acceptable Racism ?

Blub2k4 · 15-08-2005 11:59am

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 · 15-08-2005 11:59am

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 · 15-08-2005 12:14pm

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 · 15-08-2005 12:35pm

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 · 15-08-2005 1:13pm

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 · 15-08-2005 1:27pm

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 · 15-08-2005 1:27pm

nesf wrote:

Definitions are there to help you comunicate.

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

Blub2k4 · 15-08-2005 1:40pm

rsynnott wrote:

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

Do you suggest we ditch language and telecommunicate?

Dades · 15-08-2005 1:53pm

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 · 15-08-2005 1:55pm

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.

Dades · 15-08-2005 2:48pm

sceptre wrote:

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

Cheers for that - I actually meant to go look that up.

The Corinthian · 16-08-2005 7:30am

Blub2k4 wrote:

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

No, but giving more comprehensive sources than a simple definition from Dictionary.com is desirable if you want your position to be taken seriously. Wiki isn’t a bad start in this regard, but you’re welcome to suggest other credible sources.

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.

Not really. Of the various definitions of race you cited pretty much all of them followed a genetic or biological definition, with the exception of the single one you cited. Let’s face it, of the six interpretations you cited, three concurred with the genetic definition, two were linguistic (e.g. “human race”) and one concurred with you.

So I didn’t really need to cherry pick anything as the evidence you presented actually favoured my definition.

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 isunderstanding of the multiple definitions possible or 2/ an attempt to mislead, I I believe you are trying to mislead.

Actually I would discount them as ignorant rather than as any kind of misunderstanding. It’s ill educated and fanciful definitions such as your own that are the reason that paediatricians get lynched.

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.

You can reinvent the definition of the term race by cherry picking definitions that agree with you all you want, but it’s not going to change reality. By all means cite credible evidence if you disagree.

rsynnott · 16-08-2005 10:23am

I'm rather disconcerted to find myself agreeing with TheCorinthian

Dades · 16-08-2005 2:44pm

I'm rather disillusioned with the direction this thread has taken.

nesf · 16-08-2005 3:42pm

*shrugs*

tfd.com isn't bad for a free dictionary.

If you're serious about it, pick up a good Oxford one imho. The Shorter Oxford is available on DVD and isn't too expensive iirc.

Although, I would argue dictionary.com is fine for the vast majority of cases when you are not looking for a comprehensive definition.

KnowItAll · 16-08-2005 11:47pm

The Atheist wrote:

: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.

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Zombrex · 17-08-2005 9:01am

KnowItAll wrote:

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Er, 17,000 years ago people migrated from modern day Russia to modern day Alaska and Canada ... so that is kinda like saying Europeans are actually part African and part Middle Eastern, which while technically correct, kinda misses the point.

Though I suppose you could argue that the only true "native" people are sub-sahara Africans and everyone else are in fact immigrants, so we should all shut up about immigration cause we all at one point in our family history used it. Good point BTW...

Dades · 17-08-2005 9:08am

KnowItAll wrote:

American Indians are actually part asian and part white. Who knows which one of these groups came first.

Have you read your own posts?
Did Irish people grow from mushrooms, or was the country originally settled by migrants from another continent?

Oops double posted with Wicknight...

Wibbs · 17-08-2005 9:32am

Wicknight wrote:

Er, 17,000 years ago people migrated from modern day Russia to modern day Alaska and Canada ... so that is kinda like saying Europeans are actually part African and part Middle Eastern, which while technically correct, kinda misses the point.

Well there's a (pretty good)theory that humans were in the Americas long before 17,000 years ago. There's some evidence that some came from Europe along the ice sheets and settled in the east of Nth America(genetic marker in the blood similar to Europeans in eastern native populations). There are even sites in sth America that have been dated to as far back as 60,000 yrs, but it doesn't really fit with the accepted theory and for various reasons has been largely ignored. It's rather like the evidence for Neandertals in Ireland has been ignored in some quarters. In Britain they have evidence for even earlier humans going back 100's of thousands of years ago. Yet the current theory hold that humans only came to Ireland after the last ice age. That's for another thread in another place though.

Human evolution and migration patterns are still poorly understood, mainly due to the rarity of early human fossils etc. We're all an amazing bunch all the same. The first Africans who looked at a cold Europe and said " ah sure we'll nip over there" had some balls on them, that's for sure. Amazing. Don't even get me started on the Polynesian civilisation and their migrations. Wow isn't in it.

Though I suppose you could argue that the only true "native" people are sub-sahara Africans and everyone else are in fact immigrants, so we should all shut up about immigration cause we all at one point in our family history used it. Good point BTW...

Only partly true, especially if you don't agree with the total replacement out of Africa theory. But yea, we're all immigrant Africans with local bits added. So if you're not an Ethiopian hill tribesman you're a blow in.

The Bouncer · 24-08-2005 8:23pm

Megatron wrote:

thats my point, which you just didn't get.

Racism is about RACE .... i'm how many Irish people do you know who use the term N1gger to each other on a regular basis ?

Probably just a guess but those Irish people of Afro/Caribbean descent may do or do we need to prove our lineage as suggested in other posts to be Irish in your little world? In which case even then you are not Irish as the original inhabitants were not celtic but pics (stand to be corrected here)

rsynnott · 24-08-2005 9:50pm

The Bouncer wrote:

Probably just a guess but those Irish people of Afro/Caribbean descent may do or do we need to prove our lineage as suggested in other posts to be Irish in your little world? In which case even then you are not Irish as the original inhabitants were not celtic but pics (stand to be corrected here)

No, no, in his little world "Irish" means "him".

acceptable Racism ?

Comments