Documentary: A Conversation About Race

Leucifer

http://vodpod.com/watch/4089018-a-conversation-about-race

First off, let me say this has nothing to do with comparing various ethnic groups.

It focuses on how the term racism has become overused and is now often being applied to situations where it has no bearing.

I have to say I did find it very interesting as to what some people view as racism and often the double standards that can be experienced.

EDIT: Updated link, the site that was originally linked was a little controversial.

Crucifix

I have some misgivings about watching a documentary on racial issues hosted on "white nationalist tube".

LilMsss

I actually watched half of it before realising it was from a White Nationalist site! :eek:

I do agree that the term 'racism' is so overused, particularly in America, and political correctness has taken things a step too far, but at the same time, America is such a racially divisive society, as evidenced by American cultural products: news, media, film, TV etc, and by anyone who has visited the country. (Although that may well be my own personal experience of some US cities.)

Some of the points that the film maker makes are valid, as in the term racism being applied to situations that may not be actual cases of racism. I would assume that labelling so much of our interaction as culturally biased, or even racism devalues the true meaning of the term.

Leucifer

Crucifix wrote: »

I have some misgivings about watching a documentary on racial issues hosted on "white nationalist tube".

I never noticed

Still, though there are some valid points regardless. I'll try and find a non-controversial site it might be hosted on.

Leucifer

Ok, guys I have updated the original link to a regular site.

raah!

I think if everyone stuck to using racism in it's original meaning of "the belief that one race is superior to another" , and not just an umbrella term for any time anyone says anything negative or general about any race, then there would be alot less confusion.

I didn't watch the clip btw.

Denerick

There is a lot of woo associated with political correctness. What I have noticed, on the internet and in real life, that the only people who actually complain about the scale of political correctness are whom I would consider to be either prejudiced or bigots. Which leads me to ask, why is it only ever the bigots who complain about political correctness?

In a sense, political correctness is only relevant so long as a large proportion, perhaps the majority, of a population stand by it. Something is only politically incorrect if a large group of people deem it to be so.

I for one am happy that its difficult to get away in a social situation to call gay people 'fággots', or to call black people ****.

Leucifer

Denerick wrote: »

I for one am happy that its difficult to get away in a social situation to call gay people 'fággots', or to call black people ****.

There's no one complaining about serious terms such as the above, the documentary doesn't criticize any serious stuff like that. It's slating the habits of some people who see racism in cases where there is none at all. Did you even watch the clip?

For example, I had a friend who was called a racist for simply describing someone as black, as in a person asked "which one Emmanuel?" and he simply answered "the black guy over there" Seriously, talk about actively seeking offence, may I add the person accusing them was white. Would you class it as racism? According to your logic I'm a racist/bigot for simply complaining about it.

LilMsss

I think there's a difference between political correctness and self-censorship and so many people get the two concepts confused. One of the points made in the documentary was that the (white) interviewees often self-diagnosed their own racism.

This was done in some cases by noticing the race of someone and then automatically assuming that this was racist. One woman said she saw a black person walking down the street and said to herself, 'oh there's a black person'. This is not racist in any way!!! But yet this woman labels herself a racist because of it.

That's like someone describing me as the blonde girl, or me describing my sister-in-law as Chinese - noticing details, or describing some aspect of someone's appearance, whether or not some elements of that persons ethnicity come in to it or not, is not racism or discrimination and people need to remember that.

Killer Wench

Actually, the original definition of racism is the practice of hording and allocating resources to benefit one's race over the advancement of another race. However, it has evolved to mean the belief that one's race is superior to another race.

Anyhow, I find it interesting when non-Americans speak about the over usage of "racism" in the United States. By what standard are you basing your opinion? If you do not nor have never lived on a regular basis in the United States, are you comfortable speaking from authority about whether minorities in the US use the term too much?

Leucifer

Killer Wench wrote: »

Anyhow, I find it interesting when non-Americans speak about the over usage of "racism" in the United States. By what standard are you basing your opinion? If you do not nor have never lived on a regular basis in the United States, are you comfortable speaking from authority about whether minorities in the US use the term too much?

Where did I claim I'm speaking from authority about minorities in the US? Where did I say specifically that I'm referring to the US only? Also, I don't remember singling out minorities and claiming they are the only one's who can use the term out of context? There are plenty of people from various ethnic backgrounds and living in numerous nations who are capable of using the term where it doesn't apply.

The documentary might be based in the US, but it still had relevant points in regards to the mis-use of the term, not just in the US, but all walks of life. That's what interested me.

Killer Wench

Leucifer wrote: »

Where did I claim I'm speaking from authority about minorities in the US? Where did I say specifically that I'm referring to the US only? Also, I don't remember singling out minorities and claiming they are the only one's who can use the term out of context? There are plenty of people from various ethnic backgrounds and living in numerous nations who are capable of using the term where it doesn't apply.

The documentary might be based in the US, but it still had relevant points in regards to the mis-use of the term, not just in the US, but all walks of life. That's what interested me.

Leucifer, re-read this thread. You were not the one that singled out America, but LilMiss did state, "I do agree that the term 'racism' is so overused, particularly in America."

Leucifer

Killer Wench wrote: »

Leucifer, re-read this thread. You were not the one that singled out America, but LilMiss did state, "I do agree that the term 'racism' is so overused, particularly in America."

