> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nationalism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nationalism.io/understanding-discrimination-prejudice-and-racism.md). # Understanding discrimination, prejudice & racism To establish whether there are instances where it is fair and reasonable to apply discrimination, prejudice and racism we first need to define these different words. ## Definitions of discrimination, prejudice and antagonism Discrimination, prejudice and antagonism are defined in a fairly similar way across different online sources. Broadly the definitions for these words are: * **Discrimination** - Treating categories of people differently than others such as on the grounds of race, ancestry, age, sex or disability. * **Prejudice** - A preconceived opinion or feeling that is not based on reason or actual experience. * **Antagonism** - Active hostility or opposition towards a particular individual or group. ## **Definitions of racism** Racism has a larger and more varied range of definitions across online sources: * “Policies, behaviours, rules, etc. that result in continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race” - [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/racism) * “Harmful or unfair things that people say, do, or think based on the belief that their own race makes them more intelligent, good, moral, etc. than people of other races” - [Cambridge Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/racism) * “A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others” - [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism) * “A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” - [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) * “Behaviour or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief\*\*:\*\* discrimination, prejudice, or violence against people because of their race” - [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) * “The belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief. Racism also refers to the aspects of a society which prevent people of some racial groups from having the same privileges and opportunities as people from other races” - [Collins Dictionary](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/racism) ## Racism definition and usage complexity As outlined above, the definition of racism is not narrowly defined. A key distinction that needs to be discussed is whether the definition should includes all forms of prejudice and discrimination as being racist or whether it only applies when those applications of prejudice and discrimination which are unjust. There are justifiable reasons to discriminate against a group such as when another group wants to retain their self-determination and govern themselves as a distinct nation. But is this racist? If the term racism includes all forms of discrimination then yes it is racist. If the definition only includes unjust forms of discrimination then it is not racist. However it is still difficult to say it in an entirely definitive way that it is not racist as a distinct group is being prevented from being able to migrate into another country. These other groups could find that unjust as they no longer have the option to migrate into these countries whereas other groups might be able to. This group could be rejected from multiple countries that don’t want to live with them. Although this is true it is still not a very compelling argument that the preferences of migrant groups that want to live in another groups country should take precedent over the preferences of distinct ancestral groups within their own country. Forcing a nation to accept migration from groups they don’t want to live with can be understood as a form of oppression. Due to the conflicting definitions and broad usage of the term racism it has lost some of its value and meaning as a word. A more useful definition of racism would be “Unjust prejudice, discrimination or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership to a particular racial or ethnic group”. However rather than debating and advocating for a specific definition of racism, it is likely more productive to focus on the more narrowly termed words that already have more precise definition like discrimination and prejudice. The argument then becomes which forms of discrimination and prejudice are just and unjust. Some examples when they are justified would include situations where people are applying preference discrimination or precautionary prejudice. ## **Preference discrimination** It is observably true that each individual is different within their own racial group but there are also observable differences between racial groups. Each distinct group can have different physical traits like hair, eye colour, facial shape, bone structure, average height and so on. Individuals or groups may decide to discriminate due to a number of reasons: * They have numerous lived experiences with this group of people and these experiences were predominantly negative. * They have heard of negative experiences from other people whom they trust. * They have seen reliable sources of data that track crimes based on age, ethnicity, religion or other factors. However there are also a number of situations where it is justifiable to discriminate against others solely based on personal or collective preferences. Some of those contexts include: * **Individual** - Every individual has the freedom of choice to date, marry and reproduce with whomever they like. They are also free to choose who they want to associate and spend time with. An individual may do this for racial reasons. For instance they might want their own children to look like them when deciding on who to reproduce with. Another example is an individual may decide to cross the road and avoid groups that are statistically more likely to commit crimes. If individuals were not allowed to have any freedom of choice to make these decisions it would mean they are being oppressed to do something they don’t want to. * **Private groups** - People come together to form their own private groups. Sometimes this is just friend groups spending time together and for other people it might be to come together to enjoy a recreational activity. Each group has the freedom of choice to choose who they want to spend time with. If people can’t spend time with who they want to as groups this would be a form of oppression from others that prevent that. * **National populations** - Nations may want to preserve and protect certain aspects of their way of life whether that’s their ancestral group, culture or heritage. They might also collectively prefer to only live by themselves or only with certain other groups. A nation-state can decide themselves which groups, if any, are allowed to migrate into their country. If a nation was not able to discriminate based on their preferences they could be forced to live with people that the majority don’t want to. This is a form of group oppression that could be pushed due to ideological reasons such as liberalism. In all of these contexts an individual or group may prefer to associate or live with certain groups over others. This might just be based on their own preferences but it also might be due to lived experiences or knowledge of other peoples experiences or sources of data on things like crime. Although discrimination can be justified in certain contexts it is also harmful and counter productive in other scenarios: * **Public groups** - Groups of people often come together to start