Insidious racism in Britain

[warpus]

Exactly. Poles may occasionally be victims of stupid stereotyping and ignorant prejudices, but that's not racism, period. Racism is a belief in the biological inferiority of some group of people (Jews, blacks, whites, gypsies, whatever).

Eh, what? That's racism. You should read up on what racism *actually* is.

 

[bernie14]

The obvious explanation is that you're reading "collective intelligence" in an absurdly literal fashion.

well, sorry....I've learned to not "obviously" assume what others are attempting to communicate (sorta promotes some degree of prejudice, don't you think?), that's why i ask questions....

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I think we all agree that stereotyping is bad, but what can we possibly do to stop it from happening, nothing.

 

[Lone Wolf]

So while someone you don't know making king fu noises or otherwise mocking you on the street because of your skin color is highly offensive (quite frankly it merits a kung fu punch in the face, I too am appaled to hear that random people do that on the streets)

And that's why, luiz, you're my favourite right-winger on this forum

I think we all agree that stereotyping is bad, but what can we possibly do to stop it from happening, nothing.

 

[Tahuti]

I think we all agree that stereotyping is bad, but what can we possibly do to stop it from happening

Judge each person individually?

 

[Mango Elephant]

I think we all agree that stereotyping is bad, but what can we possibly do to stop it from happening, nothing.

lol that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Eh, what? That's racism. You should read up on what racism *actually* is.

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
a programme to combat racism

Unless you want to claim the Polish to be a race, I guess discriminating Polish people for being Polish isn't racist. At least according to the Oxford Dictionary.

I agree with innonimatu that to equalize racism with stereo-typing of ethnic groups in general is dishonest and misleading.
Keep in mind that I do not say so because I assume traditional racism (that means the believe that a race is superior to another race because of inherent racial traits) to have a unique quality regarding its evilness (while it may have, it doesn't matter to my point) which other types of ethnic stereo-typing don't posses.
I say so because the modern negative image of racism rests on our experience with traditional racism. This experience is what lead society to view racism as negatively as it does today.
Which means - how racism is viewed rests on how it originally was defined. Meaning, based on the traditional understanding of racism, society deemed it to be bad and this tradtional understanding bred the negative association we have when hearing this term.

Now, it is my understanding that we should always seek to have an ideally open and honest debate within a society. Open and honest means to me to for instance not play around with the meaning of words in oder to advance your agenda, but to stick with the definition that a) is the most coherent one and b)is the least misleading one. To apply racism on stereo-typing ethnicities IMO surely defies b) (while IMO also a)), because it misleads the audience to apply associations developed in a very specific historic context (racial superiority) on an artificially widened new context, which is supposed to provide the identical meaning, but which it not possibly can - because it is simply a different thing with a different "nature".
Which results in two consequences:
- Historically grown and justified associations are alienated to serve a personal agenda and people hence "tricked" into following this agenda
- Racism looses its original power and is devalued as it is removed from its original historic justification as a bad thing, but transformed towards a universal description of stereo-typing

However, having all that said, I think it is racist to make ninja-noises or whatever to random strange east-Asians and as apparently others I am kind of shocked that people really do that.
As to stereotypical movie roles of East-Asians... I'll get that when one already feels discriminated, such must be hurtful, too. But the truth is, everyone gets stereo-typed in the movie world. Pick you enemies, this shouldn't be one of them IMO.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unless you want to claim the Polish to be a race, I guess discriminating Polish people for being Polish isn't racist. At least according to the Oxford Dictionary.

I wasn't aware that the Oxford English Dictionary was the authority on sociological terminology. In fact, I'm fairly sure that it's not an authority on anything at all. So I don't really see how this is an argument for anything at all.

And I really don't see the logic of "this diminishes the rhetorical power of a word, therefore it is less accurate". That doesn't seem like a sensible way to determine how we use language at all.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"Accurate" can be whatever word you want to be accurate. Just give it the right definition. I am not concerned with accuracy.
The question regarding the word racism is to me how we take associations into account when it comes to words that have a historically grown strong association attached to them. And IMO, it is best if the definition of a word does justice to the association so as to be not misleading. It is also my impression that in the case of racism one willfully did the opposite.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Accurate" can be whatever word you want to be accurate. Just give it the right definition. I am not concerned with accuracy.

What's the difference?

The question regarding the word racism is to me how we take associations into account when it comes to words that have a historically grown strong association attached to them. And IMO, it is best if the definition of a word does justice to the association so as to be not misleading. It is also my impression that in the case of racism one willfully did the opposite.

