# What is racism?



## french4beth

A previous thread on bigotry inspired this thread (original thread here).

What is racism to you?

I think that it is racist to automatically assume that any black person that lives in America is from Africa. People of color live in countries all over the world, many of which are not part of the African continent.

Here are two definitions (from thefreedictionary.com): 


> 1. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
> 2. discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race


 
Is this a racist statement (from an article here)?


> According to the test scores report, white and Asian students performed similarly in reading, but Asian students outperformed white students by 7 percentage points on the mathematics test.


 
And, this morning I heard on the radio that the US tv show Survivor will be grouping teams according to 'race' in the next season (article here)...


----------



## vince

There are different types of racism which vary in severity.

But what unifies them is the belief that people should be judged based where some of their ancestors were from, despite having no control over this.

Believing that a certain race should be killed is racism.
Believing that races are equal but people of each race should remain separate and segregated is racism (this is called *racialism*).
Believing that certain countries are/should be homelands for genetically-determined ethnic groups is racism.
Believing that certain races are better suited for physical work while others are better suited for scientific work is also racism.
Believing that people are more aggressive or patient based on their race is also racism.
Believing that people have the responsibility to adopt a certain culture and language based on their genes is also racism.

My objection to racism, from its mildest forms (the "enlightened racism" of multiculturalism) to the most severe (Nazism), is that it believes that a person's personality and culture are by nature linked to their genetics. Sometimes people need to classify others, but the problem with racism is that membership into these groups is not determined by free-will, but by physical features that cannot be changed and have nothing to do with culture and personality.

More examples of mild racism (but it's still racism):
- A Canadian wants to learn about other cultures. He sees another Canadian who is culturally the same as him but proceeds to ask him, "What do they eat in your country?" since his friend "looks Indian".

- An American disproves of another American because he "speaks like a White person" while having a dark skin tone.

- A Chinese chastises her Canadian son for learning Spanish, because he has "not even bothered to learn his own language". In public, he may be accused of "abandoning and being ashamed of his Chinese identity"

- An American interested in East Asian culture is called an egg because he has a light skin tone, blue eyes and blond hair.


----------



## ireney

I think the U.N. definition is a pretty good one (copy/pasted by Wikipedia's article on racism)



> _...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.. _


 
P.S. I thought "egg" was the opposite of "banana" (white/yellow, yellow/white)


----------



## Outsider

In these matters, I think it's best to ask an expert. 



> Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable.
> 
> Read more.





french4beth said:


> Is this a racist statement (from an article here)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the test scores report, white and Asian students performed similarly in reading, but Asian students outperformed white students by 7 percentage points on the mathematics test.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but we should be careful not to read too much into such results (such as, for example, that Asians have genes in their DNA which make them more studious).



french4beth said:


> And, this morning I heard on the radio that the US tv show Survivor will be grouping teams according to 'race' in the next season (article here)...


Anything to boost their ratings, hey?


----------



## fenixpollo

For me, racism is not a set of behaviors or words, as your examples show, but a set of beliefs, which are actually based on typical human traits.

prejudgement ----->
As a self-preservation strategy, humans pre-judge each other and the social situations they are in. In order to survive, humans often must make an instant evaluation of the other person and decide whether he is friend or foe, based on the most limited of information. Hence the exaggerated importance of "the first impression".

prejudgement -----> assumption 
Humans construct patterns to better understand each other, based on their experience. If most smiling people they meet tend to be friendly, then the next smiling person they meet, they will be more likely to be open to that person. If most (insert skin color here) people they meet smell different than they do, then their mental pattern -- their paradigm -- is that (skin color) people are smelly.  The next (skin color) person they meet, they are more likely to assume that the person will stink.

In reality, what we call "prejudice" and "racism" are just a set of behaviors that are based on innate human traits. When you add these traits with the fear/ignorance/intolerance of differences that is so common to humans, you end up with behavior that we label "racist".


