Discrimination is the act of differentiating internally between the perception of external events. Chocolate or vanilla? To distinguish twixt the two is to discriminate.
Segregation is the act of separating external events based on discriminatory conclusions.
Both words have fairly neutral implications in their most academic form.
Now combine the two: So you prefer roses to tulips because roses are prettier. Note the subjective standard upon which preference is based. You have spoken no unkindness to the tulips.
But we are human beings, and prone to personalization. Our base cultural assumptions regarding human nature note the worst in people; thus, the criteria upon which we first discriminate, and next segregate, are largely subjective and negative.
Thus it would become that a person prefers roses to tulips because tulips stink. Or prefers tulips to roses because tulips don't have nasty thorns.
Cats and dogs? Do you like cats because they're aloof? Do you like dogs because they're personable? What, then, if you prefer dogs because cats are stupid arrogant pricks? Or if you prefer cats because dogs are slobbering vacuous sycophants?
What about people? Does one prefer the presence (sexuality is irrelevant) of a woman because women make more sense? Or does one prefer the presence of women because men are all mean cock-knocking perverts? Does one prefer the presence of men because one is comfortable among men? Or does one prefer the presence of men because women are meddling bitchy twits?
Everyone who knows me knows I am exceptionally comfortable among "white" culture. Rather, I am uncomfortable among most, if not all cultural paradigms, but it is documented that my upbringing and my general familiarity with white culture in America dominates my perspective. When I feel uncomfortable in a neighborhood predominantly bearing dark skin, it is only because of artificial criteria for discrimination. I separate myself from that other human being because ...? Well, in my own life, I've heard black people be blamed for everything. It's a bit rough to shake off from time to time, and it infuriates me when I find some tattered remnant of the old hatreds clinging to me. So in this sense, the question becomes:
Why don't you date that black woman who is obviously interested in you? (I'll skip the first question: Obviously? There is doubt as to the degree.)
Issues of comfort is the answer: This woman is a forceful personality with a grating voice and a head full of high-minded ideas that all center around the material improvement of the self.
Proper discrimination, by my reckoning, would be that I wouldn't want to date this woman because, well, she's annoying in doses beyond ten or so minutes.
Inappropriate discrimination would be that I wouldn't want to date her because she's annoying and assumptive and self-centered, "just like
They all are."
The result can be the same: I have discriminated and then segregated. The motivation is much, much different. She's not inferior. She is simply someone with whom I have little in common.
Thus,
the key to discrimination is intent versus result. To license mere intent means that all those folks who hate people for skin color or gender or whatnot can continue to do so because their intent is to "protect their children", or other such excuse for logic.
Pick it up in the US just after emancipation: That Negro is uncultured, uneducated, and can't keep a job. Well ... we the people decided that the Negroes should be so. Slavery, illiteracy, Jim Crow, disenfranchisement, substandard schools (separate but equal, my ass!), and a full-blown police action brings us up to the modern day. Discrimination founded on ill-conceived affinities have ripped apart the soul of the country.
And therein lies the key: Discrimination is a word that represents a simple differentiation within a person's perception. What we do with that difference--when and how we choose to discriminate--makes all the difference in the world.
Proper discrimination: In the 1980's, much of the HIV-prevention effort focused solely on homosexuals and IV drug users, two groups not finding widespread public acceptance. That the government chose to focus on these groups indicates no inappropriate discrimination, but rather the recognition that the vital criteria pertaining to the spread of HIV indicated that here is a good place to start.
Inappropriate discrimination: In the 1990's, acting on Biblical interpretation, conservative Christians asked the State of Oregon to discriminate (by recognizing homosexuals), segregate (by classifying homosexuals as a single unit) and then to fire them (because they are homosexual) in order to guarantee Christian freedom and thus not discriminate inappropriately against Christians. The intent of the discrimination is inappropriate here; that impropriety comes from the assumed superiority Christians award to themselves. Whereas proper discrimination offered no suspension of Liberty for anyone, the inappropriate discrimination manifests an impure motive and causes human beings hurt.
Or something about like that.
thanx,
Tiassa