And my argument has been that to define racism on the terms of race-theorists is itself misleading, because it follows the rationalisation of racism rather than its reality. That some of us have managed to become deeply convinced that that a bunch of dead quacks have any authority on the matter doesn't really change that.

 

[plarq]

If it is not harmful, I'd just let it go.

Better being discriminated and stay here, rather than fight back and get deported. That's why we are so tolerant of bigotry and racism.

 

[Mise]

I just don't understand why people feel the need to keep the definition of "racism" as some sacred cow; a definition that's unassailable and unchangeable (unlike every other word in the English language). I mean, I can't understand just why the term "racism" means so much to you. I can understand communists, for example, defending the term communism, and saying things like "that's not really communism", because they identify strongly with the term. But I don't understand why people feel so strongly about the term "racism".

Furthermore, I don't see how using the term "racism" to describe prejudices against Polish immigrants in any way devalues the term "racism" when it is used to describe lynching negroes. Nor do I see how it legitimises lynching negroes. Clearly, lynching negroes is a bad thing, and I don't see that changing any time soon, irrespective of how the term "racism" is used. The idea that people are suddenly going to start lynching negroes again just because people have identified some new form of racism is just completely nonsense. This whole thing just baffles me.

 

[plarq]

I just don't understand why people feel the need to keep the definition of "racism" as some sacred cow; a definition that's unassailable and unchangeable (unlike every other word in the English language). I mean, I can't understand just why the term "racism" means so much to you. I can understand communists, for example, defending the term communism, and saying things like "that's not really communism", because they identify strongly with the term. But I don't understand why people feel so strongly about the term "racism".

Because they identify themselves strongly with their race identity!

 

[NiRv4n4]

Oh yes, an appropriate response to non-violent aggression is violent aggression. Sounds like a great plan.

I just don't understand why people feel the need to keep the definition of "racism" as some sacred cow; a definition that's unassailable and unchangeable (unlike every other word in the English language). I mean, I can't understand just why the term "racism" means so much to you. I can understand communists, for example, defending the term communism, and saying things like "that's not really communism", because they identify strongly with the term. But I don't understand why people feel so strongly about the term "racism".

Furthermore, I don't see how using the term "racism" to describe prejudices against Polish immigrants in any way devalues the term "racism" when it is used to describe lynching negroes. Nor do I see how it legitimises lynching negroes. Clearly, lynching negroes is a bad thing, and I don't see that changing any time soon, irrespective of how the term "racism" is used. The idea that people are suddenly going to start lynching negroes again just because people have identified some new form of racism is just completely nonsense. This whole thing just baffles me.

I agree; it seems as though the worst possible trait anyone can have is to be racist, ahead of any other attribute (save maybe murderer or rapist...) I don't understand this; sure, it is a form of prejudice, but prejudice is found everywhere, in everyone. I don't see why prejudice based off of skin color/ethnicity/etc. is any worse than prejudice based on politics, religion, nationality/region (think Southern USA), and other traits.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What's the difference?

I don't unterstand this question.

And my argument has been that to define racism on the terms of race-theorists is itself misleading, because it follows the rationalisation of racism rather than its reality.

What "reality"? You have no reality of racism without defining racism first. It is silly to reverse the two as this assumes a natural-given definition of racism, while it is entirely a product of man-made categorization.

That some of us have managed to become deeply convinced that that a bunch of dead quacks have any authority on the matter doesn't really change that.

But they do! And evidently so. Simply because how those "quacks" defined it laid the foundation for how perceived races (blacks, east-Asians etc.) were handled. Independent of how sensible this foundation or the the concept of perceived races is.
And the historic results of this handling (racial segregation, the holocaust, advocacy of sterilization of minorities like blacks and jews up until the 20th century etc) are what made us denounce racism, they are what constitutes the negative associations of racism we still hold to this day.

To rethink this term in order to give it a foundation in line with the modern academic world - what you seem to advocate - may sound all well and good at first. But completely defies the historically grown association of the term - which is IMO foolish in the best of cases and outright manipulative in the not so good cases.

Allow me to make clear again why I think that is so:
- The "historically grown association" has grown to be a powerful weapon against discrimination based on perceived races - people have it internalized that racism is bad - based on how perceived races were historically handled (which means based on the dead-quacks-derived understanding)
--> When we now use the term racism in a context detached from this association, we not only exploit this association for a context it never was "designed" to apply to (which I call psychological trickery to sway a debate to ones liking), but in accordance with that, we also weaken this association because people realize that it was never designed to apply to the broad academic definition of racism.