----------



## ireney

Oh dear! I hadn't seen the one about Survivor. Well, I don't know if it was actually aired but I remember that for the longest time, the local Suvivor geniouses were advertising a new set of episodes with ... "*GREECE vs **TURKEY*" trying as hard as they could to make it seem as if we were still at each other's throat (evidently one team would be formed by Greeks and the other from Turks). I wouldn't take anything that Survivor does seriously. It doesn't deserve to be commented upon is what I mean


----------



## KateNicole

french4beth said:


> I think that it is racist to automatically assume that any black person that lives in America is from Africa. People of color live in countries all over the world, many of which are not part of the African continent. Although it's laughable, I see absolutely nothing _racist_ about this. The misconception is ignorant, but there's no malice in it, and it does not denote any supremacy or race-based judgement. Is it racist that you referred to black people as "people of color"? (I'm not saying it is, but aren't we all some color or another? I'm white--not clear.) Note: I'm not calling you racist--just trying to make you think! Also, just out of curiosity, have you honestly met someone that thinks that any black person in America is most likely from Africa? That perplexes me, considering the fact that the vast majority of black people living here were _not_ born in Africa, and I think almost all of us (at least in the US) realize this, no matter how racist or not racist we might be.


----------



## vince

ireney said:


> I think the U.N. definition is a pretty good one (copy/pasted by Wikipedia's article on racism)
> 
> 
> P.S. I thought "egg" was the opposite of "banana" (white/yellow, yellow/white)



banana = Person of Asian race who self-identifies with White culture
egg = Person of White race who self-identifies with Asian culture
Oreo = Person of Black race who self-identifies with White culture

The problem I have with these terms:
a.) That these cultures "belong" to people of certain skin colors and ancestries. e.g. eating with chopsticks = that's yellow
rap music = that's black, it's of dark-skinned people

b.) That people of these skin colors ought to "belong" to these cultures. e.g. you're chinese, you should be using chopsticks!


c.) That there is something wrong with adopting a culture that doesn't correspond to the skin color as determined by point a.).



			
				felixpollo said:
			
		

> humans often must make an instant evaluation of the other person and decide whether he is friend or foe, based on the most limited of information



The problem is not with classification of people, but the classification of people based on race. Why must it be race that is most important? Despite the fact that it is so arbitrary (e.g. many people considered Black in the U.S. would not be so in Latin America).

Is it the most obvious visible trait? No, but I believe we are raised to look at race first when we see people. Clothes, mannerisms, etiquette, accent, and culture are also obvious visible traits for first impressions but they often take a back seat to race.


----------



## KateNicole

Vince,
That reminds me that it bothers me so much when black people do well in school or speak with a "crisp" voice (aside from using proper grammar) they get accused by certain people of "acting white." The reason it upsets me is that doing well in school and speaking properly are GOOD things--so it's like you insult the person on two different levels by telling them such a thing.  1.) You aren't a good enough black person.  2.) Academic achievement and correct speech aren't charactestic of black people.  (insinuated by the insult, of course.)


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> In these matters, I think it's best to ask an expert.
> 
> 
> 
> Racism exists when one ethnic group or historical collectivity dominates, excludes, or seeks to eliminate another on the basis of differences that it believes are hereditary and unalterable.
Click to expand...


I would disagree with the "group" nature of this definition. Many a solo censored has been a racist.




			
				KateNicole said:
			
		

> french4beth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it is racist to automatically assume that any black person that lives in America is from Africa. People of color live in countries all over the world, many of which are not part of the African continent.
> 
> 
> 
> Although it's laughable, I see absolutely nothing racist about this. The misconception is ignorant, but there's no malice in it, and it does not denote any supremacy or race-based judgement.
Click to expand...


Agreed, KateNicole. I think that *malice* is essential — good humoured banter between people who respect each other must be tolerated.


----------



## ireney

Vince, just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, I didn't mean it isn't racist (by the way there's always "coconut" you should add on your list) I was merely confused by your reference to blues eyes and blond hair.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> I would disagree with the "group" nature of this definition. Many a solo censored has been a racist.


Individuals can be nasty, but without the support of a posse they won't do a terrible amount of damage to others, typically.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

That's a good question. I think everyone is a little bit racist, everyone makes comments about other races. But there are many types of racism...

By the way:



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Believing that people are more aggressive or patient based on their race is also racism.


Is this racism? Or is it a fact? It's proven that black men have much more testosterone than Asian men, which makes them more aggressive.

I don't know if it's a cultural thing, or if it depends on the race, but you can see differences among the races. 

How about gypsies? They are kind of different, is it because of their culture? Or does it have something to do with genetics?