public groups for certain sports, activity or causes. If the group is public and joinable by anyone in the nation-state it makes sense that these groups do not discriminate against others. If there are multiple ancestral groups and races living inside a single nation-state this means the long-established population should have accepted that outcome and way of life. If the nation is happy for these groups to live inside their country it does not make sense to then discriminate against them in public groups. * **Organisations** - Organisations cover things like businesses, charities and not for profits. Discrimination against certain groups would prevent people from being able to live a normal life. It is therefore reasonable to forbid discrimination in these environments as people need to use organisations to buy goods and services and to work in these organisations to live. This is another situation where other groups have been accepted into country which means they should be treated like anyone else in a professional and consumer environment. ## Precautionary prejudice There might be instances where an individual or group has no prior knowledge of another group. They might not know their language, behaviours or about their way of life and any cultural differences. These can create contexts where an individual or group is willing to apply prejudice against others to more reliably protect themselves from harm or other undesirable outcomes. If an individual or group doesn’t know the other person or groups background and all they know is that they are part of a different group they are entitled to act or make decisions in a way that will better guarantees their safety in these situations. It’s not fair or reasonable to expect an individual or group to not prioritise their own safety in the face of a potential threat. An individual or private group may apply precautionary prejudice. A national population may also apply it if they don’t have enough data and information about another group. They might want to have sufficient data about that group and know there is minimal risk of harm before making any further decision on whether to accept migrants from that group. Similar to preference discrimination, it doesn’t make sense to use precautionary prejudice for public groups or organisations as in these contexts the individuals are already living inside the same country. They should have been vetted already before they were able to move to the country. So public groups and organisations should always give people benefit of the doubt in the situations where they have no prior knowledge of the individual that wants to use or join a public group or organisation. ## In-group vs out-group preference Forcing a group of people to live with another group of people that they don’t want to is a form of oppression. This is why it is important to identify the preferences of each ancestral group in their own countries. It is these populations that need to decide who should be able to live with them. Adopting an in-group preference approach means they will select the groups that can live with them. This might mean that no other groups can live with them in their country. It might also mean that only some groups could live with them based on their preferences. Some people will argue this is unfair to the out-group as they might not get to live in certain countries due to other peoples preferences to not live with them. An out-group approach means that the preferences of the out-group are being prioritised above the preferences of the in-group. The long-established ancestral population might not want to live with certain groups but due to out-group preference they are being forced to accept that outcome. Some people will argue this is unfair for the in-group as it is forcing them to live in a way that they don’t want to. The out-group preference approach will only persist in instances where an ideology like liberalism is forcing people to live in a way that they don’t want to. Or it could be due to out-groups forcing the in-group to accept them. In either scenarios this is a form of ideological oppression or externally forced oppression. ## Relevance to nationalism A nation is its people and a long-established ancestral population may want to preserve their ancestral groups identity. This preference to preserve the continuity of their own distinct group can result in national policies that discriminate against other ancestral groups. These policies are adopted as a way to more reliably protect their self-determination as a group to govern themselves in their own nation-state. Civic, cultural or ancestral nationalism are all forms of nationalism that might decide to use preference discrimination or precautionary prejudice to protect their identity, culture, heritage or way of life. No nation is obligated to abandon or dilute these things for the benefit of an out-group at the expense of the in-group. A nation may have a preference to accept migration from some groups but not others. A nation needs to set its own boundaries to determine who can live with them in their own nation-state. Anti-discrimination laws still make sense for protecting people that live within the country, if the ancestral population has invited migrants into their society, it makes sense that these people are treated equally whilst they are there. This helps to protect everyone who lives in a society. A majority might approve migration of certain groups, so anti-discrimination laws can protect those groups against the minority that rejects those groups. However, if the majority of the ancestral population change their mind, they have the right to ask certain groups to leave. This means protecting the rights of migrant groups that are accepted into the society, but also protecting the rights of the ancestral population to decide who is allowed into their country or not. Ancestral populations having self determination means they will make migration decisions based on who they want to live with, which in some cases might be a preference to live amongst themselves. They are entitled to identify issues and resolve them by changing migration policy and deporting individuals or groups that they no longer want to live with. ## What laws and policies need to change Individuals and private groups can already apply preference discrimination or precautionary prejudice. A nation-state isn’t realistically able to prevent individuals or private groups from interacting with and associating with people they want to. Anti-discrimination laws are often in place to protect against discrimination in the workplace or in public settings. Discrimination shouldn’t be happening in organisations and public groups. Laws and policies in many nation-states do not need to change on this matter. The main area where laws and policies do need to change is for handling national populations. These distinct populations need to have a way to express their preferences of who they want to live with. This decision can have a large impact on how the countries culture and way of life will change over time. National populations should have the right to discriminate against other groups based on their preferences of who they would prefer to live with. National population decision making around migration is what is not commonly possible under the existing liberal systems. It is this liberal ideology that can lead to in-group oppression by not taking into account the preferences of the long-established ancestral population from each nation-state.