Or in other words, I assume that the academic world sought to redefine "racism" in a more "sensible" way because it hoped that this would carry over the negative associations of traditional racism to other forms of discrimination. But IMO this is not only a dishonest and manipulate war with words and hence immoral in the spirit of a possibly honest and open debate, but it also doesn't actually work as intended, because people are not that easy to be manipulated.

Preferably, the academic world would have settled with racism being a description of a specific social phenomena (stereo-typing based on perceived races) rather than a general social phenomena (discrimination based on ethnic stereo-types or whatever) and we could then honestly and openly debate about how other forms of discrimination are just as bad as racism - instead of trying to make that judgment for society by giving racism a new academic and broad definition, which defies its original meaning and historically grown association.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The idea that people are suddenly going to start lynching negroes again just because people have identified some new form of racism is just completely nonsense.

Of course it is. That's why you probably will see no one in this thread argue such a thing.

This whole thing just baffles me.

I made an effort to outline why in now two fairly long posts. You are welcome to engage those if you actually care to invest time in this matter.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't unterstand this question.

I'm asking what the difference is between "accuracy" and "correct definition". They seem to add up to much the same thing, at least if we're going to treat language as a tool for communication, and not something that exists for its own sake.

What "reality"? You have no reality of racism without defining racism first. It is silly to reverse the two as this assumes a natural-given definition of racism, while it is entirely a product of man-made categorization.

You're conflating the construction of racism as a social category with the rationalisations later created in defence of those categories. Race didn't begin in the minds of race theorists, it developed over time, as part of the development of concrete relationships of power. Presumably you're aware that race-science didn't emerge as a distinct discipline until the 19th century, at a point when racism was very well-established, but was only just beginning to encounter serious criticisms on a large scale?

But they do! And evidently so. Simply because how those "quacks" defined it laid the foundation for how perceived races (blacks, east-Asians etc.) were handled. Independent of how sensible this foundation or the the concept of perceived races is.
And the historic results of this handling (racial segregation, the holocaust, advocacy of sterilization of minorities like blacks and jews up until the 20th century etc) are what made us denounce racism, they are what constitutes the negative associations of racism we still hold to this day.

To rethink this term in order to give it a foundation in line with the modern academic world - what you seem to advocate - may sound all well and good at first. But completely defies the historically grown association of the term - which is IMO foolish in the best of cases and outright manipulative in the not so good cases.

Allow me to make clear again why I think that is so:
- The "historically grown association" has grown to be a powerful weapon against discrimination based on perceived races - people have it internalized that racism is bad - based on how perceived races were historically handled (which means based on the dead-quacks-derived understanding)
--> When we now use the term racism in a context detached from this association, we not only exploit this association for a context it never was "designed" to apply to (which I call psychological trickery to sway a debate to ones liking), but in accordance with that, we also weaken this association because people realize that it was never designed to apply to the broad academic definition of racism.

Or in other words, I assume that the academic world sought to redefine "racism" in a more "sensible" way because it hoped that this would carry over the negative associations of traditional racism to other forms of discrimination. But IMO this is not only a dishonest and manipulate war with words and hence immoral in the spirit of a possibly honest and open debate, but it also doesn't actually work as intended, because people are not that easy to be manipulated.

You assume wrongly, then. This conception of racism has developed out of extensive research into the history of race and racism, of its origins, of its various historically specific forms and how they develop over time. The argument isn't "if we call Jew jokes 'racist', people will take them more seriously!", it's that anti-Semitism is as a social phenomenon fundamentally identical to more overtly physiological racisms. (As an aside, it's worth noting that plenty of kinds of ethnic bigotry that are, in this conception, not forms of racism possess a physiological aspect, e.g. the stereotypical hook-nosed Jew or the ape-faced Irishman.) As such, the employment of "race" in a broader sense constitutes an acknowledgement of this model of race and racism, in the same way that, for example, using "homophobia" to denote negative attitudes not just towards gay men but towards straight men acting in a perceived "gay" manner acknowledges a more realistic conception of homophobia. Not everyone, despite the bizarre misconception of some posters on this forum, regards terms like "racist" as rhetorical first, and terminological only as an afterthought.

Let me put it to you this way: when David Starkey recently committed career-suicide by declaring that "the whites have become black", was he or was he not expressing racist views? His concern was very clearly cultural, given that he wasn't actually suggesting that the white youths of Britain have spontaneously developed high levels of melanin-production, but at the same time it was an expression of contempt for the black community which possessed an obvious continuity with the tradition of anti-black racism in the United Kingdom. (He himself opens with a reference to Enoch Powell.) So do you consider this to be an unrelated phenomenon that intersects merely superficially? Or would you suggest some higher level of classification that encompasses both physiological/biological racism, and racially-inflected bigotries of this sort?