My apologies Killer Wench Might have helped to state that in your post though

Killer Wench

I was attempting to speak generally so as not to put anyone on defensive; more so, I want to put the particular position on spotlight.

As an alternative to the documentary, I would encourage people to take a listen to this broadcast from today's "Talk of the Nation" on our National Public Radio.

"How Have Discussions about Race Changed?"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129005355

Killer Wench

BTW, this documentary is so biased and so uninformed, it is ridiculous.

"So, Blacks are better at basketball than Whites but would you say Whites are better at human relations?"

Are you serious? Let's compare apples to apples. It isn't a double standard. I bet that if he asked if White people do better in nascar or golf the answers would have been different.

LilMsss

Killer Wench wrote: »

Leucifer, re-read this thread. You were not the one that singled out America, but LilMiss did state, "I do agree that the term 'racism' is so overused, particularly in America."

I didn't set out to 'single out' America specifically as a country dealing with issues of race and ethnicity, but since the documentary was American-made, and dealt with issues from an American perspective (albeit perhaps limited) and interviewed American subjects, I referred to America as an example.

Killer Wench wrote: »

Anyhow, I find it interesting when non-Americans speak about the over usage of "racism" in the United States. By what standard are you basing your opinion? If you do not nor have never lived on a regular basis in the United States, are you comfortable speaking from authority about whether minorities in the US use the term too much?

The last time I checked, I didn't require permission to express an opinion based on my own observation!!!

I don't claim to 'speak from authority' as you suggest, but have visited America on many occasions, have worked with Americans and have extensively studied trends from American cultural products, politics and media as part of my degree and Masters. If you re-read my earlier post, I stated:

LilMsss wrote: »

America is such a racially divisive society, as evidenced by American cultural products: news, media, film, TV etc, and by anyone who has visited the country. (Although that may well be my own personal experience of some US cities.)

In previous posts, you will see that I didn't make any statement concerning usage of the term racism in America by minorities, although subjects of many ethnicities were interviewed in the documentary, I was referring to one example of self-diagnosed racism mentioned in the documentary from a white woman but do not hold this up to represent the entire American population, and never made that claim. I seldom make sweeping statements, but instead try to refer to particular examples.

I have lived in the UK, a country with noted issues concerning racism and divisions based on ethnicity, and also Canada and Australia, two countries that continue to struggle with a legacy of racism and discrimination of their indigenous populations. Yet America is the only country I have spent time in, where race is such a hotly contested issue for a large proportion of the population (and not just ethnic minorities who have experienced racism and discrimination), and continues to dominate day-to-day interactions for many people.

I am not saying that race and racism are not issues in the UK or Canada etc, but they are not discussed or dissected to the same extent by populations in those countries as they are in America IMO.

Killer Wench

I had asked if you feel comfortable making a statement about usage when you have not lived in this country on a regular basis. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion; I am asking if you feel comfortable making a determination that the term "racism" is being overused in America.

I do not disagree that the discussion of race is an incredibly divisive topic in the American discourse, but that is because there is a significant population of people who a) either deny its impact in today's world or b) are entirely too uncomfortable to engage in an honest and frank discussion on the subject of race. What you have observed is a collective denial on how to approach and resolve the discussion.

I cannot speak from the experience of living in Canada or Australia, but I can speak from living in the US as a female of color and I can say that racism can be seen on a daily basis. I do not believe the term is overused; I just believe that the discussion is far too complex for two minute sound bites.

Leucifer

Killer Wench wrote: »

BTW, this documentary is so unbiased and so uninformed, it is ridiculous.

"So, Blacks are better at basketball than Whites but would you say Whites are better at human relations?"

Are you serious? Let's compare apples to apples. It isn't a double standard. I bet that if he asked if White people do better in nascar or golf the answers would have been different.

Actually I think you misheard and missed the point of those questions completely. The question asked to the interviewee was "What would you say to someone who said blacks are better basketball players than whites on average?" It wasn't a claim.

If you listened carefully to the questions the whole point was to see if the interviewees were uncomfortable with saying one group is better than the other. They all answered it was true because blacks are better players.

Directly after they answered that question, he then asked considering their answer would it be fair to say that whites may be better at human relations. Notice how one completely dismisses the notion and the rest become uncomfortable and skirt around the question. But yet they had no problem saying straight out that blacks are better at basketball. Do you not see the difference?

Here's a Youtube clip of exactly what your criticizing and listen carefully to it this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeU_5YmS_9E&feature=related

LilMsss

Killer Wench wrote: »

I had asked if you feel comfortable making a statement about usage when you have not lived in this country on a regular basis. I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion; I am asking if you feel comfortable making a determination that the term "racism" is being overused in America.

I do not disagree that the discussion of race is an incredibly divisive topic in the American discourse, but that is because there is a significant population of people who a) either deny its impact in today's world or b) are entirely too uncomfortable to engage in an honest and frank discussion on the subject of race. What you have observed is a collective denial on how to approach and resolve the discussion.

I cannot speak from the experience of living in Canada or Australia, but I can speak from living in the US as a female of color and I can say that racism can be seen on a daily basis. I do not believe the term is overused; I just believe that the discussion is far too complex for two minute sound bites.

When I suggested that the term racism is overused in America, I did not in any way mean that racism isn't a widely occuring issue for many, many people. Racism is very deeply engrained in US society, and it can be very complicated to explain the intricities of the issues surrounding it.

