Question

what prejudice does the black man has what is his justification for it​

Answer 1

Answer:

the back man has racial prejudice

Explanation:

As the black man noticed that one was white and he because of his racial prejudice didn't want to give his log of wood to the dying fire ...pls .mark as brainliest

Answer 2

Explanation:

Exploitation Theory

Racial prejudice is frequently used to justify keeping a group in a subordinate position such as a lower social class. Conflict theorists, in particular, stress the role of racial and ethnic hostility as a way for the dominant group to keep intact its position of status and power. Indeed, this approach maintains that even the less-affluent White working class uses prejudice to minimize competition from upwardly mobile minorities.

This exploitation theory is clearly part of the Marxist tradition in sociological thought. Karl Marx emphasized the exploitation of the lower class as an integral part of capitalism. Similarly, the exploitation or conflict approach explains how racism can stigmatize a group as inferior so that the exploitation of that group can be justified. As developed by Oliver Cox (1942), exploitation theory saw prejudice against Blacks as an extension of the inequality faced by the entire lower class.

Exploitation theory does not necessarily explain prejudice in all its forms. First, not all minority groups are exploited economically to the same extent. Second, many groups that have been the victims of prejudice have not been persecuted for economic reasons – for example, the Quakers. Nevertheless, as Gordon Allport (1979) concludes, the exploitation theory correctly points a finger at one of the factors in prejudice, that is, the rationalized self-interest of the upper classes.

Race Relations in the United States, Politics of

K. Tate, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

4 Beyond Black and White

Finally, most of the research on racial prejudice and racial politics has been conceptualized and tested on Whites and Blacks. Researchers have begun to recognize that even race relations defined as narrowly as Black–White relations is critically related to status and politics of other American minorities as well, notably America's fastest-growing groups, Asian-Americans and Latinos (Bedolla 2000, Cain et al. 1991, De la Garza et al. 1992, DeSipio 1996, Espiritu 1992, Garcia 1997, Hardy-Fanta 1993, Hero 1992, Jennings 1994, Jennings and Rivera 1984, Saito 1998, Uhlaner et al. 1989, Wrinkle et al. 1996). Whether these groups suffer discrimination on the basis of their nationality, and the degree to which national origin affects their politics is often the unstated subtext of in these body in work (but see Kim, 2000). In response to recent highly publicized conflicts between Blacks, Latinos, and Koreans in cities such as Los Angeles and New York, much of this work addresses interminority conflict (Abelmann and Lie 1995, Kim, in press, McClain 1993, McClain and Karnig 1990) Finally, new work has explored not just interracial or interethnic politics, but intraminority group politics. The limits of treating African American and Latino politics in ‘gender-and-sex neutral’ terms, for example, have been exposed in Cathy Cohen's (1999) study of politics of AIDS in the Black community and Carol Hardy-Fanta's (1993) work on community organizing among Latinos. Moving beyond the Black–White dichotomy is critical for reaching a better understanding of not only the politics of the neglected ‘other’ minorities, but for Black politics and US politics more broadly.

suggestion that their own beliefs .