acceptable Racism ?

The Corinthian

The Atheist wrote:

In fact is it even possible for someone to be racist about their own race?

Of course you can. Any prejudice towards an individual that is based upon the race of that individual is by definition racist. It doesn’t even have to be a negative prejudice, after all. So it’s quite easy to be racist about your own race - ask any Herrenvolk.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Because she is black does this make her any less racist, my girlfriend says her logic is that she is black so it cant be construed as racist whereby it clearly is and no one else in the Dept would do it and she would probably be the very one to pull them up if the did?

Except she’s not basing her prejudice upon race, but on culture and background. We, as a Society, do it all the time for individuals that we consider chavs or skangers, after all.

TBH, reading this thread has demonstrated that the term racism is so overused that many of the posters here don’t even understand it.

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

TBH, reading this thread has demonstrated that the term racism is so overused that many of the posters here don’t even understand it.

I agree. I think the term has lost a lot of it's original meaning and has become just another PC buzzword.

Although that is pretty much me just stating the obvious tbh.

KnowItAll

rsynnott wrote:

What is this obsession with "race", anyway? What does it matter? "Ooh, look, he's got different coloured skin". Why not "ooh, look, he's left-handed"?

Weather you like it or not out race is part of our culture.

rsynnott wrote:

They probably will in 50 years

You seem to be happy at this outcome. Do you like Irish people? Are you ashamed to be Irish? I may be wrong but thats the message your sending.

rsynnott

KnowItAll wrote:

Weather you like it or not out race is part of our culture.

So is locking people up in Magdalene Laundries. We don't so it any more, though.


You seem to be happy at this outcome. Do you like Irish people? Are you ashamed to be Irish? I may be wrong but thats the message your sending.[/QUOTE]

I have nothing against Irish people; I'm one myself, after all. But I don't see a need for this "sanctity of race" that the white supremicists feel is so important. Ireland will become more multicultural, and that is a very, very good thing.

And yes, when I visit a hospital, or when I see Mary Coughlan saying Ireland is "not ready for gay marriage", or when I see racist, sexist and homophobic abuse shouted in Dublin, worse than I've seen anywhere else, then, yes, I'm often a little ashamed to be Irish.

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

You seem to be happy at this outcome. Do you like Irish people? Are you ashamed to be Irish? I may be wrong but thats the message your sending.

They will all still be Irish, they just won't all be white ... so the question is really, why don't you like Irish people unless they are white/red headed/pale skin etc

Dades

The Corinthian wrote:

In fact is it even possible for someone to be racist about their own race?

Of course you can. Any prejudice towards an individual that is based upon the race of that individual is by definition racist. It doesn’t even have to be a negative prejudice, after all.

This idea seems daft to me. If I (as an Irishman) yell at another Irishman in the street "get knotted you dumbass Paddy" - I'm not being racist I'm being stupid. Racism is about implying that one race is inferior to another. Surly for that you need two races?

The Corinthian wrote:

So it’s quite easy to be racist about your own race - ask any Herrenvolk.

Busted! You invoked Godwin's Law.

The Corinthian wrote:

TBH, reading this thread has demonstrated that the term racism is so overused that many of the posters here don’t even understand it.

Your own comments don't help the overuse issue methinks?

KnowItAll - you still haven't answered my question... if Irish people are pale skinned only...

What colour are Americans?

Wibbs

I would say Americans are Asiatic in skin tone tending towards the darker end. The rest of 'em are immigrants don't ya know.

The Corinthian

The Atheist wrote:

This idea seems daft to me. If I (as an Irishman) yell at another Irishman in the street "get knotted you dumbass Paddy" - I'm not being racist I'm being stupid. Racism is about implying that one race is inferior to another. Surly for that you need two races?

Racism is about prejudice based upon race. Suggesting that blacks make better basketball players, for example, is racist - even though it is not suggesting (although it is implying) that any other race is inferior. So examine why the term Paddy was used; if it was based upon the belief that the Irish as a race (if such a thing exists) are stupid, then it is racist. If not, then it may still be offensive, but it is not actually racist.

Busted! You invoked Godwin's Law.

Does Godwin's Law invalidate the point or is it simply a convenient non-rebuttal?

Your own comments don't help the overuse issue methinks?

If you demonstrated knowledge on the topic, I’d take that statement more seriously.

catholicireland

Weather you like it or not out race is part of our culture.


So is locking people up in Magdalene Laundries. We don't so it any more, though.

So you admit that there is such thing as an Irish race, but from you answer above you say its a very bad thing, because you compare it to the Magdelene Laundries. Why is that?

Dades

The Corinthian wrote:

Racism is about prejudice based upon race. Suggesting that blacks make better basketball players, for example, is racist - even though it is not suggesting (although it is implying) that any other race is inferior. So examine why the term Paddy was used; if it was based upon the belief that the Irish as a race (if such a thing exists) are stupid, then it is racist. If not, then it may still be offensive, but it is not actually racist.