Racism in America is very real ... but the point I was trying to make was that while issues of race may be very widespread, each of these issues is not necessarily an act of racism - just as there are acts of racism that are far more serious than simply issues of race and ethnicity.

My background is media and I know how documentaries are constructed and agree with you that there are holes in the particular documentary under discussion. Documentaries by their very nature are products that are constructed: filmed, orchestrated, edited etc with a particular agenda or perspective to frame the subject being investigated.

As a docu-film, it leaves many questions unanswered, but I seriously doubt if most intelligent people would use it as the primary basis for their knowledge or discussion of the race issue in America or any other country.

Killer Wench

No, I did not miss the point. My argument is that people may feel comfortable saying that Blacks are better at playing basketball but if he asked if Whites are better at auto-racing or ice hockey or another predominately White sport in the US, people would have answered affirmatively that Whites are favored in these sports. Recent case, many Blacks were not tuned into the World Cup because it is not considered a sport that we "excel" at; those who did tune in, frequently rooted for the African teams which is an entirely different discussion.

We have associated certain sports with certain groups; are these stereotypes, of course, but it is what it is. (Whites play hockey. Blacks play basketball.)

There are different qualifiers to consider when asking if one is better at human relations. It is too broad of a term to actually have an honest dialogue on. Does human relations mean that a person is more diplomatic or more compassionate or more accepting? It is entirely too broad of a term for someone to be willing to jump at a "Yes" or "No" versus everyone knows what the goals and objectives of basketball are. It is rather narrow in its definiton.

He then says that it is acceptable to grant excellence to some races in certain areas but we "don't do that for Whites" which is incorrect. We frequently talk about how Whites are more likely to have higher and better credit scores than other populations; our entire construction of beauty is based upon a White standard.

Killer Wench

LilMsss wrote: »

Racism in America is very real ... but the point I was trying to make was that while issues of race may be very widespread, each of these issues is not necessarily an act of racism - just as there are acts of racism that are far more serious than simply issues of race and ethnicity.

This I completely agree with you on. I do believe that many of the people interviewed (or, at least those included in the video) confused classism and sexism with racism.

I question how he went about getting volunteers. He used Craigslist. I once posted an ad for a female roommate on CL and I received a response from a man asking if he could come to my place, dress up as a woman, and then have me boss him around while he cleaned my apartment with his tooth brush. It just usually has some very interesting characters on it.

condra

Did any of you guys actually watch the whole video?

It's nothing but white supremacist propaganda.

:mad:

LilMsss

condra wrote: »

Did any of you guys actually watch the whole video?

It's nothing but white supremacist propaganda.

:mad:

I watched about 40 minutes of it. Did you?

I don't think it's white supremacist propaganda, but for white supremacist groups it's something they can cling on to and interpret to support their own cause, whether or not the original film-maker intended this at all. (This would be why the link the OP initially posted was inadvertently from a White Nationalist channel but that it wasn't the only link to be found).

I don't believe that the film was made by white supremacists for white supremacists, but fundamentalists will always jump on something that they feel may strengthen their particular cause, and then skew certain aspects of it in their favour.

If it were an authentic documentary on race (as in one that seeks to reach a wide audience and be picked up and reproduced on major TV channels around the world) then experts from both sides would have been interviewed and a more thorough assessment of the situation offered (read more balance).

I believe the film-maker made a good attempt at a low-budget documentary on a topic he had conducted some research on, but overall it lacks the professionalism of most TV documentaries.

Penny Lane

Slight aside but did anyone else see that Gavin Henson said people were racist for calling him orange?? :eek: Now that really is confusing the meaning of racism you clever boy.

I stopped wathcing the documentary after about 10 mins as I thought it was quite one-sided but maybe I need to watch the whole thing before I can comment...

Zombrex

Leucifer wrote: »

Notice how one completely dismisses the notion and the rest become uncomfortable and skirt around the question. But yet they had no problem saying straight out that blacks are better at basketball. Do you not see the difference?

That was Kill's point. They aren't comparing apples and oranges. They should asked do you think whites, on average are better than blacks at ice hockey.

Not being good at basketball is not a bad thing. Being bad a human relations is, and it is stereotype that black people are bad at communication and are overly aggressive (look at how surprised some in America where that Obama could talk properly).

Racism is not purely saying that some race is better than another race. A naked black person is better at hiding in a dark place than a white person would be. That is not a racist statement, it is a fact based on the properties of the black person's skin. Equally it is not racist to say that black men are, on average, better at basketball because men of African decent are more likely to be tall than Europeans and being tall is a factor that will increase your skill at a game that favors tall people.

This guy really doesn't seem to have much notion as to what he is talking about to be honest.

PopUp

LilMsss wrote: »

I don't believe that the film was made by white supremacists for white supremacists,

I think you are wrong about that, to be honest. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (an anti-racist group) has a couple of blog posts which make it pretty clear where Craig Bodeker (the filmmaker)'s sympathies lie. This post outlines his links to white supremacist groups and how he's regularly described President Obama as a "monkey". This one goes into more detail on specific shortcomings of the documentary.

A conversation about race in America would be both neccessary and interesting but this video is NOT an appropriate starting point, IMO.

Leucifer

Killer Wench wrote: »

I question how he went about getting volunteers. He used Craigslist. I once posted an ad for a female roommate on CL and I received a response from a man asking if he could come to my place, dress up as a woman, and then have me boss him around while he cleaned my apartment with his tooth brush. It just usually has some very interesting characters on it.

