Insidious racism in Britain

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[Winner]

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.

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.

 

[Arwon]

"I think these kinds of racism are trivial, therefore you're misusing the word"

 

[Winner]

"I think these kinds of racism are trivial, therefore you're misusing the word"

Nope, I think you (in fact, especially you) are totally oversensitive and ready to denounce just about everything as racism, thereby contributing to the inflation of the term.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

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.

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 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.

Useful potted history of race, part one and part two. For those as are interested.

 

[innonimatu]

Given that racism was developed in the context of Reconquista Spain in regards to the Jews

Ridiculous. And that first part of the text you linked 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? Blood purity laws were an aristocratic and religious thing, and a useful excuse for the inquisition's continued existence, not a manifestation of racism. Accusations against "new christians" were always about the violation of religious interdictions, actual "jewish backgrounds" were pretty irrelevant. The church controlled the only existing census but was hardly ever effective at it as people moved around. Except among the nobles, who were always obsessed with "blood purity", be it against new christians or commoners.

So, the idiot author can't even distinguish religious persecution from racism! Protestants, I take it, were also a different race?
edit: oh, wait, then he goes on to say in a note that "the division of the world between Christians and non-Christians was religious and was not race-based"? WTH? Why am I wasting my time?

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

[Winston Hughes]

From my experience, overt racism against East Asians and their descendents is viewed in a similarly negative light to other varieties of racism, being utterly at odds with notions of tolerance, inclusiveness and good manners dominant in Britain today. There is, however, a tendency to regard East Asian stereotypes and borderline racist jokes/comments as more acceptable than those aimed at, for example, South Asians.

I suspect that the reason for this is fairly benign: East Asian immigration has not been the focus of so much overt bigotry as immigration from elsewhere, so there's less of a danger that comments will be taken the wrong way. However, it does not follow that casual racism against East Asians should be regarded as more acceptable than against others, and the OP is quite right to draw attention to it here.

I also believe Mise is right about racism having a particular sting that most other types of prejudice do not. In part, at least, this is surely a consequence of its association with crimes of unimaginable evil, and innumerable examples of disharmony and oppression.

The flip side, however, is that taking great offence to comments that were not meant to offend produces an oppositional reaction. Quite often, those who make such comments feel as if they are wrongly branded as racists, and that their intentions are willfully misrepresented by people with an axe to grind. This can then lead to a sense that casual racism in general is something that is unduly criticised, making flagrantly racist comments seem less offensive by association with more innocent ones.

Ideally, those who are offended by examples of unintentional racism should use mockery to embarrass the offending individuals at their social ineptitude (this being Britain, there are few more potent way to shame someone than to paint their actions as amusingly ill-mannered), saving the outrage and condemnation for the intentional variety. That's easy for me to say, though - as a white Briton, I'd have to get pretty creative to find many notable examples of racism against people like me. While that doesn't mean casual racism against white Britons should be given a free pass, it does mean I've got much less of an excuse for taking offence to it.

 

[Traitorfish]

In addition to what Winston Hughes says, I'd say that it's important to distinguish between telling somebody that what they said was racist, and suggesting that they are racist. This guy says its better:


Link to video.

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.

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?

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!

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.

 

[Shaihulud]

That is a rather mild form of racism imo. Haven't really been in Britain except for for a few weeks I can't comment on my experience with racism there. I studied in Australia for 4 years, what the articles say is reminiscent of my experience there, so what if people think chinese are reserved, accented, knows martial arts, peddle dvds and are associated with illegal drugs etc etc. The reason is because many do/are! As long as the racism does not extend to bashings and physical abuses, I don't think it is serious. Every ethnicity, religion, groups will find themselves associated with certain behaviours.

 

[innonimatu]

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?

I like to call things by their names, and dislike confusions over names. I guess that comes from seeing ideologies in every cranny of political argumentation... anyway, there are perfectly fine words for describing this problem of prejudices based on cultural stereotypes, and racism is not one of them. Because racism came into use to describe a particular kind of prejudice, and should remain is use in that function, to avoid confusions. Now it's being used as some people use "nazism" to attack everything that pisses them off.

Perhaps you can succeed in redefining the meaning of "racism" that way. But I bet that if you try you'll simply devalue the "disgust value" of the word before you can actually milk it all the way for its rhetorical power.

 

[aelf]

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.

Uh, the article is talking about ethnic Chinese people, not people from China.

 

[Lone Wolf]

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.

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 article
Shouts of "Jackie Chan!" and kung-fu noises from random strangers continue to greet me in the street, perhaps followed by a "konichiwa!"

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.

 

[Ayn Rand]

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?

The real racism in Britain is directed at white people, who are subject to the real kind of racism - which is systemic discrimination because of their ethnicity. There are sections of British society - motivated by racism against white people and hatred of Western culture - who are desperate to relentlessly portray Britain as a racist country to drive home the multicultural agenda and dismantle this country and reduce its white population to a minority. There is no real discrimination or racism shown to Asians in this country, on the contrary we bend over backwards to accomodate and subsidise immigrants but no matter how much we do, it is never enough for the extremists.

 

[Arwon]

Oh wow.

 

[Tee Kay]

Now that I think about it, I actually get this a lot (ie people shouting at me making "ching-chong" or kungfu noises or shouting "neehaaw" in a condescending tone). I used to be quite upset by it, particularly when it seem to have peaked around the time when I was in Years 7-8; I remember becoming really aggressive towards people who do this to me which just makes me look stupid most of the time. Nowadays, I care less and less about it, accepting it as something that "just happens", though as Lone Wolf said I still find it disturbing that this sort of thing is accepted in society. I said I care more about discrimination in employment and the like, but really they are part of a larger phenomenon: an often subconscious belief that people of a different race is somehow a different type of human, and that different treatment of them is acceptable.

I'd like to think that most people who jeers at Asians, etc in the streets are not actually racists in the full sense of the word; some people don't appreciate the difficulty for many immigrants in adjusting to a new country, especially when you are so clearly marked out as a foreigner by your skin colour or your facial features. And for second- or third- generation Asians, Africans, etc, it put the spotlight on their "otherness" and disencourages assimilation.

 

[bernie14]

..... 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].

 

[aelf]

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].

I fail to see your point. It may be a generalisation, but it's not stereotyping people. The statement makes no claim about Britishness being necessarily (or even generally) associated with stupidity when dealing with East Asians, so it's a completely different thing. Sorry, try again.