----------



## Outsider

Not really, Kräuter. Spend some time in the website I linked to above, when you have time to spare. It's a very nice site, and you will learn lots of fascinating stuff about race, genetics, and history.


----------



## vince

KateNicole said:


> Vince,
> That reminds me that it bothers me so much when black people do well in school or speak with a "crisp" voice (aside from using proper grammar) they get accused by certain people of "acting white." The reason it bothers me so bad is that doing well in school and speaking properly are GOOD things--so it's like you insult the person on two different levels by telling them such a thing.



This is the 2nd component of Black-White racism in the U.S.: The first is the oppression by Whites on Blacks, the second is the oppression of Blacks on Blacks, both of which act to prevent Black people from gaining political and economic power.

This 2nd component is unfortunately often overlooked. What has happened is, since the majority of the ruling class is White, the culture of being upper-class well-educated and refined is viewed by racists (most of who do not know they are being racist) as a "White" culture. But when Black people aspire to become part of the ruling class, they have to integrate into this culture to survive. Racists perceive this as Black people abandoning Black culture and identity and joining the Whites, the oppressors. Do you want to be a real Black, or an Oreo?


----------



## KateNicole

So would you say that you can be racist against your own race? I see how it's psychologically possible if you have a lot of latent self-hatred, although the concept seems counterintuitive.


----------



## vince

Yes you can be racist against your own race. But it is very hard to do so.

If you are of "Asian race" and avoid talking to other people of your race because you think they have bad manners then you are racist. You should also start hating yourself because if you believe Asian people have bad manners, then you also have bad manners.

But this is different from avoiding people of Asian _culture_. For example, I primarily identify with Canadian culture, so I don't tend to associate with people of Asian or European cultures that are too different from my own. Society considers me of the "Asian" race but it would be incorrect to say that I hate my own race because people of (by society's definition) Asian race who are of Canadian culture are not grouped by me as "Asian" and therefore I may associate with them as I would with any other Canadian. And people of the "White" race who are of European cultures that are too different from my own are grouped by me as "foreign" and hence I don't tend to associate with them.

It is actually racist to say that hating a culture = hating a race because this is implying that Asian culture = yellow or Black culture = dark-skinned


----------



## zena168

"Those who assume you’re not really an American just because you’re not from European descent." I can’t stand those people who think they’re in the exclusive club of being American by talking to Asians in “Your Country…” talks. By saying that it’s assuming that Asians can’t be Americans and that they must be aliens from another country. And that they must care more about their country than what’s going on in the U.S. I don’t have any accent and I’ve stayed in America since childhood. Do these people just generally assume that only Europeans can be considered as Americans? Or do they think by making the distinction themselves they can all send Asians packing back to where they belong?


----------



## KateNicole

What proof, Bernik? Can you give me a concrete example of someone being racist against his or her own race? 

I'm not challenging you--I just want some concrete examples (like a situation--I don't need a link to a specific thread or anything).


----------



## KateNicole

I think he (or she??) meant that _originally_ (millions of years ago) blacks covered Africa and whites covered Europe, not that every single black person that is alive today was born in Africa.
. . . At least I _hope_ he didn't mean that!


----------



## Everness

Are you ready to take a five-minute online test help tell whether you are racist or not? Good luck and don't lie, ok?

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/


----------



## bernik

_"Can you give me a concrete example of someone being racist against his or her own race? "_

What you are really defending, not only in this thread but on this forum, is the current policy of massive immigration. I think this is madness. We have the same thing in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Countries where the population was until very recently overwhelmingly European. But the governments are in the process of replacing the European population with third-world people. This is an anti-European policy carried out by Europeans (although most people do not agree at all with this policy).

You would not dream of having a massive European immigration to Third world countries. Why is it OK to have the European population replaced with other people, but not OK to replace other people with Europeans ?

Also the idea that Europeans are oppressing other people has nothing to do with reality.

_"I think he (or she??) meant that originally (millions of years ago) blacks covered Africa and whites covered Europe, not that every single black person that is alive today was born in Africa. . . . At least I hope he didn't mean that!"_

You are being ridiculous.

PS: and I am not a girl !


----------



## KateNicole

Who is "you"???
And what did I say that was "ridiculous" when I tried to clarify your post? Or did you _really_ mean what someone else thought you said?