Hmmm, this is interesting. Perhaps it explains some the answers of the interviewees? Forgive me, but I can't really think of a better way to phrase this, but perhaps a lot of the people that reply on Craiglist mightn't usually be the brightest?

condra wrote: »

Did any of you guys actually watch the whole video?

It's nothing but white supremacist propaganda.

:mad:

EDIT: I watched the entire thing. I personally wouldn't class the actual film as propaganda, but given the below links by Popup on remarks the filmmaker has made in other places, I can see your unease.

Killer Wench wrote: »

No, I did not miss the point. My argument is that people may feel comfortable saying that Blacks are better at playing basketball but if he asked if Whites are better at auto-racing or ice hockey or another predominately White sport in the US, people would have answered affirmatively that Whites are favored in these sports. Recent case, many Blacks were not tuned into the World Cup because it is not considered a sport that we "excel" at; those who did tune in, frequently rooted for the African teams which is an entirely different discussion.

We have associated certain sports with certain groups; are these stereotypes, of course, but it is what it is. (Whites play hockey. Blacks play basketball.)

There are different qualifiers to consider when asking if one is better at human relations. It is too broad of a term to actually have an honest dialogue on. Does human relations mean that a person is more diplomatic or more compassionate or more accepting? It is entirely too broad of a term for someone to be willing to jump at a "Yes" or "No" versus everyone knows what the goals and objectives of basketball are. It is rather narrow in its definiton.

He then says that it is acceptable to grant excellence to some races in certain areas but we "don't do that for Whites" which is incorrect. We frequently talk about how Whites are more likely to have higher and better credit scores than other populations; our entire construction of beauty is based upon a White standard.

Ah, ok. Sorry, but when I saw you going on about it being biased, I incorrectly assumed you meant it was done in favor of whites, as in touting whites are better at this that and the other aka supreme over other "races" That's why I was explaining the questions, not defending them. I happen to agree with you on the questions not reflecting accurate answers, I just misinterpreted what you were saying.

Penny Lane wrote: »

Slight aside but did anyone else see that Gavin Henson said people were racist for calling him orange?? :eek: Now that really is confusing the meaning of racism you clever boy.

I stopped wathcing the documentary after about 10 mins as I thought it was quite one-sided but maybe I need to watch the whole thing before I can comment...

Actually it's not that off-topic, at least it falls into the topic I thought I started. What he said is exactly the kind of stupid claims I'm talking about. The trouble is there are plenty more imbeciles who will claim racism in ridiculous scenarios like that.

Watch to at least the interviewees giving their own "personal experiences of racism" you'll see what I'm talking about and why I started this thread.

Again and for the last time as I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I didn't post the link to be a end all and be all discussion about racism and I will not claim the documentary has no flaws, because it does.

As I previously said, what fascinated me is how the term racism has come to be used and claimed in places where it clearly isn't. I'm specifically referring to the personal examples of racism given by some of those interviewees.

One black woman claimed an experience of racism was staff being overfriendly :rolleyes: A white woman said she became aware of "how racist" she is because she thought to herself 'theres a black person'

I find stuff like the above offensive to people who suffer real acts of racism, all it does is lighten the severity of the word and take away from where the real thing happens.

condra

What sickens me most about this video is the fact that they are using underhanded tactics. They are dressing up a piece of propaganda as an objective piece of journalism, which is certainly is not.

Try posting this video in the journalism forum and see how far you get.

I'm surprised and disappointed that this thread has not yet been locked.

Leucifer

PopUp wrote: »

I think you are wrong about that, to be honest. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (an anti-racist group) has a couple of blog posts which make it pretty clear where Craig Bodeker (the filmmaker)'s sympathies lie. This post outlines his links to white supremacist groups and how he's regularly described President Obama as a "monkey". This one goes into more detail on specific shortcomings of the documentary.

A conversation about race in America would be both neccessary and interesting but this video is NOT an appropriate starting point, IMO.

Now that is interesting to say the least. Condra I can see what you meant. It was not my intention to offended anyone, apologies to anyone that has been.

Leucifer

I'm still sticking by my points that the examples of racism that some of those people gave were not racism at all and that there are lots of people who see racism where it isn't. As said originally that why I posted. Because I think being labelled a racist in the modern day and age can be a very serious mark to have to over someones head, especially when said label is given incorrectly.

But given those links by Popup my opinion on this filmmaker has changed, Mods I'd appreciate this thread being locked at you leisure after some of the remarks he has made a thread with a film by him will only serve to cause offence.

My biggest apologies to those of you who think I was trying to stir up hatred by this thread, I wasn't, I was trying to get a simple discussion going.

condra

Leucifer I applaud your humility and I don't doubt your sincerity.

I do feel that a discussion about racism here in the humanities section could be worthwhile.

Killer Wench

Leucifer wrote: »

Hmmm, this is interesting. Perhaps it explains some the answers of the interviewees? Forgive me, but I can't really think of a better way to phrase this, but perhaps a lot of the people that reply on Craiglist mightn't usually be the brightest?

CL serves its purpose. It is a good way to find out about garage sales or to post ads. I know people who have found boyfriends, friends, roommmates, etc. off of CL but CL is also known for having a lot of fakers, flakes, and crazies that hang out on it. There were a string of murders associated with CL last summer; it is definitely a good tool but one must use it wisely.

