Is Racism Natural?

[Anarch_Mesa]

I am going to start this thread off with saying that I in no way agree with this arguement nor do I appose it, I am open to all peoples suggestions.

This argument I have been reading goes into deph and though I have read no books on the subject, I am wondering what you guys think of the subject.

Is racism natural?

Can any one person look at the same person but with two different skin colors the same. I'm not referring to racism as hatred but as looking at people in a different manner than you would look at another person.

Often people use races to catagorize people, such as "gangsters" do "gangsters" have to be black or can they be lantin or white. (I am not referring to your original mafia type gangsters) and if they don't have to be black when you picture a gangster do you see a black man?

It was just some interesting arguments that I was looking at. I might read some books on the subject soon.

Or is it based on your surroundings.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am going to start this thread off with saying that I in no way agree with this arguement nor do I appose it, I am open to all peoples suggestions.

This argument I have been reading goes into deph and though I have read no books on the subject, I am wondering what you guys think of the subject.

Is racism natural?

Can any one person look at the same person but with two different skin colors the same. I'm not referring to racism as hatred but as looking at people in a different manner than you would look at another person.

Often people use races to catagorize people, such as "gangsters" do "gangsters" have to be black or can they be lantin or white. (I am not referring to your original mafia type gangsters) and if they don't have to be black when you picture a gangster do you see a black man?

It was just some interesting arguments that I was looking at. I might read some books on the subject soon.

Or is it based on your surroundings.

The first point which must be addressed is that what you have described is not racism.

Racism is: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." (dictionary.com)

Secondly, you are speaking of racial prejudices. Are these natural? Some are. For example, individuals are naturally sympathetic to those who look similar to themselves. Note that this has nothing to do with any specific race.
Others are not. For example, associations between cultural images and certain races (as you noted, black people being portrayed as gangsters; or perhaps a more recent one of Muslims being terrorists). These are socially constructed associations which are often derived from actual racist tendencies, if not blatantly racist practices and beliefs.

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

racial prejudices. Are these natural? Some are. For example, individuals are naturally sympathetic to those who look similar to themselves. Note that this has nothing to do with any specific race.

This is true, and even then it is socially constructed and is not entirely "natural". My evidence is anecdotal, but I think indicative. I have a family friend whose adopted child is African. His family is Caucasian and so most of her relatives and playmates are Caucasian as well. As a toddler, she was very outgoing, but was, bizarrely, afraid of black people. So when they would have black friends over, even though the child was adopted from Africa, she would start crying when these people held her. I got the sense she definitely recognized that something was very different, about people of African decent. I imagine she was aware, even as a toddler, about her darker skin and how she looked in the mirror, but, strangely she still was afraid of black people. As she got a little older, of course, this fear went away, but in her most "natural" state, as an infant and a toddler, she already sensed something wasn't quite right about people who didn't look like mommy and daddy.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Racism is: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." (dictionary.com)

Ok my bad.




Are these natural? Some are. For example, individuals are naturally sympathetic to those who look similar to themselves. Note that this has nothing to do with any specific race.
Others are not. For example, associations between cultural images and certain races (as you noted, black people being portrayed as gangsters; or perhaps a more recent one of Muslims being terrorists). These are socially constructed associations which are often derived from actual racist tendencies, if not blatantly racist practices and beliefs.



I wouldn't say that your first point is necissarily true. In fact I would go off on a limb to say many people hate their own race more than anothers. This usually has to due with their surroundings.

I realize that associating one race with a specific image that is around at the time could not be "Natural", but is it something that you are drawn toward being a different race than the other. Muslims would look at themselves as something entirely different than another race visa-versa. Then again your enviroment would make you percieve what a race is due to your personal experiences. So I am unsure on this situation, as I said I will be reading into it.

[YadaRanger]

Human "nature" is just another way to say that your a product of your environment, so, if your mother and father and everyone you EVER come in contact with is raciest, you will be to.

But if you live in a diverse society that puts an emphasis not on "tolerance", but acceptance and understanding, then you will be accepting, and understanding.

And i think thats called socialism. lol. im not sure though. Love you!!:wub::blushing:

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Is racism natural?Does a German Sheppard refuse to mate with a Husky?

Will a Hereford and Braunvieh cow refuse to shack up in the same barn together?

Racism is a sad and peculiar trait originally created by people to control other people, and passed down the years to the impressionable and ignorant children, much like organized religion (another human concept.)

