Why isn't classism taboo?

Cianos

Most people wouldn't consider themselves racist. Most people like to think of themselves as open minded and globally conscious, in that they would treat those from other backgrounds without prejudice.

In todays society it's very much frowned upon to make racist remarks or act differently towards somebody just because of their skin colour.

So, why is classism so accepted?

It's very normal to hear people talk in a derogatory fashion about people from other socioeconomic classes. People will make all kinds of presumptions, and outwardly so, about somebody just based on what they're wearing, their accent, or where they live.

It doesn't seem to be social taboo to display prejudice against people in this way. People who would be horrified at displays of racism confidently make all kinds of remarks about "knackers" and "scumbags" without having any information about those they talk about other than superficiality. This applies as well to those who remark about people from higher socioeconomic classes.

Thoughts?

Truley

Humans measure their own worth by comparing themselves to others. 'Classism' is an easy one, because unlike race or gender it's easy to believe that there is a degree of personal choice when it comes to wealth and achievement. Whether it's the unemployed poor guy who feels hard done by society, or the rich guy who likes to think success was achieved through superior talent and hard work, rather than a privledged upbringing. I think this is why classism has always been fair game.

prinz

Simple, as Truley mentioned it's the extent of personal involvement in your state.

Some of the biggest "scumbags" I know would be from what could be considered 'upper class' backgrounds, and vice versa. With some of the most decent people I know coming from places that would be considered low on the socio-economic scale. The thing is both sets of people behave themselves and take actions to either appear higher or lower on the socio-economic ladder.

First impressions go a long way. We all make presumptions day in, and day out, often subconciously based on people and often on appearance alone. Unfortunately many people conform to stereotype leading to the continuance of the type of 'classism' you mention.

irishh_bob

Cianos wrote: »

Most people wouldn't consider themselves racist. Most people like to think of themselves as open minded and globally conscious, in that they would treat those from other backgrounds without prejudice.

In todays society it's very much frowned upon to make racist remarks or act differently towards somebody just because of their skin colour.

So, why is classism so accepted?

It's very normal to hear people talk in a derogatory fashion about people from other socioeconomic classes. People will make all kinds of presumptions, and outwardly so, about somebody just based on what they're wearing, their accent, or where they live.

It doesn't seem to be social taboo to display prejudice against people in this way. People who would be horrified at displays of racism confidently make all kinds of remarks about "knackers" and "scumbags" without having any information about those they talk about other than superficiality. This applies as well to those who remark about people from higher socioeconomic classes.

Thoughts?

cuts both ways , those from middle class backround are often the target of jibes and jealousy , particulary in our left wing media ( vincent browne and the like ) who idolise the so called underpriveledged and see the coping class as nothing but a revenue stream for various community and wellfare projects

Dudess

It might be true that middle-class people can get sneered at, but nowhere near to the same extent as the kind of prejudice the OP is talking about - don't think you're comparing like with like.
As a middle-class person, I never experienced any prejudice whatsoever.

Crumble Froo

Have noticed this a lot actually and it bugs me no end. I don't think I tend to think of myself as being part of a 'class', but if it's based on income etc, then I'd definitely definitely be pretty close to the bottom of the scale. A lot of my friends and the people I see around quite regularly could be said to be part of an 'alternative' section of society, where having feck all money is common and it's very normal to hate 'yuppies' and members of the upper and middle classes. I think a lot of it is due to the lifestyle associated with those classes - the extravagance, excesses, materialism, conformity of them. I think it's something of a clash in values and beliefs, with probably a hint of ... I don't want to say jealousy, but I would say there is a feeling of inferiority, or implied inferiority, which fuels the 'classism' from this end. I think this is more aimed at the middle class. Hatred of the upper class comes from the feeling that many who have that money have had to fcuk over more than a few people to get there and aren't generally perceived as using their positions of wealth/influence to help the people who do have less.

I think that, simultaneously, generalisms you could make about the working class, including increased rates of crime, drugs, social problems, fashions, are quite alien and opposed to the general values of the middle and upper classes, who have quite different standards of social acceptability.