EDIT: I watched the entire thing. I personally wouldn't class the actual film as propaganda, but given the below links by Popup on remarks the filmmaker has made in other places, I can see your unease.

This was propaganda but hidden behind a message that appeared to be reasoned and based upon personal interaction with the subject. In essence, the filmmakers are attempting to reach a new demographic; this demographic would be the lower middle class White folk who may find themselves without a job or who may have been turned in by a co-worker for saying something offensive. The intent is to draw in people on the border line.

Ah, ok. Sorry, but when I saw you going on about it being biased, I incorrectly assumed you meant it was done in favor of whites, as in touting whites are better at this that and the other aka supreme over other "races" That's why I was explaining the questions, not defending them. I happen to agree with you on the questions not reflecting accurate answers, I just misinterpreted what you were saying.

I do believe it was biased and I do believe the intent was to paint White folk as the victim. Essentially, his message was to say: "see, we are okay with finding the positive for the minority but we aren't comfortable associating the positive with the majority." However, he based his assertion on an inappropriate comparison; thus, the bias was created as he manipulated the responses to fit his agenda.

Actually it's not that off-topic, at least it falls into the topic I thought I started. What he said is exactly the kind of stupid claims I'm talking about. The trouble is there are plenty more imbeciles who will claim racism in ridiculous scenarios like that.

Watch to at least the interviewees giving their own "personal experiences of racism" you'll see what I'm talking about and why I started this thread.

Again and for the last time as I'm getting sick of repeating myself. I didn't post the link to be a end all and be all discussion about racism and I will not claim the documentary has no flaws, because it does.

As I previously said, what fascinated me is how the term racism has come to be used and claimed in places where it clearly isn't. I'm specifically referring to the personal examples of racism given by some of those interviewees.

One black woman claimed an experience of racism was staff being overfriendly :rolleyes: A white woman said she became aware of "how racist" she is because she thought to herself 'theres a black person'

I find stuff like the above offensive to people who suffer real acts of racism, all it does is lighten the severity of the word and take away from where the real thing happens.

I have been in a position when people have been overly friendly to the point of being condescending and I know it is because of my ethnicity. Although their act may not be due to their belief that their race is superior to mine, our personal interaction was tainted because of their presumption about people who are of my racial background. That can be viewed as racist. This is one thing that the video got right; defining racism is very difficult and it should not be limited to instances of extremists and supremacists.

When I was a kid, I remember tap dancing in the middle of a grocery store aisle. I was just a happy kid and I liked to dance. An elderly white lady approached me, started clapping to my rhythm and then patted me on the bottom. She turned to her friend and said, "colored people are just so talented. They are the best dancers". Well, there is a history of Black folks who tap dance; they would travel across the nation entertaining White folk (Black folk were not permitted in the theaters) and she was pulling from this personal experience.

Did she have malice behind her comment? No. Do I believe that she was a racist? Probably not. But do I believe that this was an act of racism? Yes.

Killer Wench

Leucifer wrote: »

I'm still sticking by my points that the examples of racism that some of those people gave were not racism at all and that there are lots of people who see racism where it isn't. As said originally that why I posted. Because I think being labelled a racist in the modern day and age can be a very serious mark to have to over someones head, especially when said label is given incorrectly.

But given those links by Popup my opinion on this filmmaker has changed, Mods I'd appreciate this thread being locked at you leisure after some of the remarks he has made a thread with a film by him will only serve to cause offence.

My biggest apologies to those of you who think I was trying to stir up hatred by this thread, I wasn't, I was trying to get a simple discussion going.

Since the documentary is from the US, and it pertains to an American population, do you mind if I ask if you have ever lived here?

Leucifer

Killer Wench wrote: »

Since the documentary is from the US, and it pertains to an American population, do you mind if I ask if you have ever lived here?

No, I don't mind and I haven't. Let me be clear in saying I'm not looking to comment on the issue of racism in the US though, as I've earlier said. I just think some of those answers apply to more than just US society.

Killer Wench

Leucifer wrote: »

No, I don't mind and I haven't. Let me be clear in saying I'm not looking to comment on the issue of racism in the US though, as I've earlier said. I just think some of those answers apply to more than just US society.

The problem as I see it is that this video is geared towards an American demographic about American people and our American issues. It just seems a bit of a stretch to attempt to use this video as an example of a global issue when we have a special and complicated history that should be analyzed in a very limited context.

So I concur that the general discussion of applying "racism" in situations that aren't about race should be its own thread; this video probably isn't the best starting point for a global discussion.

LilMsss

PopUp wrote: »

I think you are wrong about that, to be honest. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (an anti-racist group) has a couple of blog posts which make it pretty clear where Craig Bodeker (the filmmaker)'s sympathies lie. This post outlines his links to white supremacist groups and how he's regularly described President Obama as a "monkey". This one goes into more detail on specific shortcomings of the documentary.

I see your point. I hadn't actually looked into his background, so he most likely had a very specific agenda in producing this documentary.

raah!

Wicknight wrote: »

Racism is not purely saying that some race is better than another race. A naked black person is better at hiding in a dark place than a white person would be. That is not a racist statement, it is a fact based on the properties of the black person's skin. Equally it is not racist to say that black men are, on average, better at basketball because men of African decent are more likely to be tall than Europeans and being tall is a factor that will increase your skill at a game that favors tall people.