[Anarch_Mesa]

Does a German Sheppard refuse to mate with a Husky?

Will a Hereford and Braunvieh cow refuse to shack up in the same barn together?

Racism is a sad and peculiar trait originally created by people to control other people, and passed down the years to the impressionable and ignorant children, much like organized religion (another human concept.)This is a pitiful argument does a dog attack a cat.... Sometimes but sometimes not what decides the difference

[Decolonize The Left]

This is true, and even then it is socially constructed and is not entirely "natural". My evidence is anecdotal, but I think indicative. I have a family friend whose adopted child is African. His family is Caucasian and so most of her relatives and playmates are Caucasian as well. As a toddler, she was very outgoing, but was, bizarrely, afraid of black people. So when they would have black friends over, even though the child was adopted from Africa, she would start crying when these people held her. I got the sense she definitely recognized that something was very different, about people of African decent. I imagine she was aware, even as a toddler, about her darker skin and how she looked in the mirror, but, strangely she still was afraid of black people. As she got a little older, of course, this fear went away, but in her most "natural" state, as an infant and a toddler, she already sensed something wasn't quite right about people who didn't look like mommy and daddy.

Ok, but infants don't have a sense of 'self.' Toddlers may, but even then their sense of 'self' is highly dependent upon the input of their parents.

Furthermore, we cannot know if she cried when held simply because of the color of the adult's skin, or because of the fact that those holding her were not her parents. The latter seems far more probable, doesn't it?


I wouldn't say that your first point is necissarily true. In fact I would go off on a limb to say many people hate their own race more than anothers. This usually has to due with their surroundings.

I'm not sure if this is the case. Not only is this point poorly constructed and without justification, but arguments for the systematic and structural racism present in the United States are very powerful.

- August

[KrazyRabidSheep]

This is a pitiful argument does a dog attack a cat.... Sometimes but sometimes not what decides the differenceThe temperament of the dog and the cat.

However, the dogs and cats and cows, etc. will interact consistently with others of the species they are in a casual relationship with; they will not use breed as the variable that decides.

Rover might like to chase cats; Spot does so only when the cat gets to close; Rex lives with cats, so he's used to them and leaves them be; Shep chases cars; does that make Shep an automobilist?

That said, comparing dog/cat interaction would be akin to human/gorilla interaction.

[SamiBTX]

Racism is mostly created based on how someone was brought up.
But that's not always the case.
I used to think that they couldn't be rehabilitated (so to speak), but I saw a show a few years ago where a skinhead was shown the day in the life as a black man (he was made-up to look black) & started to understand.
First, he stood on a street corner asking for directions. He got very good reception & polite answers. Then he got made-up as a black man & did the same thing & asked for directions & got a much colder reception.

So, not all racists are hopeless.

[AutomaticMan]

Racism isn't 'natural' because 'race' is an artificial construct. It's difficult to say what is 'natural' and what isn't, but there's certainly no biological reasoning behind oppressing other people because of the colour of their skin.

[Dystisis]

I have no idea what "natural" means and have yet do find a person with a meaningful explanation. For example... How come a tree in a forest is considered natural, yet a building in a city is not? There is no logical explanation, they are both part of nature and affect the ecosystem just as much.

So racism is not "natural" or "unnatural", it is stupid and unnecessary.

[Azurite]

Racism is conditioned in us during our upbringing. Humans have a natural fear of the unknown, and whether we get over that fear or not depends on what happens to us as we go on.

For example, assuming that all people are at first wary of other races, if one member of that race does something bad, then that confirms their fear and they will apply that to all members of that race. There are some self-confessed racists out there who don't want to be racist, but can't help how they feel.

I don't hate racists, but I do pity them.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Race is just another convenient little detail for bourgeois to amplify in an effort to turn workers against each other.
It is not some "natural" disposition to fear or despise people of a different skin colour than oneself.
It's only an issue insofar as society conditions us to treat it as one, as mentioned in other replies here.