I'm pretty sure I've not explained that nearly as well as I understand it in my head, but it's getting late and I don't think I can do much better than that at the moment

silverharp

The main difference I'd see is that racism doesnt take into account the behaviour of the people concerned. A racist is going to "hate" everyone who is black from Nelson Mandela down. When talking about "classism" the tendancy will be towards particular kinds of behaviour. So yes I'll rolleyes at certian working class behaviour but I'll do the same against middle class or upper class foibles. However if there are situations where a working class person never gets accepted in the the local upmarket golf club say then the a**holes concerned deserve to be castigated for their behaviour. Either your open minded person and judge someone by the content of their character or your a "lesser" individual and you dont.

irishh_bob

silverharp wrote: »

The main difference I'd see is that racism doesnt take into account the behaviour of the people concerned. A racist is going to "hate" everyone who is black from Nelson Mandela down. When talking about "classism" the tendancy will be towards particular kinds of behaviour. So yes I'll rolleyes at certian working class behaviour but I'll do the same against middle class or upper class foibles. However if there are situations where a working class person never gets accepted in the the local upmarket golf club say then the a**holes concerned deserve to be castigated for their behaviour. Either your open minded person and judge someone by the content of their character or your a "lesser" individual and you dont.

ive little time for either the vicky pollards or the country club types

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

It might be true that middle-class people can get sneered at, but nowhere near to the same extent as the kind of prejudice the OP is talking about - don't think you're comparing like with like.
As a middle-class person, I never experienced any prejudice whatsoever.

Ad as a "middle class" person, you're probably not that exposed to the other classes all that much. I spent a year living in a hostel in Brisbane. It was a year of being exposed to "types" of Irish people I never really had any dealings with before. Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a rough town and went to a rough school, but as an adult my contact with others was limited. And my understanding of what they thought about the rest of the world was also limited. Or rather I just didn't think about it. But a year of living & drinking with plumbers, coopers, builders, ranchers, slaughterhouse technicians, etc. brought home a lot of opinions.

The conversations were as bigoted, racist, sexist and ignorant of any I have heard in any middle class gathering. Towards everyone, including others in the same situation as themselves. I think the difference was the frequency of such conversations. For them it was something to highlight every night, whereas any conversations of the same vein, I heard elsewhere were infrequent/rare. I was the only one that worked in an office while I was there (and got a lot of crap fr it & being "properly" educated), and the only reason I was accepted was for my quantities of "hydro". Some really great people, but don't romanticize them. They're people all the same with their own class distinctions and hatreds.

TBH I never really encountered class distinctions until I spent time in that hostel. And it was the "lower" & the "upper" classes that showed it the most.

Personally I find it to be a load of horse-****e.. People are people. What brings them down is the manner of their actions. If you talk like an asshole, imo, you are an asshole. Regardless of your social background.

Cianos

silverharp wrote: »

So yes I'll rolleyes at certian working class behaviour but I'll do the same against middle class or upper class foibles.

What's the distinction between working class/middle class/upper class behavior?

silverharp

Cianos wrote: »

What's the distinction between working class/middle class/upper class behavior?

in many cases it might the same behaviour expressed differently , there may not be much difference between running to the money lender to pay for xmas on the one hand and running up large amounts consumer debt to "keep up with the jones" , but as per the post above , to the extent that people trying to do good in a working class area are kept down by their peers or family is a roll eyes for me and is not a kind of behaviour that one would come across in middle or upper class areas.

prinz

Dudess wrote: »

As a middle-class person, I never experienced any prejudice whatsoever.

I don't think that poster was referring to prejudice on an individual basis but at a national/social level and there it very much exists, and it's just as galling as being sneered at by somebody tbh.

Bottle_of_Smoke

To be honest I think racism is more accepted than classism in Ireland. Particularly against blacks.

Elle Collins

silverharp wrote: »

in many cases it might the same behaviour expressed differently , there may not be much difference between running to the money lender to pay for xmas on the one hand and running up large amounts consumer debt to "keep up with the jones"

I would say there is a very great deal of difference in those two scenarios and certainly they are not the same behaviour expressed differently.

Holybejaysus

Nothing wrong with calling someone a scumbag or a knacker if they genuinely deserve it. But I wouldn't judge someone because of where they were born or what class they belong to. You get judged by behaviour in my book.
As as few posters already pointed out, there are more than enough rugger bugger types who easily qualify as knackers.....

silverharp

Elle Collins wrote: »

I would say there is a very great deal of difference in those two scenarios and certainly they are not the same behaviour expressed differently.

why? in both situations the individuals are likely making sub-optimal decisions which will impact their families in a negetive way for some spurious short term benefit.

AngryBadger

It's funny but I don't believe that when most people are giving out about one group or another they're actually being racist/sexist/whatever. People love to **** on other people, it's a universal truth, I've encountered people who would swear bloody murder against members of certain groups, but it was all bluff and bluster. There was no substance to it, and if some kind of horrible discrimination was going on they'd usually be horrified.