Could we not make cases for several negative racial remarks based on this logic? There is a hypothesis about why people further south in africa didn't tend to create as large cities or farm as much as people in more northern africa or europe did. That the animals around them knew to be careful of humans, and ran away, whereas in europe all the big game animals were quickly extinct because they didn't see humans as a threat. So following on from this, people in europe/northern africa had to make farms and larger civilisations, necessitating the use of skills other than hunting ones, which would make them better at such things. (I've only heard this in conversation and don't know where it originated, but it isn't a ridiculous string of reasoning, as far as I know)

It is quite clear the negative statements that could be extrapolated from this. Why are these statements more racist (based on the post) than the ones about being good at basketball? They are less nice, yes, but can you so easily dismiss them as untrue?

Elle Collins

Killer Wench wrote: »

When I was a kid, I remember tap dancing in the middle of a grocery store aisle. I was just a happy kid and I liked to dance. An elderly white lady approached me, started clapping to my rhythm and then patted me on the bottom. She turned to her friend and said, "colored people are just so talented. They are the best dancers". Well, there is a history of Black folks who tap dance; they would travel across the nation entertaining White folk (Black folk were not permitted in the theaters) and she was pulling from this personal experience.

Did she have malice behind her comment? No. Do I believe that she was a racist? Probably not. But do I believe that this was an act of racism? Yes.

Do you mean Killer Wench that her comment imbued a sense of 'otherness' in you right then, as a young kid? What I'm taking out of this story is that she identified and enforced a sense of seperateness with the nature of her remark - am I right in thinking that? I wonder because that is what I would see as wrong and inappropriate here. (I'm assuming that as a child you wouldn't have understood her reference to black dancers)

Killer Wench

I understood that "colored" was not a term that was considered acceptable. I felt wrong that she patted me as if I was an animal. Although I was a child, I knew that something was not right about the encounter and immediately after she began clapping, I stopped dancing. I remember my mother walking over and grabbing my hand as she walked by. I remember feeling uncomfortable because I knew that my mother was deeply annoyed if not angered by the encounter.

Nodin

Leucifer wrote: »

There's no one complaining about serious terms such as the above, the documentary doesn't criticize any serious stuff like that. It's slating the habits of some people who see racism in cases where there is none at all. Did you even watch the clip?

A carefully selected series of vox pops and nonsense.

It goes into exam result differences between white, asian and 'black' Americans.....

Theres been a few programmes on Ch4 that address many of the same issues, but with a bit of research and reference to studies etc...I'd suggest time would be better spent tracking them down than wasted on this guff.

Denerick

raah! wrote: »

Could we not make cases for several negative racial remarks based on this logic? There is a hypothesis about why people further south in africa didn't tend to create as large cities or farm as much as people in more northern africa or europe did. That the animals around them knew to be careful of humans, and ran away, whereas in europe all the big game animals were quickly extinct because they didn't see humans as a threat. So following on from this, people in europe/northern africa had to make farms and larger civilisations, necessitating the use of skills other than hunting ones, which would make them better at such things. (I've only heard this in conversation and don't know where it originated, but it isn't a ridiculous string of reasoning, as far as I know)

It is quite clear the negative statements that could be extrapolated from this. Why are these statements more racist (based on the post) than the ones about being good at basketball? They are less nice, yes, but can you so easily dismiss them as untrue?

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in. The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands, increased trading (This was due to maritime trade, not land based trade, which is why the ancient European Empires were based along the Mediterranean) enabled an essentially 'unproductive class' to emerge. These people usually became aristocrats, and in turn devoted their leisure time to learning, philosophy, writing etc. etc. (Or if you like, adultury, war and ceaseless masturbation - judging by the Greeks at any rate) They passed on the wisdom accumulated in their generation to their descendants. This act of retained learning and wisdom is the foundational building block of western civilisation, and it enabled ever greater technological progress, enabling less and less people to devote their efforts to the bottom of the pyramid.

In short, enough basic stuff was produced for sustenance to enable people to think.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

I would agree.

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in.

The problem with that theory is that south america can be an equally tough climate yet large civilisations sprung up there. Ditto with the jungles of SE Asian. Egypt was a tough climate. The only saving grace being the nile. Though rivers like the Gongo are just as if not more fertile. The congo jungle as we know it today is pretty recent. Its not an ancient jungle as once thought. Indeed a lot of it was cleared back in colonial times and has now been utterly consumed by the jungle again.

The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands,

Again African lands can be more fertile and with regularity of seasons not found to the same degree in temperate latitudes. The wet and dry season in the indian sub continent can be more vigourous and large early civilisations sprung uo there. Then we get to Europe. The greek areas were(and are) hot and dusty. The land was middling as far as fertility goes and needed serious effort to tend it. They did have the advantage of expertise in seafaring technology though.

While climate is one factor certainly other factors must have had an influence.

Though sub saharan Africa did have sophisticated civilisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Benin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

Denerick

Wibbs wrote: »

I would agree.
The problem with that theory is that south america can be an equally tough climate yet large civilisations sprung up there. Ditto with the jungles of SE Asian. Egypt was a tough climate. The only saving grace being the nile. Though rivers like the Gongo are just as if not more fertile. The congo jungle as we know it today is pretty recent. Its not an ancient jungle as once thought. Indeed a lot of it was cleared back in colonial times and has now been utterly consumed by the jungle again. Again African lands can be more fertile and with regularity of seasons not found to the same degree in temperate latitudes. The wet and dry season in the indian sub continent can be more vigourous and large early civilisations sprung uo there. Then we get to Europe. The greek areas were(and are) hot and dusty. The land was middling as far as fertility goes and needed serious effort to tend it. They did have the advantage of expertise in seafaring technology though.