----------



## vince

bernik said:


> _"Can you give me a concrete example of someone being racist against his or her own race? "_
> 
> What you are really defending, not only in this thread but on this forum, is the current policy of massive immigration. I think this is madness. We have the same thing in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Countries where the population was until very recently overwhelmingly European. But the governments are in the process of replacing the European population with third-world people. This is an anti-European policy carried out by Europeans (although most people do not agree at all with this policy).



There is no problem with mass immigration of Third-World people to European countries

if the Third-World people become European after their arrival.

btw, you seem ignorant to the fact that:
Moldova and Albania are European but they aren't exactly "First-World".
Australia, Canada, and the U.S. are not European, even if their cultures were originally derived from European ones. The first is Oceanic, and the latter two are North American.


----------



## bernik

_"There is no problem with mass immigration of Third-World people to European countries"_

Except that Europeans do NOT want to be replaced by other people.
Besides, I think France is headed for civil war.


----------



## vince

bernik said:


> _"There is no problem with mass immigration of Third-World people to European countries"_
> 
> Except that Europeans do NOT want to be replaced by other people.
> Besides, I think France is headed for civil war.



You neglected to quote the second part of my post:
"_ if the Third-World people become European after their arrival._"

This is the problem France is facing. The immigrants from North Africa are not becoming European after their arrival, they often remain segregated into ghettos and live lives of violence and crime, endangering French people.

But this is not a problem of too much immigration, as you may think. It is a matter of the attitude of the French toward immigrants. Even if many want to integrate and become French, French society has many racist elements that refuse to accept them. To them, they aren't French, they are "bougnouls" even if they are born in France. How can they get out of the cycle of poverty and crime if they are branded as criminals at birth?

Vince
-- Proud to have taken to the streets of Châlons to protest against Jean-Marie Le Pen in April 2002


----------



## modus.irrealis

For me, something is racist if it assumes something about an individual because of that person's "racial" characteristics (e.g. skin colour). Any such assumption is racist to me, whether it's malicious or not. If you think that race X is really good at math or race Y is really good in bed and then simply assume that any individual member of those races you meet shares those qualities, I would still see that as racist. More generally, anything is racist which automatically assigns something to someone because of their race, so barring all members of some race from a government position would be racist, to take an obvious example.

I'm not sure if the stereotypes are racist in and of themselves, although it's the nature of stereotypes for people who believe them to think they apply by default in individual cases, so I'd say stereotyping without some accompanying racism is rare.

But general statements on groups of humans defined by genetic similarity (whether these groups would have any resemblance to the usual races people refer to is a different question) are either true or false, and may be the result of the genetic similarity. There are diseases that only affect certain groups because of genetics but I wouldn't call this kind of research racist.



Everness said:


> Are you ready to take a five-minute online test help tell whether you are racist or not? Good luck and don't lie, ok?



Thanks for that link. That was very interesting, especially since I had no real idea what they were testing while I did the first one -- your "don't lie" comment made me expect some kind of questionnaire which I wouldn't give much credence to. It did tell me I have no automatic preference with the racism test, but I can't really trust a test that says I have "moderate automatic preference for the United States compared to Canada."


----------



## Setwale_Charm

well, this is a difficult question really. On the one hand, we all encounter disgusting examples of ill treatment of people on the grounds of their belonging to a different group. This is shameful. On the other, there are complications, just as the author noted. As a population expert, I have to encounter these issues all the time. For instance, people of different races and even nationalities have notable differences in genetics, absolutely different health problems, needs, etc. People of some ethnic groups are likely to contract certain illnesses which other ethnic groups hardly ever will. BUT!! It is enormously hard to publish reports on that because there are always some fringe racism fighters who will accuse you of being a racist. I had witnessed major complications in the development of medication, treatment programmes etc as well as revealing the facts about the state of things due to "political correctness", which eventually only harms those whom the well-wishers only mean to help. 
I have absolutely no quarrel with the fact of difference in intellectual levels either. What do you expect if historically some parts of the world were not given equal possibilities and encouragement in developing their intellectual capabilities as well as simply adequate nourishment. e
The important thing to understand, I think, is that this is NOT their fault, neither the likelihood to contract any illnesses, nor the absence of education or ability to study as swiftly as somebody else! It doesn`t make them worse people , it doesn`t make them less deserving but it has to be recognised that some differences exist only in order to be objective in certain fields, like science.
The repulsive thing in racism is violence and animosity, so I think the key approach should be that we should all recognise that we are all to be loved, respected and are all endowed with dignity. And that makes us valuable just as beings despite all our differences which just make us more interesting.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

vince said:


> You neglected to quote the second part of my post:
> "_ if the Third-World people become European after their arrival._"
> 
> This is the problem France is facing. The immigrants from North Africa are not becoming European after their arrival, they often remain segregated into ghettos and live lives of violence and crime, endangering French people.
> 
> But this is not a problem of too much immigration, as you may think. It is a matter of the attitude of the French toward immigrants. Even if many want to integrate and become French, French society has many racist elements that refuse to accept them. To them, they aren't French, they are "bougnouls" even if they are born in France. How can they get out of the cycle of poverty and crime if they are branded as criminals at birth?
> 
> Vince
> -- Proud to have taken to the streets of Châlons to protest against Jean-Marie Le Pen in April 2002


 

 Vince, I disagree with you here. The problem is exactly the scale of immigration. Each society is built upon certain principles, the shared notions of what is right and what is wrong, what is "done" and what is not, what is th e way to behave. It is extremely dangerous to ruin those and modifications such as modernisation and introduction of a different culture should be handled with extreme care. The 'reserve" of the French to accept newcomers as fully members of their society is quite understandable, it is that natural instinct of preserving tha canvas of their society. For this reason, having seen many conflicts, I am becoming more and more convinced that a truly Multicultural society is impossible. People need to have similar standards. I cannot blame the French though I recognise that this has indeed to a great extent served as a reason for the slow integration. 

I have loads of Algerian friends in France, as well friends of other nationalities, and many of them , esp, those who are born in France are 100% French, but mostly those who live in a neighbourhood where very few others of their original community live. The problem is the creation of "ghettos" where not only the original culture receives no influence of the new one, but also the very specific unhealthy culture of ghettos develops. And with large scale immigration, it will inevitably lead to clashes of civilisations, no understanding and integration and, at worst, to civil wars really.
 So I am against mass immigration because it does ruin the society, both communitites. The locals quite naturally want to preserve their morals, as well as the newcomers feel unwelcome, rejected and that pushes them back into hanging on by all possible means to the set of morals and perceptions to which they are accustomed. I understand that perfectly as well - have been living in foreign lands all my life  So in the final analysis it never really works well.


----------



## Everness

I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly. 

*Question #1.* If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response. 

a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body." 

b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.

c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.

d) You'll pass out.

e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).

d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy. 

e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.

f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."

f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages. 

g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa  Rica the next day. 

h) Other (please specify)


So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?


----------



## KateNicole

I think there's too many answer choices.


----------



## Tsoman

I think that racism is believing in the inequality of races. I think that it is an ideology.

I don't think it includes all those minor things stupid things that people get hung up about all the time.


----------



## KateNicole

Tsoman, I think you did a _great_ job of summing up something extremely complex!


----------



## Tsoman

were you being sarcastic or serious?


----------



## KateNicole

No, I'm not being sarcastic at all! I think it can be so hard to define because it manifests in different ways, depending on a person's intentions and mindset. Innocent yet distasteful ignorance and racism are two different things, in my opinion, and this makes it very hard to define racism. But if I had to sum it up, I'd say what you said. It's very simply put, and hits the nail on the head.


----------



## danielfranco

Hi, there!
In Mexico we have a situation that has been named after the woman "Malintzin" (Malinche) and it's refered to as "Malinchismo". I wonder if this is some form of self-inflicted racism...

Anyway, I thought it'd be appropriate to mention in this thread that, as far as I can see, the people in this forum are some of the most open-minded people I've ever come across in my life.
Sure, there are some situations in which each one of us wishes to hold on to a particular point of view tooth and nail, as it were, but for the most part everybody here shows signs of adapting their perspective on life one little bit at a time by learning to appreciate all the diversity presented in this forum.
For example, where else could you actually discuss calmly and intelligently such a thorny topic as the one in this thread?

I think I'm sticking to the definition given in #3 by ireney.


