Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What's wrong with this one?Find a better word then.

What's wrong with this one?Find a better word then.
What's wrong with this one?The point, I would have thought was obvious, is that this model of race and racism describes what the physiological concept of race actually is, as a social phenomenon rather than as a set of legitimising dogmas. I may as well argue that you shouldn't use the word "Islam" any more, because you use it to denote an Abrahamic religion founded by the Prophet Muhammad, and not the immutable and perfect word of God as its originators conceived it.
"I think these kinds of racism are trivial, therefore you're misusing the word"
Right, but here's the thing: that isn't actually what racism is. That's never what it was. That is, in fact, an apology for racism, because it locates it in a pathological hatred on the part of eccentric individuals, removed from any concrete experience of society. Race is no longer something located in history, a social category which develops over time in relationship to structures of economic and political power, it becomes a concept stripped of context, and so stripped of the demand for a more rigorous analysis of your oh-so-hallowed European modernity.What's wrong? Well, nothing except that people abuse an emotionally charged word previously used for the most disgusting hatreds motivated by nothing but different appearance or insane racial theories.
You've inflated the word into nothingness.
Given that racism was developed in the context of Reconquista Spain in regards to the Jews and colonial Ulster in regards to the Irish, I have to say that I consider any categorical distinction between the two basically spurious. It falls into the trap of taking the theorists of racialism at their word, as if they actually invented the damn thing rather than just came up with elaborate ways to rationalise what was very much an existing social reality. Discrimination against Poles and Asians in Briton today- or of Poles today and the Irish a century ago- differs in terms of degrees, not in terms of its fundamental character.Hey, I think winner has a point on this one. It seems to me that those complains were more about prejudices regarding (apparent) nationals of a country than racism. Which people from countries all over the world experience without it being called "racism". Or should the "polish plumbers" in the UK also complain of "racism"?
The chinese just happen to be more easily recognizable by looks alone, though not everyone who looks chinese is chinese (as in from China), of course. Otherwise those examples in the OP were the same as prejudices about poles after they're recognized, say, from their speech or whatever. Racism was about claiming that some "races" of humans were intrinsically superior or inferior to others. Not about culture or specific national traits/prejudices.
Given that racism was developed in the context of Reconquista Spain in regards to the Jews
His point is that the two were mutually informing- another important example which he doesn't spend much time examining is colonial Ulster, in which religion, alongside culture and language, formed a very significant role in defining proto-racial categories. (Certainly more than physiology, unless we're to believe that the Irish really are a race of apemen like the old cartoons used to suggest.) If you actually read the damn thing, rather than just leaping straight into your tired don't-I-just-know-every-damn-thing act, you may have understood that.Ridiculous. And that first part of the text you kinked to is atrocious "history". The medieval era is very complex, as complex as any other in fact, too bad many past historians want to fit it into their own simple prejudices and people went on to believe their works. The 14th century an era of crisis?Anti-semitism was proto-racism?
The idiot can't even distinguish religious persecution from racism! Protestants, I take it, were also a different race?
His point is that the two were mutually informing- another important example which he doesn't spend much time examining is colonial Ulster, in which religion, alongside culture and language, formed a very significant role in defining proto-racial categories. (Certainly more than physiology, unless we're to believe that the Irish really are a race of apemen like the old cartoons used to suggest.) If you actually read the damn thing, rather than just leaping straight into your tired don't-I-just-know-every-damn-thing act, you may have understood that.
And, yeah, the 14th-15th century was an era of pretty significant crisis. Black Death, Western Schism, economic disruption, food shortages, popular insurrection, climate change, collapse of serfdom, etc, etc. This shouldn't be new.
Well, yes, because we're still immersed in the dregs of 19th century race-science, a formulation which was developed in reaction to criticism of racism rather than as the premise of racism itself. Honestly, I would have thought that you, who sees legitimising ideologies in every nook and cranny, would find that much at least plausible.Frankly, having read the first half I'm not going to read the second half of that. It's a weird political agenda thinly dressed up as history and I despise that - it's not even well done. A thing is either racism, or something else. There's no "proto-racism", that's just a way to borrow the modern repulsive value of a concept (racism, today widely reviled) into an agenda about something else (social or national prejudices). The two have things in common, sure, but we have different words for each, and there's a a reason for that.
So your criticism is that, A) there was a lot of crises, and B), that crises do not produce universally negative outcomes? That, again, should not be new.That wasn't new (pardon my joke on words), and that was exactly my point in dismissing the crisis claim. In every medieval century we can find crisis similar in scope. The one somewhat unique thing is the scale of the plague, but even that seems to have actually improved living conditions to the survivors!
Well, yes, because we're still immersed in the dregs of 19th century race-science, a formulation which was developed in reaction to criticism of racism rather than as the premise of racism itself. Honestly, I would have thought that you, who sees legitimising ideologies in every nook and cranny, would find that much at least plausible.
Why, do you have an alternative model of the development of racism?
Hey, I think winner has a point on this one. It seems to me that those complains were more about prejudices regarding (apparent) nationals of a country than racism.
How would you describe statements like "We should move all black people back to ghettos and restart segregation as a punishment for the multitude of black crimes against the white community of America. I don't care whether blacks are inherently biologically inferior - they probably aren't - but they should suffer an appropriate punishment for their culture of criminality"?Originally Posted by innonimatu
Because racism came into use to describe a particular kind of prejudice, and should remain is use in that function, to avoid confusions.
That's the most disturbing part. Why so impolite? I definitely wouldn't want random strangers shouting at me, and making weird noises when I move past them. So yeah, people who regard doing this to Asian-looking people as acceptable are slightly disturbing.Originally Posted by article
Shouts of "Jackie Chan!" and kung-fu noises from random strangers continue to greet me in the street, perhaps followed by a "konichiwa!"
Link
Those aren't the worst problems in connection to racism towards East Asians (I think the 'bamboo ceiling' is a much more serious problem). I can already imagine someone like Flying Pig trying to defend all that as harmless banter. But, frankly, I think more Chinese people should learn martial arts so that they can beat the crap out of people making unfunny and asinine remarks.
Opinions? Are East Asians model immigrants who are willing to tolerate the ignorance of their host culture, or are they letting people get away too lightly with racism?
..... it's no wonder that the collective intelligence in the UK is so low when it comes to dealing with East Asians.
although not "technically" a racist comment, the generalization seems to fit the bill pretty well, congratulations in judging others the same way you are condeming them from viewing another group
why not go for all the marbles?
......it's no wonder that the collective intelligence in [place one group here] is so low when it comes to dealing with [place other group here].