Nothing you have said there I disagree with - but you are completely circling my point here. What I'm suggesting is that if (e.g.) an American calls me a Paddy because he holds a stereotype of Irish people being stupid, then I guess that's mild racism. (I say mild because it wouldn't bother me). If a random Dub I've never met calls me a Paddy why the hell would I consider this racist, as opposed to being anything other than joke? Leave the dictionary down when deciding.

The Corinthian wrote:

Does Godwin's Law invalidate the point or is it simply a convenient non-rebuttal?

Lighten up? I thought this was a discussion not an argument that required a rebuttal.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you demonstrated knowledge on the topic, I’d take that statement more seriously.

WTF is that supposed to mean? By demonstrating knowledge do you mean agreeing with you? I made a point that one hand you say the term racism is overused while in the next breath try to tell me that an Irishman calling another Irishman a paddy is racism.

Sheesh.

gaf1983

So have we got a definition for the term "racism" then?

Is it the act of differentiating certain communities from the rest of the population on the basis of features such as physical appearance, skin tone, language/culture?

Or does it necessitate that the certain community must be held to be either inferior or superior to another section of people?

nesf

For a dictionary definition.

rac·ism Audio pronunciation of "racism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

racist adj. & n.

The problem is that people seem to confuse 1. and 2. a lot of the time.

1. is true but then you hit the and. Then it just gets messy.

Dades

nesf wrote:

The problem is that people seem to confuse 1. and 2. a lot of the time.

1. is true but then you hit the and. Then it just gets messy.

Yeah the "and" bit is everything there really isn't it? I mean the first bit is inarguable.

Am I racist if I say that coloured people make better sprinters, and white people make better swimmers?

Of course there are people who will take both those statements as racist toward coloured people.

So it's down to the whole inferior/superior thing. Without that it ain't racism.

rsynnott

The Atheist wrote:

Am I racist if I say that coloured people make better sprinters, and white people make better swimmers?

Of course there are people who will take both those statements as racist toward coloured people.
.

While in fact, they're just bizarre generalisations.

Also, "coloured" is a silly term, unless you can show me a colourless person.

The Corinthian

The Atheist wrote:

Nothing you have said there I disagree with - but you are completely circling my point here. What I'm suggesting is that if (e.g.) an American calls me a Paddy because he holds a stereotype of Irish people being stupid, then I guess that's mild racism. (I say mild because it wouldn't bother me). If a random Dub I've never met calls me a Paddy why the hell would I consider this racist, as opposed to being anything other than joke? Leave the dictionary down when deciding.

Sorry, I took you up wrong.

Lighten up? I thought this was a discussion not an argument that required a rebuttal.

Fair enough - you’d be surprised how many will consider Godwin's Law a valid rebuttal though.

I made a point that one hand you say the term racism is overused while in the next breath try to tell me that an Irishman calling another Irishman a paddy is racism.

I didn’t.

KnowItAll

The Atheist wrote:

Out of interest, what colour are Americans?

Americans come in many colours because America unlike Ireland was born from immigration.

The Atheist wrote:

Am I racist if I say that coloured people make better sprinters, and white people make better swimmers?

Of course there are people who will take both those statements as racist toward coloured people.

So it's down to the whole inferior/superior thing. Without that it ain't racism.

It's called the truth. The truth cannot be told in any way (though it's acceptable to say that blacks are faster than whites) because it will be seen by some people as saying that one race is superior in every way.

rsynnott

KnowItAll wrote:

Americans come in many colours because America unlike Ireland was born from immigration.

Really? Celts? Vikings? Anglo-Saxons? What on Earth are those? Ireland is just receiving another installment.

KnowItAll wrote:

It's called the truth. The truth cannot be told in any way (though it's acceptable to say that blacks are faster than whites) because it will be seen by some people as saying that one race is superior in every way.

Generalisations based on race are not generally very useful, any more than generalisations made on, say, rib count. Try treating people as people rather than as members of a "race".

Dades

KnowItAll wrote:

Out of interest, what colour are Americans?

Americans come in many colours because America unlike Ireland was born from immigration.

:rolleyes:

You're forgetting the fact that America was already inhabited.
So by your reckoning Native Americans (i.e American Indians) are only true Americans.
They were there first and they're still there.

Dades

Am I racist if I say that coloured people make better sprinters, and white people make better swimmers?

rsynnott wrote:

While in fact, they're just bizarre generalisations.

Also, "coloured" is a silly term, unless you can show me a colourless person.

I'm only trying to tease out a point. They're not bizzare at all. When is the last time a [caucasian] won Olympic gold in the 100 metres? And when was the last time a [insert preferred nomenclature for non-caucasian here] won a medal in any swimming event?

Okay then so 'coloured' is misrepresentative. Have you ever seen a person who was actually black?

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

Except she’s not basing her prejudice upon race, but on culture and background. We, as a Society, do it all the time for individuals that we consider chavs or skangers, after all.