It's very popular to try and categorise every impulse people have as though we're all machines whose behaviour can be compartmentalised and predicted.

Yes some people are racist, and utter bigots, but most people just love bitching and begrudging, it's not even something they think about, it's just something they do.

I realise there's the argument that "well it's still racist/sexist to say....etc.", but if we're honest; most of us bitch about other groups/demographics at different times, doesn't actually mean we have some deep-seated hatred for said groups.

And on the other hand there are always going to be members of different demographics who are bad examples of humanity and (IMO) fully deserving of our disdain.

Gary L

I see a big difference between racism and classism. There is no causal link between race and personality that I know of, but the material conditions of an individuals life massively affect consciousness. Its hard to completely refute a theory that has a nice bit of predictive power.

Mike 1972

The assumption that disdain/contempn for "scangers" = classism is an erroneous one.

"Working class" people have far more reason to despise scangers than "middle class" people do.

Cianos

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The assumption that disdain/contempn for "scangers" = classism is an erroneous one.

"Working class" people have far more reason to despise scangers than "middle class" people do.

Disdain and contempt for "scangers" doesn't have to equate to classism, but it nearly always does. More often occurring in the reverse way, where people from lower socioeconomic classes are looked down upon and labelled as "scangers", simply because "scangers" tend to be from under privileged areas. This also hides a more obtuse form of regular classism in terms of elitism etc, but that's a bit off topic.

The behaviour of "scangers" or "scumbags" (or, some young troublemakers) gives a strong label to themselves and also in turn to people who happen to dress in similar clothes or have a similar accent, to the point that people from a different background will make a lot of assumptions about someone with, say, a North Dublin accent who happens to be dressed in a tracksuit.

From the perspective of a middle class rugby playing Southsider, having a tight hair cut, wearing a tracksuit and being from Clondalkin can be enough to be labelled a scumbag. How many of your friends have openly thrown around such terms based on such little information? It's common and it's socially accepted.

My argument is that these presumptions are not dissimilar to racism. The process of thought leading to those assumptions are the same. Superficial information used to make a strong and derogatory assessment of someones character. Yet the correlation would be upsetting to people who think themselves as non-racist.

While it's probably true that most young troublemakers dress in tracksuits and have strong accents, that doesn't mean that all people with strong accents who dress in tracksuits are troublemakers. In certain parts of USA most young troublemakers are black, but that doesn't mean that all black youngsters are troublemakers. This is a logical process of thought that most people could agree with. However, it's taboo to be prejudice towards someone for being black, but somehow it's fine to be prejudice towards someone based upon their hair length, attire and accent?

It could be argued that it's peoples choice to dress in such a way, to wear the uniform of the "scumbag" and as such label themselves, and thus to pose the question "what is wrong with confirming their identity that they themselves are creating?". That would be fine if the distinction was so polarised. If things were so black and white, then of course it wouldn't be an issue of prejudice if the "uniform" was preserved for only those who fulfill their own stereotype. It would be quite convenient actually; the "scumbag" uniform would be as distinctive as the white hoods of the kkk. Then it wouldn't be prejudice to call someone wearing a tracksuit and having a strong accent a scumbag, as it wouldn't be derogatory to call a clan member wearing a white hood a racist.

However that's not quite the case. In many areas wearing a tracksuit is just the normal way to dress, and obviously talking in your local accent is just the normal way to talk. So being, in most respects, quite a normal person from your area will result in you being labelled a scumbag from the get go, by people who think themselves as superior.

I can't see how this is anything but prejudice and the worrying thing is that it probably highlights how little people actually think about bigotry, fascism and the causation and thought processes behind them. If someone can oppose racism yet defend stereotyping by class, it shows a contradiction in principal and within a different context could explain their prejudice towards race, religion or whatever else.

"I'm totally against anti semitism, but of course I've reason to dislike black people with their bad social habits and criminality"

"I'm totally against racism, but of course I've reason to dislike tracksuit wearing youngsters with their bad social habits and criminality".

albeit

I think it is taboo among more openminded, intellectual, modern people- say young journalists or photographers. That's my experience, at least with many of these kind of people. Mind you, not all of them.

HavingCrack

The only 'insults' I've ever experienced was playing football matches out in Tallaght/Clondalkin/Crumlin etc, just working class areas really. The other teams constantly called us 'bleeeedin poshies' all the time and told us to go back torugby and 'Sorcha called and said Wezz is ****te'. Anyway, mostly it was just the usual carry ons that happen in football and we gave as good as we got but there were two or three times were it got pretty bitter. A few of them seemed to really, really hate us for being from a middle class area. What a stupid thing to hate someone about.