[Mark Blair]

Well done, Anarch Mesa, for asking the question. I have just, this very moment, stuck my head out for a kicking in an article, in the theory section, titled 'The Little Switch Under The Dash That Will Put The Left Back In The Ascendancy.' The left is at this moment moribund because activists are gulity of logic as bad as: 'Human nature is just another way to say that your a product of your environment . . . ' I don't want to be critical, but the statement is a logical absurdity.
I am prepared to help source and adduce material on this issue. Indeed, I mention in my essay an expectation of 'codicils,' and racism is one that I expect to arise.
Mark

[gla22]

Is racism an inherent trait of humanity? No. Is racism a very common product of society? yes. Is classification and categorization of people and objects a traits and objects an inherent trait? Yes given the language has made the person capable of this. Racism starts with the classification of people based on skin color and associating certain things (real or imagined) with that skin color. It is certain individuals who will exploit this for their own personal aims.

[Mark Blair]

Nice, Gla 22!

Welcome to the malestrom, Red Hand. Gird your loins.

Some things, like the ability of immature homo sapiens to acquire language, are genetic predispositions – indeed, the only goddamned way you can stop a child learning the languages in its environment is to lock it in the cellar.

Some things (racism, homophobism, sexism, nationalism), are learned; they are cultural; they are constructs.

However, the historical Way of the World was a model in which many things that we can now demonstrate to be cultural were believed to be natural (because the ruling class, in systems controlled by the ruling class, taught us peons that they were natural).

The historical status of/perceptions of women is an outstanding example: a hundred years ago (or since 1971, in the case of Switzerland, a notoriously right-wing nation), women were not allowed (by the men who ran the place) to vote. They weren't capable of abstract thought; they were 'differently mentally-abled.' They were (as God made them, a tricky twist on the whole thing) inclined to motherhood. They were destined for the nursery, and their 'education' was to this end. So . . . if you asked them to pontificate on the Greek classics or calculus, they couldn't – see! They're dummies! (Destined for motherhood, and their education was to this end.)
It was not until the first 'round' of feminism, in which women won the vote and the right to go to university, that it was(resoundingly) demonstrated that women could deal with abstract issues as well as men. (Though there seem to be some quirks here, tiny hooks on which the right wing would hang a quadrillion kilograms of institutionalised discrimination.)

A capable activist knows (of her background in metaphysics) which things in the world are (a) natural, like the biological fact that women can have babies; (b) cultural, like the manner of greetings in different societies – largely innocuous shit; and (c) the-cultural-represented-as-natural, like the notion that women must have babies (rather than an education); and the political furore around this, Red Hand, has put millions of our fellows in shallow graves, so it's elementally important that we be conversant with this issue.

Mark

[Trystan]

I believe that racial mistrust is natural, but only to a degree; i.e. in so far as there is a lack of knowledge and understanding. But it's not natural like the sun rising in the morning is natural . . . it can be overcome, evidently. :)

[Plagueround]

I have no idea what "natural" means and have yet do find a person with a meaningful explanation. For example... How come a tree in a forest is considered natural, yet a building in a city is not? There is no logical explanation, they are both part of nature and affect the ecosystem just as much.

So racism is not "natural" or "unnatural", it is stupid and unnecessary.

A tree in a forest is considered natural because it has the ability to exist without human or animal intervention. A building does not. Where it gets complicated is humans and animals are inclined to build dwellings. Therefore, the urge to create a dwelling for protection from the elements and other animals is natural, but the building itself is not. (Although as you said, they impact the environment just as much and are all built from "natural" materials in some way shape or form...really, by viewing it that way, the "what is natural" argument is simply semantics and is mostly useless...but it serves my next point well.)

Similarly, racism is not an inherent trait that we are genetically predisposed to. We are however, inclined to fear of the unknown. Just as we built physical shelters to protect ourselves, that fear caused some people to build these ideas in their heads. However, we don't need to live indoors all our lives for fear of weather or other animals all the time, most of the time the weather is fine and most animals won't harm us. Racism isn't natural, racism is an inherited building some people are afraid to step out of. Its also a stupid and unnecessary building that lacks doors or windows.

[TheFern]

Racism is not natural - the societies before us did not discriminate based on the color of a person's skin. I believe that even the Greeks had people of African birth in powerful positions, as did the Catholic Church (there were approx. 3 African popes I believe). Racial discrimination based on skin color was an idea fostered by those who wished to divide the people along arbitrary lines. Whether you're white, black, yellow, brown, red, olive, or purple (lol), we're all one.

[Led Zeppelin]

Pretty simple; human nature does not exist, so it is not natural.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Pretty simple; human nature does not exist, so it is not natural.