Preferably, the academic world would have settled with racism being a description of a specific social phenomena (stereo-typing based on perceived races) rather than a general social phenomena (discrimination based on ethnic stereo-types or whatever) and we could then honestly and openly debate about how other forms of discrimination are just as bad as racism - instead of trying to make that judgment for society by giving racism a new academic and broad definition, which defies its original meaning and historically grown association.

What you're saying here is "if everyone just agreed with me, we'd save a lot of time!". So that's not very useful.

 

[warpus]

Unless you want to claim the Polish to be a race, I guess discriminating Polish people for being Polish isn't racist. At least according to the Oxford Dictionary.

"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of their somatic (i.e. "racial") differences.

Otherwise it'd be impossible to be racist against Japanese people, for example. Or anybody really, because there is only 1 human race.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm asking what the difference is between "accuracy" and "correct definition". They seem to add up to much the same thing, at least if we're going to treat language as a tool for communication, and not something that exists for its own sake.

Wow, you totally misunderstood my post then I meant with "Just give it the right definition" that you just have to give a word an accurate definition based on what you want to describe and hence it is accurate and I meant to say here that it is pointless to debate weather the definition of racism is accurate because accuracy is measured by what is supposed to be defined and I criticize what racism is supposed to define, not how accurately that is done.
Hence, I am not concerned with accuracy.

The argument isn't "if we call Jew jokes 'racist', people will take them more seriously!", it's that anti-Semitism is as a social phenomenon fundamentally identical to more overtly physiological racisms. (As an aside, it's worth noting that plenty of kinds of ethnic bigotry that are, in this conception, not forms of racism possess a physiological aspect, e.g. the stereotypical hook-nosed Jew or the ape-faced Irishman.) As such, the employment of "race" in a broader sense constitutes an acknowledgement of this model of race and racism

With regards to Jews, or ape-faced Irishman I am absolutely with you, as both constituted a "perceived race".
I myself named the holocaust as an example of the consequences of traditional racism.
So

The argument isn't "if we call Jew jokes 'racist', people will take them more seriously!"

misses my point (while that was, as said, a mere assumption of intentions anyway and not crucial to my overall argument).

What I take issue with and what my argumentation aimed at is if the discrimination of say Polish immigrants in England is also treated as racism, because they don't constitute a perceived race and consequently such an idea is not the basis for their discrimination.
If we call that racism, I am under the impression we may as well call any kind of discrimination of a group linked by a specific attribute racism (xenophobia may be a good term instead). Naturally, the same basic human social workings apply with the Polish immigrant as well as with the monkey-faced Irishmen as well as with the thick-nosed black man. That of people dividing themselves into social groups and viewing other groups as rivals and hence potential enemies. What in the end only differs is the justification and the extend and kind of divisions.
And there racism - i.e. social segmentation based on a perceived race - IMO has very specific attributes which resulted in very specific historic consequences. I can see a valid base for the argument that racism was very common in our past, way before official race theories. What my argumentation apposes is lumping the modern Polish immigrant into it.

Let me put it to you this way: when David Starkey recently committed career-suicide by declaring that "the whites have become black", was he or was he not expressing racist views? His concern was very clearly cultural, given that he wasn't actually suggesting that the white youths of Britain have spontaneously developed high levels of melanin-production, but at the same time it was an expression of contempt for the black community which possessed an obvious continuity with the tradition of anti-black racism in the United Kingdom. (He himself opens with a reference to Enoch Powell.) So do you consider this to be an unrelated phenomenon that intersects merely superficially? Or would you suggest some higher level of classification that encompasses both physiological/biological racism, and racially-inflected bigotries of this sort?

That's a very fine line. I don't find it racist itself if Starkey simply argued that a large share of the British black population embraces a culture which is in his opinion somehow bad and that white people would be increasingly drawn to this culture.
We also don't call it racist if we speak about the culture of discipline and subordination embraced by East-Asians after all, do we?
But the way Starkey did voice this opinion and some of its elements certainly come in a very racist manner. Maybe it is best described as a symbiosis of cultural stigmatization and racism? I can't say for sure and would have to give Starkey's line of thought more thorough consideration.

What you're saying here is "if everyone just agreed with me, we'd save a lot of time!". So that's not very useful.

I also laid out where my opinion if adopted would lead us and I don't find that generally useless in understanding my or anyone's opinion.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Otherwise it'd be impossible to be racist against Japanese people, for example. Or anybody really, because there is only 1 human race.

Or we just adopt the concept of "perceived races". Justifications don't become any less real because they are not coherent, they are just bad justifications.