----------



## .   1

Kräuter_Fee said:


> That's a good question. I think everyone is a little bit racist, everyone makes comments about other races. But there are many types of racism...
> 
> It is not possible to be a little bit racist any more than it is possible to be a little bit pregnant.
> 
> By the way:
> 
> Is this racism? Or is it a fact? It's proven that black men have much more testosterone than Asian men, which makes them more aggressive.
> 
> Who proved it? Do all black men have more testosterone than all Asian men (think of Bruce Lee or Jet Li or Sumo wrestlers or Samurai warriors)? Who linked high testosterone per se to high aggression? It is my understanding that naturally occuring high testosterone levels often offset by varied endocrine levels.
> 
> I don't know if it's a cultural thing, or if it depends on the race, but you can see differences among the races.
> 
> What differences are you referring to here with such a broad statement?
> 
> How about gypsies? They are kind of different, is it because of their culture? Or does it have something to do with genetics?
> 
> How are Gypsies different and why do they not get a capital letter to denote their Ethnicity? How are Gypsies identified as not being the same as you?


 
How many human races do we have or have I missed something?

.,,


----------



## vince

Tsoman said:


> I think that racism is believing in the inequality of races. I think that it is an ideology.
> 
> I don't think it includes all those minor things stupid things that people get hung up about all the time.



That is a bit too simplistic

You have to define equality: what does it mean to be "equal"?

Here are some possible opinions:
- _"Black people are stronger but less intelligent. Asian people are weaker but more intelligent. All races have their strengths and weaknesses. No race is better than any other, as a whole_. _Each race has a different role in this world, the Blacks do the hard physical jobs while the Asians do the skilled professions. They are equally important because the removal of any of these races would cause the collapse of our economy and society._" - Is this person racist? No, according to your above summary. (This type of argument is the argument many anti-feminists bring up: that men and women are already equal, they just have different roles)

"_All races are equal. But I don't want you to be marrying a Black person. Not because I think they're bad or anything. The goal of each race is to preserve itself. And as White people, we must preserve the White race._" - Is this person racist? No, according to your above summary.

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## zena168

I think it’s human nature that makes people stereotype others. We are born to learn and name things all around us. We are by nature curious to find out things and then box them up (classify) as we see fit. This quick boxing (stereotyping) of things makes learning things much faster and easier. We’re also by nature political animals that seek to bond with others for safety, protection or increase of power. Alliances are established more easily by finding those who share common physical traits with one another. (People also bond by class, gender, age and other things. But that’s not the topic of this thread. )
I do believe a multicultural society is possible. I have worked with many people of various ethnicity and background. But it does require both parties to be very open to accept other’s values and criticisms about one’s own culture. It takes a lot of work for people to see things more neutral and I think U.S. is doing a pretty good job. Not that it can ever be perfect but it’s not an easy task to accommodate everyone when you really think about it.
I don’t know much about France’s situation, but I do agree that people need to establish a neutral culture between the different races and ethnicity. You can’t expect to bond with others with your own values. That would be forcing people to adopt your beliefs.


----------



## danielfranco

No, but seriously, folks...

I often wondered why the genes that dictate color of eyes other-than-brown, color of hair other-than-brown, etc., are _recessive _genes.

Hmmm...

Could it be...
...
... that the dominant genes are the ones that dictate brown eyes, brown hair, brown everything, and are so deep down in everyone's DNA that no matter how many recent divergences (caused by migration or mutation) appear, they still cannot be overcome because they are... just... superficial... changes?

I understand we all want to discuss how precisely to define "racism", but could we not start by entertaining the concept that the term itself is a malapropism of sorts? Or a term that "does not apply" to the human race?

I mean, sure, there's the fact we all have to face discrimination and prejudice, but there are much more appropriate words for that.
I would like to propose "bigotry", instead of "racism".


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:


> french4beth: _"I think that it is racist to automatically assume that any black person that lives in America is from Africa."_
> 
> It is a fact that the whites come from Europe, and the blacks come from Africa.
> You should know that.



bernik, 
You might want to take a colour chart with you the next time you go to Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, Micronesia and several other places besides.
You might like to compare the whiteness of say the Greeks or Italians with Boers in South Africa, or people in the Levant (wonderful French word!).
(we won't go into Michael Jackson's case just yet.)