Perhaps you were being slightly hyperbolic here, but to say that human nature doesn't exist cannot be accurate.

We have a biological structure, after all. You might dispute the extent to which we have a nature, and the content of that nature, but you can't seriously maintain that it isn't there at all. I mean, let's just start with survival instinct. We as a species have evolved, and therefore it follows that it is in our nature to try to survive. If it wasn't, we would not be here. Do you accept that? If you don't, I'm puzzled, because it's really a biological fact, and if you do, then it should follow that you accept that from survival, other broad themes emerge. The tendency to accumulate resources, co-operative behaviour, sex, the "fight or flight" response, etc, all stem from the survival instinct.

-Alex

-Alex

[Sendo]

no it is not natural. Look at different socieites through time. The only naturally arising feature tends to be general fear of outsiders if anything. But even that is trained and put into people. All of the real racism, the European whites kind, is endorsed by powerful entities like churches and states and now corporations. Racism was used as an excuse to start enslaving and keeping blacks throughout the Americas and that is the greatest example. We can also see how it's been overcome by class unity and populism throughout US history. The Dems and Repubs and the State and the wealthy revitalized racist feelings during the later Reconstruction and it continues to this day. But there is nothing inevitable about it.

Sexism, on the other hand, is natural to a degree. Not in the sense of women are inferior, but definitely that they are different. You can lose the distinction between black/yellow/etc but you're always aware of gender since we are sexual beings. We also have very strong cultural patterns imprinted onto men and women respectively and while there is plenty of individualism, certain traits and ways of self-expressions recur in each gender respectively. We can train ourselves to not act as sexists. But we will always, face to face, at least consciously note the genders of people we meet.

[Decolonize The Left]

Sexism, on the other hand, is natural to a degree. Not in the sense of women are inferior, but definitely that they are different. You can lose the distinction between black/yellow/etc but you're always aware of gender since we are sexual beings. We also have very strong cultural patterns imprinted onto men and women respectively and while there is plenty of individualism, certain traits and ways of self-expressions recur in each gender respectively. We can train ourselves to not act as sexists. But we will always, face to face, at least consciously note the genders of people we meet.

This is not sexism. Sexism is:
"The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender." (wiktionary.com)

Everyone knows females and males are biologically different...

- August

[Led Zeppelin]

Perhaps you were being slightly hyperbolic here, but to say that human nature doesn't exist cannot be accurate.

We have a biological structure, after all. You might dispute the extent to which we have a nature, and the content of that nature, but you can't seriously maintain that it isn't there at all. I mean, let's just start with survival instinct. We as a species have evolved, and therefore it follows that it is in our nature to try to survive. If it wasn't, we would not be here. Do you accept that? If you don't, I'm puzzled, because it's really a biological fact, and if you do, then it should follow that you accept that from survival, other broad themes emerge. The tendency to accumulate resources, co-operative behaviour, sex, the "fight or flight" response, etc, all stem from the survival instinct.

-Alex

-Alex

Dude, you signed your name twice there. :p

But I was using the term "human nature" in the philosophical sense of the term, that is, in terms of human consciousness being something static. That does not exist, because existence precedes essence, not the other way round.

Meaning, there is no "divine plan" that determines how we live our lives or what form of consciousness we have, material being and we ourselves decide that.

A note to others; Please don't reply to me saying that I am not being materialistic by saying that we ourselves determine how we live our lives or what we do, I said "material being" plays a part as well, meaning that we can't just decide to fly and be able to do it.

[Chapaev]

I don't think it is wise to deny that people have a perception of people with different physiological features. If a northern European man wandered around in a remote African village, he would at least encounter curiosity. My mother told me stories about how people would be amazed every time an African appeared in her native country.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Dude, you signed your name twice there.


Shut up foo'. :o


But I was using the term "human nature" in the philosophical sense of the term, that is, in terms of human consciousness being something static. That does not exist, because existence precedes essence, not the other way round.

Sure, I can more or less agree with this. Would you accept that there are any static components in our consciousness at all, though? I mean, as you say, we can't start flying, so there certainly seem to be fixed limits on what we can meaningfully decide to do. Would you agree that our thoughts are to some extent anchored in our genetic make-up? I ask because I'm with most of the left in that I think the primary determinant of consciousness is the environement, especially the socioeconomic environment. That said, a lot of people seem to take this idea to an extreme, saying things like "Human nature does not exist"... I think that there are a few things that have their root in biology, though, which would suggest that a static nature does exist in some form or other.