While climate is one factor certainly other factors must have had an influence.

Though sub saharan Africa did have sophisticated civilisations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Benin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

apsalar

Denerick wrote: »

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

I was enjoying this discussion until it got onto civilisations in Africa. My own thoughts are that there is very little information or emphasis on the cultural history of sub-saharan Africa. It would be true to say that little industrialisation or agricultural innovation happened, however it never fails to amaze me that people actually remain in ignorance of the vast kingdoms that existed pre-colonial times. The baKongo, the absolutely wonderful history of Ethiopia(the most fascinating empire I have read on to date), the Zulu kingdom, Barotseland, the kingdom of Buganda....the list goes on. These were all complex societies and it's a damn shame that little attention is paid to them.

As for the original question in the OP...I haven't watched the documentary. But I can say that it's really difficult to define racism. Is something racist because the "victim" is offended? Or because the action was intended as racist? What happens when a person deliberately uses racially offensive actions/language but the receiver is oblivious to the message? Is that still racism?

Denerick

apsalar wrote: »

I was enjoying this discussion until it got onto civilisations in Africa. My own thoughts are that there is very little information or emphasis on the cultural history of sub-saharan Africa. It would be true to say that little industrialisation or agricultural innovation happened, however it never fails to amaze me that people actually remain in ignorance of the vast kingdoms that existed pre-colonial times. The baKongo, the absolutely wonderful history of Ethiopia(the most fascinating empire I have read on to date), the Zulu kingdom, Barotseland, the kingdom of Buganda....the list goes on. These were all complex societies and it's a damn shame that little attention is paid to them.

This is the modern equivilent of the Noble savage. Exaggerating the impacts of primitive civilisations for some strange self re-assurance. I stress there were some exceptions, but you cannot compare anything Africa produced to the Imperial majesty of Rome, the grandeur of Greece, The civilisation of Byzantium, The Shahs of Persia, the Lords of China and Japan. There is no comparison to be made; while taking into account what you say, I think more harm is done by patronising Africans about their supposed achievements.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

The broader stroke of my reasoning does take that into account; but generally access to the sea and trade were of paramount importance. The Mediterranean in particular - without Egypt Rome would not have been able to function, because she imported much of her grain from there. I was referring to sub saharan Africa, mostly.

Oh yea the Med basin was as natural a cradle of civilisation as you could want. Lots of islands, short sea journeys, long growing season in areas that supported that, many different micro climates, a crossroads between Africa, ME, Asia and Europe. etc.

And there are some differences between South America and Africa. I agree that climate is an issue and that Africa has fertile farmland, but this didn't necessarily translate into civilisations that could sustain an urban, non farming community. Why they failed at this and why others did not (In Europe, Asia, the Americas) does require analysis and debate. I don't know why the Inca's, the Mayans and the Aztecs built such Empires, which in many ways were more sophisticated than the European realms of the time, but I'd love to know!

Even more fascinating as they were landlocked. Their ships were pretty crap. The jungle was a constant presence as was the lack of water in other areas. And they had not just one, but many. Olmecs, Aztecs, Incas, Maya, Toltecs, Moche. The list is a long one and like you say incredibly sophisticated. Even more unusual given North America which had an arguably better climate had far less. "Race" can't be an issue as they were the same.

There were some examples in Africa as you point out, but if we're been completely honest, they are rather tame.

Well, they were and they weren't. Plus look how easily the jungles in south america covered the evidence there. There may well be discoveries left in Africa. 40 years ago a lot of the congo basin was covered in the signs of modern life. Now all buried. If they were a mud brick or wooden culture you'd have nada left in pretty short order.

Wibbs

Denerick wrote: »

This is the modern equivilent of the Noble savage. Exaggerating the impacts of primitive civilisations for some strange self re-assurance. I stress there were some exceptions, but you cannot compare anything Africa produced to the Imperial majesty of Rome, the grandeur of Greece, The civilisation of Byzantium, The Shahs of Persia, the Lords of China and Japan. There is no comparison to be made; while taking into account what you say, I think more harm is done by patronising Africans about their supposed achievements.

There is something to that alright.

Nodin

This is what I referred to earlier....Theres always the possibility it might be lying round the internet somewhere, for those interested in seeing it.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/race-and-intelligence-sciences-last-taboo/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1

raah!

Denerick wrote: »

Differing patterns of development are not an adequate basis for racial differentiation (Sorry to retreat into jargon, but I couldn't think of a different way of saying that)

Well again it depends on what you mean by race. If we take a dictionary definition of simply a major division of people then your statement requires some defence. An obvious example is "black people developed in hot regions, where white people did not". Differing patterns of development cause racial differentiation, just as it does in any other species.

This isn't really a contradiction to what I said though, my post had assumed pre-existing racial differences (based on what was quoted), and asks why it is irrational to assume that racial differences don't extend to things like aptitudes for certain mental tasks.

So my post never suggested that any two peoples who developed differently can be considered different races, but that different races have probably developed differently.

I am saying that if you look at one characteristic and choose to describe it in terms of a certain race's ancient origins, then why is it all of a sudden wrong to look at another characteristic and attribute this to genetic variations inherited due to the nature of the environment of their geographical origin.

