Not 1:1, but absolutely related, and it develops early on. Babies will generally develop a preference for people who look like them at 6 months of age.
One major reason I'm sceptical of this is that, at 6 months of age, babies aren't actually capable of knowing what they look like.
How can racial biases not in-group biases?
Because again, they don't always align.
The most famous example would be the Clark doll experiment (although the Clarks actually did a whole bunch of similar experiments). If racism were motivated by in-group bias, then black children should assign positive value to dolls that have a similar skin and hair colour to them, but the experiment actually found the opposite, as has almost every experiment looking at racial bias in children. Black children replicate the negative associations and feelings about blackness that they encounter in their lives and the culture around them, and they do so at a developmentally crucial stage which informs their expectations of how they should be treated and how they should treat others. That is a racial bias.
Okay, for brevity let's do this in one go.
Racism is a discreet ideological system. It is not a "power game", whatever that is supposed to mean, and yes, it is predated by the material condition of white supremacy because that's just how things worked out in this timeline. Racism is distinct from other forms of prejudice, it is not better or worse than them save in one very important and relevant sense which we'll talk about later.
The ancient Greeks did sometimes exhibit a degree of cultural chauvinism, but they were also a diverse selection of societies that spanned hundreds of years and thousands of miles. Their relationship with the idea of foreignness was diverse and, in many cases, not easily represented in modern terms, because the Greeks did not have a Abrahamic sense of morality. What they also did not have is an understanding of race. At absolute best,
some Greeks believed in climatic determinism, which is a kind of proto-racism based on the idea that the climate you grow up in influences the mystical forces in your body and changes the kind of person you are. Climatic determinism is possibly a part of the evolution of racism, but it is also not racism.
Similarly, China is an unbelievably huge place with an unbelievably long history. Sinocentrism, and the idea of the superiority of Han Chinese culture, is a common theme but it is, again, cultural chauvinism rather than racism. At times, marriages between ethnic groups were discouraged for fear of cultural syncretism. At other times, such marriages were made mandatory in order to improve social cohesion. Resemblance to racism is supercficial.
The Islamic situation is probably the closest you're going to get, but it starts to fall apart as soon as we start digging because Islamic slavery isn't generally chattel slavery (although there are exceptions, particularly in Africa itself). It is household slavery. Often, slaves were women who were kept as concubines. But here's where the analogy to racism really starts to break down, because concubines would bear children, and those children were not slaves. Concubinage, horrible as it might be, ensured that mixed race people were everywhere in the Islamic world for hundreds of years, particularly in positions of wealth and power because that meant their fathers could have afforded more concubines. Imagine a racist society trying to deal with that.
None of this is racism, and I don't mean that in the sense that all of it is good or all of it is morally acceptable, I just mean that it is not racism. There is no intelligible idea of race here, at best we can maybe see some of the ingredients of racism, like climatic determinism and the exclusion of religious minorities from protection against horrible treatment, but the resemblance is ultimately superficial. These are not societies where racism exists.
And that distinction between racism and other culturally specific justifications for cruelty or barbarism would not matter at all were it not for one very important fact. Racism still exists.
All of these cultures with their own little systems for dividing up people into groups, with their own prejudices and ideas and justifications for cruelty, are gone. Time or modernity has swept them all into the dustbin of history, except for one. One single violent, ugly, hierarchical system of thought that has been systematically imposed onto most of the world by the people who, for whatever reason, ended up in a position to impose their system of thought onto the world. That single system, that way of dividing the world into groups based on inherent nature and heredity and blood, is what we call racism. Racism isn't just a part of our history, it's a necessary feature to explain the world we live in today. That is really all that distinguishes it from any other awful thing which happened in history, and thus the only reason why it matters.
Whether this lets people off the hook or not is meaningless, because the goal is not guilt. The goal just justice. The goal is to live in a world where racism, and its legacy, no longer exist, just as all those other culturally specific systems of prejudice no longer exist.
Because I've literally seen people claim that 2+2=5.
..and assuming that is true (which is a stretch) why do you think they think that?
Don't give me some bollocks about "alternate ways of knowing" or some misquoted phrase you stole from a rantsona video. This is a specific claim, I want a specific answer. Why do these people think, definitively, that 2+2=5. That's a weird way to think, and I'm sure an open minded and intellectually curious person like yourself was fascinated to find out the reasoning behind it.
No, the reasons aren't the same, but it's absolutely a form of racial determinism - that certain groups are inherently suited to different styles of learning than others.
No, it's actually not.
I'm going to be very clear. I don't agree with what was said there, at least not in the immediate sense, but it's not racial determinism and I'm confused as to why, outside of intentionally hostile reading, you would assume that it is.