This is all getting a bit philosophical. Perhaps it ought to be split.

-Alex (I'm not even entirely sure why I sign off like this. :lol: Force of habit.)

[Frost]

I think it is more than possible for humans to be naturally inclined to discriminate. Whether or not that could be based on race, I don't know. I've experienced otherwise, so I tend to think not. But here is an interesting study worth looking at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050525105357.htm

[Oneironaut]

sociologists would all agree that it is we are existing before we form some type of essence. so the answer is no, racism is not natural. however, there are a handful of sociobiologists who are claiming that our actions in society are explicitly affected by the biological nature of the individual. they claim to have discovered a certain gene in african americans that has indicated to alter their tendency to commit crimes. the saddest part is that they wrote books, provided trash evidence that came from bullshit "methodology", and people are buying their books and eating it up. the extent some racists will go to try and justify themselves...

[Oswy]

It could be argued that humans have an instinct for caution with strangers, depending on the circumstances, but I don't think this can be extended to the idea that racism is instinctive. Race is a socially constructed phenomenon and is only a few centuries old as a coherent ideology, so racism itself is a relatively 'modern' phenomenon too.

[Sendo]

I was taking the definition to be seoarating and distinguishing people on basis of race being racism and likewise for sexes being sexism. I don't take the narrow definition that racism is a simple belief o superiority/inferiority; any prejudice in racial matters will inevitably lead to that however...no one can make separate but equal distinctions for race. Either you believe race matters or it doesn't.

[Black Dagger]

I was taking the definition to be seoarating and distinguishing people on basis of race being racism and likewise for sexes being sexism

I think you've substituted a 'narrow' definition of racism for one that is so broad that it distorts context. Making a distinction between individuals on the basis of race or sex is not necessarily racist or sexist - it depends why the distinction is being made, the outcome of this distinction and so forth.

For example, using race or sex-based nouns is not prejudiced.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: racism, as hating other people based on their race is not natural. I think sometimes being a little prejudiced is. For example, thinking that all mexicans have ponchos and hats is a little prejudiced, but I wouldnt constitute is as racism. Remarks like that are a little annoying but they arent terrible and no need to make a political statement against that. Same with someone thinking black people like menthol cigarrets.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sure, I can more or less agree with this. Would you accept that there are any static components in our consciousness at all, though? I mean, as you say, we can't start flying, so there certainly seem to be fixed limits on what we can meaningfully decide to do. Would you agree that our thoughts are to some extent anchored in our genetic make-up? I ask because I'm with most of the left in that I think the primary determinant of consciousness is the environement, especially the socioeconomic environment. That said, a lot of people seem to take this idea to an extreme, saying things like "Human nature does not exist"... I think that there are a few things that have their root in biology, though, which would suggest that a static nature does exist in some form or other.

This is all getting a bit philosophical. Perhaps it ought to be split.

-Alex (I'm not even entirely sure why I sign off like this. :lol: Force of habit.)

Hmm, well when I said that material being also has a part to play in that development I didn't mean that it was the only thing that had a part to play, or in other words, I was using "material being" in the broadest sense of the term, so not just socio-economic environment (even though that plays a large part), but also things ranging from social relations (not just present, but also of the past) to movies and music.

Based on all those things I believe that we also play a part in the process ourselves, through our conscious decision-making process. For example, when I decide to study biology, I become more knowledgeable about it, but it was not my socio-economic environment that made me decide to do that, it was my own independent will.

That's why I also insist on referring to myself as an existentialist as well, because I believe there is definitely room for human freedom and choice, as opposed to rigid materialism...not that Marx did not see things the same way, it's just that it has been lost in the past decades or so.

As for some things being static, of course that's true. For example, our sex-drive is based on biology, but it is also has an effect on our consciousness, psychologically.

So it's a mutual thing. In essence I don't believe there is anything metaphysically (ideas, thoughts etc.) "pre-determined" and cannot be changed by humans as long as the material being permits it (I include biology and physiology in "material being" here, again using it broadly, so I don't believe someone who's gay can "force themselves" to become heterosexual).

When I said human nature does not exist, I meant it in those terms.

In relation to this thread; it is ridiculous to say that an idea like racism is part of a static "human nature".