The problem in Africa is that it is a notoriously tough climate and landscape in which to forge an Empire in. The basic anthropological explanation for this is that more of the communities labour is required for basic sustenance - such as farming - while in Europe, enhanced methods and the benefits of more fertile lands, increased trading (This was due to maritime trade, not land based trade, which is why the ancient European Empires were based along the Mediterranean) enabled an essentially 'unproductive class' to emerge. These people usually became aristocrats, and in turn devoted their leisure time to learning, philosophy, writing etc. etc. (Or if you like, adultury, war and ceaseless masturbation - judging by the Greeks at any rate) They passed on the wisdom accumulated in their generation to their descendants. This act of retained learning and wisdom is the foundational building block of western civilisation, and it enabled ever greater technological progress, enabling less and less people to devote their efforts to the bottom of the pyramid.

In short, enough basic stuff was produced for sustenance to enable people to think.

I don't think that this is entirely inconsistent with what I said either. We are both attributing certain characterisitics of a certain group of people to be due to their environment. While I am saying that this may have led them to be genetically pre-disposed to certain qualities (this is how natural selection works is it not?), you are stopping at the fact that certain behaviours would not be beneficial to them.

It's really a matter of whether one thinks that the cause of certain characteristics is external (and thus pertaining to sociology) or inherent (and thus pertaining to genetics). Of course it's nicer to think that everything is short term and everyone is equally good as everyone else at everything, but is it intellectually honest? But I guess if it can be described equally well in two ways , then we may as well pick the nice one, they do seem to be equally robust in exlaining racial differences. But if we use the term "race" automatically this speaks of differences inherent in people. I don't see why we would say that these differences are only skin deep (unless this is simply what we want to say).

Denerick

raah! wrote: »

Well again it depends on what you mean by race. If we take a dictionary definition of simply a major division of people then your statement requires some defence. An obvious example is "black people developed in hot regions, where white people did not". Differing patterns of development cause racial differentiation, just as it does in any other species.

Is it not to do with Melanin content? People from Sri Lanka and the South of India are 'black' but not African... I don't know how this works to be honest.

I don't think that this is entirely inconsistent with what I said either. We are both attributing certain characterisitics of a certain group of people to be due to their environment. While I am saying that this may have led them to be genetically pre-disposed to certain qualities (this is how natural selection works is it not?), you are stopping at the fact that certain behaviours would not be beneficial to them.

It's really a matter of whether one thinks that the cause of certain characteristics is external (and thus pertaining to sociology) or inherent (and thus pertaining to genetics). Of course it's nicer to think that everything is short term and everyone is equally good as everyone else at everything, but is it intellectually honest? But I guess if it can be described equally well in two ways , then we may as well pick the nice one, they do seem to be equally robust in exlaining racial differences. But if we use the term "race" automatically this speaks of differences inherent in people. I don't see why we would say that these differences are only skin deep (unless this is simply what we want to say).

My point was that the lack of development doesn't spawn from any inherent genetic or racial deficiencies but by climactic (IE, prevalance of disease, temperature, wind and rain patterns, global positioning etc. etc.) In other words the African continent was by and large excluded from inter cultural trade - the primary motor of the spread of ideas, which in turn hindered their development as a culture. Furthermore their inability to move beyond subsistence agriculture - again, climactic in origin, meant they were unable to sustain an unproductive non food producing population capable of devoting time to ideas and the retention of such ideas.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way, we just have a different perspective.

raah!

Denerick wrote: »

Is it not to do with Melanin content? People from Sri Lanka and the South of India are 'black' but not African... I don't know how this works to be honest.

My point was that the melanin content is itself evironmentally determined. Those places are hot, melanin prevents skin cancer, but also production of vitamin D by the skin.

My point was that the lack of development doesn't spawn from any inherent genetic or racial deficiencies but by climactic (IE, prevalance of disease, temperature, wind and rain patterns, global positioning etc. etc.) In other words the African continent was by and large excluded from inter cultural trade - the primary motor of the spread of ideas, which in turn hindered their development as a culture. Furthermore their inability to move beyond subsistence agriculture - again, climactic in origin, meant they were unable to sustain an unproductive non food producing population capable of devoting time to ideas and the retention of such ideas.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the way, we just have a different perspective.

Yes It seems so. But there is one difference, you are saying that the differences spawn from climatic/cultural differences, full stop, whereas my original post was made in reference to someones argument from genetics.

Now with respect to the first post I quoted, if these are the reasons we cite for differences in modern africans (or whatevers) with respect to, say, white americans (the quoted post was about basketball) then it doesn't make a difference whether we are saying that they are genetically ingrained or some other way ( I don't think it really makes sense to attribute modern differences soley to past differences of climate without some mechanism for causing them to be carried on. I think that once you mention some instance in the biological past of a race, to describe something in the present, you're talking about genetics) , once we cite the geographical origins as an explanation for prevelance of certain traits, we are saying that these traits are ingrained, since those origins. Of course there are alternative explanations, that whatever attributes we are talking about can be described in terms of more contemporaneous causes, and I think this is the only way to move away from the positive/negative statements regarding the superiority of some race over the other.

I am of the opinion that once one accepts the existence of races on a biological basis, then one must necessarily accept racial differences. And if one accepts racial differences, whilst emphasising the general importance of some traits over others. Then one is automatically a racist, by that traditional definition of "one race superior to another".

Personally I would refrain from placing such general importance on any such characteristics.