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly.
> 
> *Question #1.* If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response.
> 
> a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body."
> 
> b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.
> 
> c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.
> 
> d) You'll pass out.
> 
> e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).
> 
> d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy.
> 
> e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.
> 
> f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."
> 
> f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages.
> 
> g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa Rica the next day.
> 
> h) Other (please specify)
> 
> 
> So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?


 
In response to the nature of the responses:
You need to change your options if you wish to receive objective responses.
It would be obvious to any person participating in such a survey that the responses are *incredibly* biased towards negativity and bigotry and judgemental behaviour.
The closest to a positive response is e) but this indicates when taken into consideration with other choices that you have not responded to your daughter.
The next one down the scale of negativity is f) but this answer infers that there is a problem where no such problem exists except in the mind of a bigot.
In response to the question:
h)  "Congratulations georgeous.  We are so happy for you both.  Welcome to the family mate."

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Are you ready to take a five-minute online test help tell whether you are racist or not? Good luck and don't lie, ok?
> 
> https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/



"Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black People and White People."

So, what does that tell anyone - about me, about you, or about Harvard and its test?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> "Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black People and White People."
> 
> So, what does that tell anyone - about me, about you, or about Harvard and its test?


"Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Black People and White People."
'twould seem that maxiogee is the same as me

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I think this is where we've arrived from the posts so far:

Racism:  the assumption of an inherent link between certain traits or characteristics and race.

I like this definition, because it covers both positive and negative perceptions of that link, and both positive and negative perceptions about one's own race.


The poll reminds me of a wedding in Toronto in the nineties.  The groom's black relatives felt that he was letting down the side and refused to attend, as did the bride's white relatives.  Their wedding was celebrated and supported by friends and colleagues, not by family members.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> bernik,
> 
> You might like to compare the whiteness of say most Greeks or Italians with most Boers in South Africa, or people in the Levant (wonderful French word!).


 
What? Am I not Greek just because I am of extra light skin?


----------



## don maico

Kräuter_Fee said:


> That's a good question. I think everyone is a little bit racist, everyone makes comments about other races. But there are many types of racism...
> 
> By the way:
> 
> Is this racism? Or is it a fact? It's proven that black men have much more testosterone than Asian men, which makes them more aggressive.
> 
> I don't know if it's a cultural thing, or if it depends on the race, but you can see differences among the races.
> 
> How about gypsies? They are kind of different, is it because of their culture? Or does it have something to do with genetics?



actually people make negative comments about "the other" ie different race, ethnic group ,religion, class , part of a country, nationality.In fact any group of people who are percieved to be different are generally scapegoated for something or other. Man would appear to be tribal by  nature.Overhere we dislike Chavs. Not a race or ethnic group or religious sect but people from a particular social class who behave, have a lifestyle and dress in a manner which is considered inferior and sometimes threatening:
http://www.chavscum.co.uk/
if you see one run a mile fast!


----------



## Everness

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I think this is where we've arrived from the posts so far:
> 
> Racism:  the assumption of an inherent link between certain traits or characteristics and race.
> 
> I like this definition, because it covers both positive and negative perceptions of that link, and both positive and negative perceptions about one's own race.



There's nothing redeemable in racism, maybe in race. But we shouldn't confuse those terms. I subscribe to the idea that race is a social construct that was originally devised and thereafter used with great success for almost exclusively oppressive purposes. Slavery of black folks, for instance, was based on race, a classification of human beings based on skin color, hair texture, and facial structure. Whites amassed wealth based on the exploitation of fellow human beings that were viewed as sub-human. 

But race is hard to die despite the fact that the rejection of race in science is now almost complete. Here's a great summary of the current status of this debate. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm

I like the definition of racism that otherwise unreliable Wikipedia offers:

_Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that the essential value of an individual person can be determined according to a perceived or ascribed racial category and that social discrimination by race is therefore justifiable._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism


----------



## stephyjh

Everness said:


> I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly.
> 
> *Question #1.* If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response.
> 
> a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body."
> 
> b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.
> 
> c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.
> 
> d) You'll pass out.
> 
> e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).
> 
> d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy.
> 
> e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.
> 
> f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."
> 
> f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages.
> 
> g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa Rica the next day.
> 
> h) Other (please specify)
> 
> 
> So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?


 
h) "Congratulations, happy for you, etc, but I hope you're going to get a degree before you get married." But then, in my family, all 5 of your "color" groupings are represented, so it's no big deal.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Slavery of black folks, for instance, was based on race, a classification of human beings based on skin color, hair texture, and facial structure. Whites amassed wealth based on the exploitation of fellow human beings that were viewed as sub-human.