Bottle_of_Smoke

silverharp wrote: »

The main difference I'd see is that racism doesnt take into account the behaviour of the people concerned. A racist is going to "hate" everyone who is black from Nelson Mandela down. When talking about "classism" the tendancy will be towards particular kinds of behaviour. So yes I'll rolleyes at certian working class behaviour but I'll do the same against middle class or upper class foibles. However if there are situations where a working class person never gets accepted in the the local upmarket golf club say then the a**holes concerned deserve to be castigated for their behaviour. Either your open minded person and judge someone by the content of their character or your a "lesser" individual and you dont.

not quite. I actually think 90% of people described as racists are actually just classists.

Explains why people with no ill feeling toward Africans loathe Roma gypsies. Or why people who don't like them nigerians have no problems with Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott.

irishh_bob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

not quite. I actually think 90% of people described as racists are actually just classists.

Explains why people with no ill feeling toward Africans loathe Roma gypsies. Or why people who don't like them nigerians have no problems with Paul McGrath or Phil Lynott.

most people have a problem with the criminal classes like roma gypsys or tinkers in ireland , nothing to do with race

TheHatter

So, why are people so keen to avoid racism, but ooze endless hatred of the poor?

Great, great question.

Ive chosen not to read most responses as Im sure many people on the boards would identify as Fascist, some of them proudly.

What I will say is that both the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish Constitution make no protections against Classism, which may well be deliberate. Neither does it seem that discrimination against poor men is protected when it comes to baring entry. This is a serious deficiency that, of course, needs to be healed.

The United Kingdom has for many decades been perhaps the worst example of Classism in the world, and since 9/11, its laws have made it more so. Institutionalised Feminism has certainly had a negative impact on poor males too, and oddly, I made a perculiar discovery about the very word "Classism":

It would seem that unless you consult the most enormous dictionary, the word "Classism" doesnt exist. You can try it yourself in a bookshop.

In every single British dictionary, Classism isnt a word. The same brands all acknowledge its existence in their largest publications, but all major ones omit that type of discrimination from every other issue, be it Oxford, Collins or Cambridge.

That is certainly concerning. Great and crucial topic!

prinz

TheHatter wrote: »

Ive chosen not to read most responses as Im sure many people on the boards would identify as Fascist, some of them proudly.

Great start on a discussion forum.

TheHatter wrote: »

What I will say is that both the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish Constitution make no protections against Classism, which may well be deliberate.

For simple reason. It's too subjective.

TheHatter

Subjectivity is a good point, it is true that on a continuum of affluence, some may have different cut-off points. However, likewise, there is no "black" or "white". Color is a continuum. In that case, is there no racism?

Rather, those who do identify people as rich or poor, whatever their explanation may be, are Classist. It is the scale on which they base their judgement.

In fact, BSing about subjectivity is, itself, dangerous. It takes the focus away from the issue.

The issue is Classism.

It exists. Some seem to be making excuses for it. Whether against beggars or prisoners, genuine refugees or the unemployed, it is wrong, and should be eradicated.

FlutterinBantam

Cianos wrote: »

While it's probably true that most young troublemakers dress in tracksuits and have strong accents, that doesn't mean that all people with strong accents who dress in tracksuits are troublemakers. In certain parts of USA most young troublemakers are black, but that doesn't mean that all black youngsters are troublemakers. This is a logical process of thought that most people could agree with. However, it's taboo to be prejudice towards someone for being black, but somehow it's fine to be prejudice towards someone based upon their hair length, attire and accent?

It could be argued that it's peoples choice to dress in such a way, to wear the uniform of the "scumbag" and as such label themselves, and thus to pose the question "what is wrong with confirming their identity that they themselves are creating?". That would be fine if the distinction was so polarised. If things were so black and white, then of course it wouldn't be an issue of prejudice if the "uniform" was preserved for only those who fulfill their own stereotype. It would be quite convenient actually; the "scumbag" uniform would be as distinctive as the white hoods of the kkk. Then it wouldn't be prejudice to call someone wearing a tracksuit and having a strong accent a scumbag, as it wouldn't be derogatory to call a clan member wearing a white hood a racist.

However that's not quite the case. In many areas wearing a tracksuit is just the normal way to dress, and obviously talking in your local accent is just the normal way to talk. So being, in most respects, quite a normal person from your area will result in you being labelled a scumbag from the get go, by people who think themselves as superior.