[Clyde45]

Humans naturally want to stay with thei rown kind, but I do not think racism is natural because it goes beyond feeling intiminated and uncomfortable by other races. Hate towards a a person for certain physical characteristics is not natural, whether this be by race, by hair colour, by whatever.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't think there's enough evidence out there to say racism never could be "natural," but there seem to be so many of examples of it being constructed or emphasized for economic gain, I'm not sure we can say it has ever been natural.

Some examples include Japan's isolationist period/s, the crusades, and setting up chattel slavery in the United States.

Howard Zinn chronicles the advent of racism in the US for economic gain in People's History. I'm not senior enough to post links, but if you google it, the full text is available online at a place called libcom; it's chapter two, "drawing the color line," and I highly recommend it, especially if you're a north American of any nationality.

[revolution inaction]

Here is the link to Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of The United States (http://libcom.org/library/peoples-history-of-united-states-howard-zinn)
Its something I'v been meaning to read for ages but I never seem to get round to it

[Rascolnikova]

Here is the link. . .

thank you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps I'm a bit too vulgar here, but isn't racism the secular bourgeois substitute for the old "My gods are better than your gods" or "My king has more divine right than yours"? Fraternite in the French Revolution was indicative of intense nationalism.

[Black Dagger]

Huh? I don't follow.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

(1) Not all contemporary societies cultivate racism
(2) Human races don't exist
(3) Dog and cat races or breeds do exist
the comparisons between people and dogs are invalid

[BashTheFash]

Is racism natural?

Thats such a cop out, a massive excuse.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Huh? I don't follow.

Racism is an artificial substitute for other methods used by previous ruling classes to divide the subordinate classes.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't really understand what you're saying, but I condemn racism. It has been used in the past(and the present?) to oppress workers.

[4 Leaf Clover]

i think that people are born tolerant

what makes them racist scumbags is enviorment

people who are racist are mostly narcisoid people , who lie to themselves that they r born better and that they r given right to rule by birth

they go around , see people swearing a black player on tv , and all those little things create a racist

[Sentinel]

Racism is conditioned in us during our upbringing. Humans have a natural fear of the unknown, and whether we get over that fear or not depends on what happens to us as we go on.I think this is pretty much spot on. It does seem characteristic to our species to fear what we don't know and what is different -- and that causes phenomena like racism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry.

The more something differs from what we are used to and are familiar with, the more inclined we are to fear it. And many then tackle these feelings of fear by transforming them into feelings of hostility.

However, as we are intelligent beings with the capacity of overcoming these feelings, there is really no excuse not to. Thus 'human nature' or 'it is natural' are never valid excuses for bigotry, they are only part of the explanation to why it happens.

[Module]

In response to the OP, and I admittedly have only briefly skimmed the rest of the replies, yes I definitely do think that it is possible to look at two people of different skin colors the same.
Physical characteristics like skin colour are those we are socialised into considering personally important. There are other characteristics, such as eye colour, hair colour, etc. where this importance is miminal, if not effectively non-existent.

There was once a period of time in Europe, for example, where people with red hair were seen as being 'witches', and what not, and one may have asked back then the question you're asking now - Is it possible to view two people with different hair colour the same?
A bad example, perhaps, but I hope you see my point :p
We are brought up in a society where 'race' is a divisive factor in human relationships, where different people of different skin colour grow up in different social environments. That does not mean that we are naturally like this, though I imagine it is easy to think so.

You brought up the example of black gangsters - when you picture a gangster do you picture a black man ... well personally, no, though I don't live in the United States so maybe that's why. I can think of other stereotypes, though, and these stereotypes obviously effect how I view people.
The social difference I see between me and an Indigenous person, compared to the difference I see between me and a Chinese person, for instance, is larger, because I have grown up in a culture that Indigenous people and Chinese people fit differently into. In the US, I imagine, there is a great deal of cultural prejudice towards African people.

In the same way I see people in certain ways on the basis of how they're dressed, for instance, I also would see people in certain ways on the basis of their skin colour. The reason for this is because I have grown up in a culture of racism, where people's social role are determined by how they fit into this culture - people of certain 'races' fit into this culture differently and so I would perceive them as having certain social roles that would differ if they were of another race.
If I grew up in a culture where, say, the shape of somebody's chin was a feature of social importance then people of different chin shapes would have certain social roles, and would fit into this culture in a certain way.
So no, racism is not 'natural'. It is simply a part of our culture.