TBH, reading this thread has demonstrated that the term racism is so overused that many of the posters here don’t even understand it.

Who doesn't understand the definition of racism?
I'd suggest it is your good self.

dictionary.com wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
Race:
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So if you take point 2 of the defintion of race and either point 1 or 2 from the definition of racism, bang goes the skin colour theory :rolleyes:

Now we would have A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution who are descriminated against as a result of this. (one possible interpretation.)
Agreed?

Blub2k4

nesf wrote:

For a dictionary definition.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

The problem is that people seem to confuse 1. and 2. a lot of the time.

1. is true but then you hit the and. Then it just gets messy.

I can see how that would be a problem as both things are racism,

Are you reading some subtext there that massively seperates 1 from 2?

rsynnott

I wish people wouldn't quote the dictionary to try to make a point. In particular, any newspaper reporter that starts an article with "<X> dictionary defines <Y> as..." should be dragged out and publicly executed.

nesf

Blub2k4 wrote:

I can see how that would be a problem as both things are racism,

Are you reading some subtext there that massively seperates 1 from 2?

Yes. A belief of superiority and active discrimination or prejudice are different things. Not mutually exclusive, but they are not one and the same.

You could be prejudiced and discriminate because you dislike people who look different to you. It wouldn't necessarily have to be that you think you are superior.

You could just be closeminded and have some complex about skin colour.

rsynnott wrote:

While in fact, they're just bizarre generalisations.

When speaking of races, all you can do is generalise. It's accurate to say that "blacks" tend to be taller than "asians". But only when speaking in general or speaking of tendencies/statistics. On an individual level, you get tall and short people in both racial groups. It still doesn't mean the original generalisation is untrue. It just needs to be taken in the correct context.

KnowItAll wrote:

Americans come in many colours because America unlike Ireland was born from immigration.

I sincerely hope you are joking.

rysnnott wrote:

I wish people wouldn't quote the dictionary to try to make a point. In particular, any newspaper reporter that starts an article with "<X> dictionary defines <Y> as..." should be dragged out and publicly executed.

Really? What about quoting the dictionary to begin a point. The quote itself isn't the point, just a place to work from.

Plus, people should know what a word means. Otherwise how are we meant to communicate? If you and I use the same word but one of us is using some made up meaning for it, there naturally will be confusion.

Definitions are there to help you comunicate.

The Corinthian

Blub2k4 wrote:

Who doesn't understand the definition of racism?
I'd suggest it is your good self.

Suggest what you like, but if so you’ll also have to do a lot better than simply cherry picking one definition from the several proffered on Dictionary.com.

So if you take point 2 of the defintion of race and either point 1 or 2 from the definition of racism, bang goes the skin colour theory :rolleyes:

The definition of racism given is consistent with the genetically based one I gave. As for point two of the definition of race you supplied, you have me there as, unlike every other thing on that page it disagrees with me. I recommend you do a little further reading - you might start here.

Now we would have A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution who are descriminated against as a result of this. (one possible interpretation.)

I think you may be getting confused with ethnic groups.

Blub2k4

rsynnott wrote:

I wish people wouldn't quote the dictionary to try to make a point. In particular, any newspaper reporter that starts an article with "<X> dictionary defines <Y> as..." should be dragged out and publicly executed.

What about clarifying things, if someone misunderstands they need a clarification?

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

Suggest what you like, but if so you’ll also have to do a lot better than simply cherry picking one definition from the several proffered on Dictionary.com.

The definition of racism given is consistent with the genetically based one I gave. As for point two of the definition of race you supplied, you have me there as, unlike every other thing on that page it disagrees with me. I recommend you do a little further reading - you might start here.

I think you may be getting confused with ethnic groups.

Ah so I see, I have to post from the wiki for it to be the accepted reference?

I was suggesting that to take any of the terms used and define them you could come up with your definition, if you "cherry-picked" the definitions, or you could come up with mine. The point is that you are trying to tie the argument to your definition and seek to discount other definitions as "misunderstanding" which is either 1/ a misunderstandign of the multiple definitions possible or 2/ an attempt to mislead, I dont believe you are trying to mislead.
You are attempting to write off the broader definitions, I am rebutting where you said I misunderstood remember, of the topic with which you disagree and substitute them with your own narrower definition, this does not an argument make.

rsynnott

nesf wrote:

Definitions are there to help you comunicate.

It's extremely easy to use a dictionary definition out of context.

Blub2k4

rsynnott wrote:

It's extremely easy to use a dictionary definition out of context.

Do you suggest we ditch language and telecommunicate?

Dades

rsynnott wrote:

It's extremely easy to use a dictionary definition out of context.

The fact is it's useful to remind people what is at the heart of a discussion, and even to use as a reference point. Whether people agree or not with a dictionary defintion at least everybody is addressing the same thing.

sceptre

The Atheist wrote:

When is the last time a [caucasian] won Olympic gold in the 100 metres?

1980, though of course there was a good reason for that.