I can't see how this is anything but prejudice and the worrying thing is that it probably highlights how little people actually think about bigotry, fascism and the causation and thought processes behind them. If someone can oppose racism yet defend stereotyping by class, it shows a contradiction in principal and within a different context could explain their prejudice towards race, religion or whatever else.

"I'm totally against anti semitism, but of course I've reason to dislike black people with their bad social habits and criminality"

"I'm totally against racism, but of course I've reason to dislike tracksuit wearing youngsters with their bad social habits and criminality".

Don't know what your point is but I think you are leaving out an obvious element 'human nature'

If one waits around any suburban courthouse,one finds that most of the accused have the typical strong accent and the trakkie and hoodie is 'de rigeur'

Therefore why would one wonder, or blame people who might assume that all those clad similarly and of the same spoken disposition wouldn't fall into the same cultural and potentially criminal coterie?

You will not always be right, but human nature being what it is the chances are heavily weighted that you will be right.

Let's stop beating around the bush here.

Cianos

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Don't know what your point is but I think you are leaving out an obvious element 'human nature'

If one waits around any suburban courthouse,one finds that most of the accused have the typical strong accent and the trakkie and hoodie is 'de rigeur'

Therefore why would one wonder, or blame people who might assume that all those clad similarly and of the same spoken disposition wouldn't fall into the same cultural and potentially criminal coterie?

You will not always be right, but human nature being what it is the chances are heavily weighted that you will be right.

Let's stop beating around the bush here.

I understand what you mean, but as I said, that is the exact same argument that people use to excuse racism.

While it's probably true that most criminals dress a particular way, that doesn't mean that all people who dress that way are criminals.

If the majority of people who dress this way were criminals, fair enough. But what if it's 10%, 5%, 1%? At what point would you consider it unreasonable to presume that any random person from North Dublin wearing a tracksuit is a criminal?

I absolutely get the human nature element - it's based out of the defensive instinct to categorise and label potential threats. That doesn't mean it's correct or even accurate though.

FlutterinBantam

Cianos wrote: »

I understand what you mean, but as I said, that is the exact same argument that people use to excuse racism.

While it's probably true that most criminals dress a particular way, that doesn't mean that all people who dress that way are criminals.

If the majority of people who dress this way were criminals, fair enough. But what if it's 10%, 5%, 1%? At what point would you consider it unreasonable to presume that any random person from North Dublin wearing a tracksuit is a criminal?

I absolutely get the human nature element - it's based out of the defensive instinct to categorise and label potential threats. That doesn't mean it's correct or even accurate though.

I wouldn't quite accept that.

Racism in my book is a totally irrational hatred of a race purely based on colour-nothing else. Nothing else at all.

Now I think it's unreasonable to drill this stuff down to the 'at what point' stage.

I think people make reasonable assumptions, that's how it works.

If people experience a negative and aggressive attitude from a certain group, and that group dress and speak in similar fashion, you can't blame the person for assuming that based of dress ,speech, and attitude, the person who dress and acts similarly is of the same mindset?

Of course they won't always be right, but I would opine, they will be right 90% of the time.

Like the stuff going on in Smithfield.

krd

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I wouldn't quite accept that.

Racism in my book is a totally irrational hatred of a race purely based on colour-nothing else. Nothing else at all.

So if can construct a rationale everything is cool and groovy. Ask an American racist why they're racist and they'll tell you black people are poor and steal ****. There's a tautology to it - the flaw in the character of the people with black skin is the colour of their skin - they're denied economic opportunities so they end up poor, and eventually stealing ****. Middle-class people cheat and steal all the time. They seldom get thrown in jail for it.

Now I think it's unreasonable to drill this stuff down to the 'at what point' stage.

I think people make reasonable assumptions, that's how it works.

If people experience a negative and aggressive attitude from a certain group, and that group dress and speak in similar fashion, you can't blame the person for assuming that based of dress ,speech, and attitude, the person who dress and acts similarly is of the same mindset?

Of course they won't always be right, but I would opine, they will be right 90% of the time.

You're just like the ignorant hillbilly racist in the way you've constructed your rationale.

I would say there's a deeper and more materialistic rationale to your bigotry. You're middle-class and you see snobbery as working in your favour. It probably has? Has it? Have you gained economic opportunities because of your class privileged.

Like the stuff going on in Smithfield.

Or like the stuff going on outside of Anabelles a few years back. Where scummers kicked Brian Murphy to death as he lay helpless and unconscious on the ground. Irish slime bags - with their rugby and heino.