lovely presentation about her country and the work the church is doing and so on, and of course she spoke English with an accent.

  
  

  After the service, during the social hour, DH's grandmother went up to her and said, 'You talk good for a coloured person. I could hardly tell you were coloured.'

  
  

  DH about died of embarrassment and I about died of laughter. 

  
  

  She just doesn't see anything wrong with saying things like that or with calling black people 'coloured folks' or with commenting on their appearance -- i.e., she said to someone else once, 'You could almost pass for white.' None of that occurs to her as being inappropriate.

  
  

  She claims to be OK with homosexuality, but when one of her niece's kids came out, she suddenly stopped wanting to sit next to him at family functions, and she said, often, 'It will be so sad when he dies of AIDS, but all gay people get AIDS, and they just can't help it.'

  
  

  I would like to just say, 'Oh, she's 86 and set in her ways,' but I'm pretty sure she was mean when she was younger, too. The stories people have told indicate that she was a mean, vengeful person always, although, as with @CMGRagain's mother, she's sweet as pie to anyone NOT related to her. It's just those of us who are or who have married in who get the acid-tongue treatment.

  
  

  But, @jdluvr, I agree with you that I have a lot more patience for older people who are set in their ways or who have a bunch of pre-conceived ideas that you know you're not going to change than I do for people my age (30s) who have prejudice and bigotry.

  I was raised Catholic but walked away from the church in my late teens specifically because of their stand against gay/lesbian members (the discrimination was really really bad in my small town conservative congregation) and the fact that women cannot serve as clergy. It is so nice to read this perspective and learn that the Catholic church is shaping into a more progressive and tolerant church. In this regard I have loved a lot of what Pope Francis has had to say. Who knows, I may return if this trend continues...I do miss the Catholic church in some ways and think there is a lot about it that is really beautiful.
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• ohannabelle member

  

  May 2014

  SapphireCounselor said:

  The two words are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same, and don't indicate degrees of bigotry.

  
  

  A prejudice can be any preconceived idea- to pre-judge a person or idea or thing of any kind. If someone thinks British food is gross, for instance, having never eaten it, they have a prejudice against a type of food, even if they don't dislike British people. Or you might have a prejudice against rural living, not having ever lived in the country. A jury might be prejudiced in one's favor, so the word works either way, if your pre-judgement is either positive or negative.

  
  

  Bigotry is only applied to people, not things or ideas. It is specifically disliking/having negative prejudices against any group of people. 

  I would love to treat this theoretically prejudiced person to a real English breakfast. One of the amazing meals on the planet!

  Guilty, prejudiced as a direct result of watching my ex eating black pudding for breakfast, also with creepy gelatinous fried eggs, and much abused tomatoes fried in sausage grease. (Possibly more Irish than English.) He called it a "brilliant fry up." I called it Never in a million years am I having breakfast with your family. 

  Report1 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  May 2014

  jdluvr06 said:

  I was thinking about something my BFF said to me several years ago and would like to know what everyone here thinks about it. A few things made me think of this today. The first was the thread hisgirlfriday started about the custody battle in Pennsylvania and the second was my BFF calling me to say that my great grandma invited his boyfriend and him over to dinner on Friday.

  
  

  A few years ago BFF and I were talking about this politician (I can't remember his name, the guy wasn't elected and it was no longer relevant) who said in a speech that he was personally against gay marriage for religious reasons but that he thought that gay marriage should be legal because we have a secular government and one religions beliefs shouldn't dictate the legal status of people's relationships. This of course caused a lot of discussions. The poor (haha) politician won no one over. One side thought that he was being weak and backing down on his beliefs because of public pressure and the other side still considered him a bigot. So naturally BFF and I were talking about it. BFF immediately defended the guy. He said that the guy wasn't a bigot he was just a little prejudice. He said that in today's society we often mix the two up. I remember what he said next so clearly because it changed my perspective on the subject. He said that prejudice is when a person doesn't necessarily agree with something, like gay marriage, but doesn't treat anyone differently because of this belief. Example: a person who, for what ever reason, is against gay marriage but treats a gay person with the same kindness and respect they would anyone else and wouldn't deny them rights because of their personal belief. He said a bigot is someone who is full of hate with a superiority complex. Example: the KKK. So essentially, in his opinion, the difference between a prejudice and being a true bigot is in how you treat people. 

  
  

  I agree with him, to an extent about this. My great grandma is prejudice and I have a lot of patience with that aspect of her because she is so kind to everyone. I've never heard her say a mean word about anyone ever. I'm also more patient about it because she is 94 years old and I'm realistic to the fact that some old people are never going to be able to shake the beliefs of the society of their youth. On the other hand, if I met someone closer to my age who was prejudice I'm not sure I would have much patience. 

  
  

  I was curious how you knotties felt on the subject? 

  As far as your example, at least this man understood that his own deeply held religious beliefs have no place in public policy - that's a lot more than we can say for a lot of politicians.

  
  

  I wouldn't call him a bigot because... (see below, stolen from Wikipedia).  He isn't intolerant of opinions differing from his own.  In fact, he went out of his way to support something that his own religious faith dictated was wrong.  I'd prefer if he didn't feel that way, but he wasn't trying to impose it on anyone, which is, I think, as healthy as you can hope for when someone has a deeply held religious belief like that.

  
  

  A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• SapphireCounselor member

  

  May 2014

  buy

  SapphireCounselor said:

  The two words are often used interchangeably, but they're not the same, and don't indicate degrees of bigotry.

  
  

  A prejudice can be any preconceived idea- to pre-judge a person or idea or thing of any kind. If someone thinks British food is gross, for instance, having never eaten it, they have a prejudice against a type of food, even if they don't dislike British people. Or you might have a prejudice against rural living, not having ever lived in the country. A jury might be prejudiced in one's favor, so the word works either way, if your pre-judgement is either positive or negative.

  
  

  Bigotry is only applied to people, not things or ideas. It is specifically disliking/having negative prejudices against any group of people. 

  I would love to treat this theoretically prejudiced person to a real English breakfast. One of the amazing meals on the planet!

  Guilty, prejudiced as a direct result of watching my ex eating black pudding for breakfast, also with creepy gelatinous fried eggs, and much abused tomatoes fried in sausage grease. (Possibly more Irish than English.) He called it a "brilliant fry up." I called it Never in a million years am I having breakfast with your family.
  
  
  
  Lol, I actually didn't realize you were talking about yourself for some reason. I am not English - in fact my husband and I went to the UK for the first time last year for our honeymoon, but I got to experience English Breakfast there and fell in love. I can definitely understand why it isn't for everyone. It extremely savory, heavy and oily. I'm pretty sure that if I lived somewhere where I access English Breakfast I would gain weight like crazy. It is awesome hang over food though.
  

  

  Report0 Reply