Actually, in the US there were also black slave owners. Admittedly they were a small percentage, but when you consider how few actual slaveholders in the antebellum South *were* amassing a significant amount of wealth based on slave labor, rather than having one or two slaves to help bring in enough of a crop to help the family survive (the major plantation owners were fewer and farther between than most people realize), it's something to consider.


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Racism: the assumption of an inherent link between certain traits or characteristics and race.
> 
> I like this definition, because it covers both positive and negative perceptions of that link, and both positive and negative perceptions about one's own race.


 
So is racism OK as long as you only hold positive perceptions?

How is is possible to hold positive perceptions of one race without inferring negative perceptions of another race?

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

While reading many of the posts in this thread, and appreciating the fact that people seem to be sharing opinions without trying to challenge each other to a duel (well, mostly...), while discussing a notoriously fractious issue, I've had a revelation:
I often wondered how it was possible that the some of the most celebrated and capable minds of the first half of the Twentieth Century would embrace and promote the concept of "Eugenics"...
I suppose the problem wasn't the concept _per se_, but the easy and comfortable slippery slide down the tubes into racism that followed... I mean, although mostly now a used as a watchword and approached with trembling fingers, Eugenics' premise of the betterment of humanity by selective breeding finds a compassionate application in the discovery of hereditary illnesses, and the ongoing research to isolate, and ultimately discover a way to nullify, the genes that cause such diseases.
Maybe science  would have be a lot more advanced in that respect if not for the complete f*uck-all situation of the application of the Eugenics' concept by the Nazis in the 1930's.

And now, back to our regular programme...


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> a) You'll…
> b) You'll…
> c) You'll…
> d) You'll…
> e) There…
> d) You'll…
> e) You'll…
> f) After…
> f) You'll…
> g) You'll…
> h) Other…



*If* (and that's a big 'if") I answer *d* *e* or *f* — how will you know which one I mean?
Can't you do simple alphabetics?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

danielfranco said:


> While reading many of the posts in this thread, and appreciating the fact that people seem to be sharing opinions without trying to challenge each other to a duel (well, mostly...), while discussing a notoriously fractious issue, I've had a revelation:
> I often wondered how it was possible that the some of the most celebrated and capable minds of the first half of the Twentieth Century would embrace and promote the concept of "Eugenics"...
> I suppose the problem wasn't the concept _per se_, but the easy and comfortable slippery slide down the tubes into racism that followed... I mean, although mostly now a used as a watchword and approached with trembling fingers, Eugenics' premise of the betterment of humanity by selective breeding finds a compassionate application in the discovery of hereditary illnesses, and the ongoing research to isolate, and ultimately discover a way to nullify, the genes that cause such diseases.
> Maybe science would have be a lot more advanced in that respect if not for the complete f*uck-all situation of the application of the Eugenics' concept by the Nazis in the 1930's.
> 
> And now, back to our regular programme...


 

DanielFranco, I understand that "Nazi" has become the scarecrow word but you try to understand as well: the science does not become a bad thing in itself only because a bunch of bastards chooses to use it in the most deformed form for their own purposes!!! In that way you should probably banish all other sciences as well because bad guys at different times in the history of the human kind have made use of almost every branch of it. And we have to start with banishing the Catholic Church ( as it used to be awfully cruel and full of absurdity in the Middle ages) and the music of Wagner (because it gave a lot of inspiration to Hitler). "the betterment of humanity by nullifying the defective genes and attempting to eliminate hereditary illnesses" is what all biology, genetics, a lot of medicine and the whole concept of evolution is about! Please refer your complaints to the Lord God who has invented that, but the extinction of the weak and the incapable was at all times the natural and essential condition for the surviving not only of humans but of all living beings. If this had not been so, you wouldn`t be around by now, none of us would. With time and thanks to the fact that we are approaching a more humanistic and humane era, we have learnt not to kill the weak but to try and prevent illnesses, pathologies, defects, to work on teaching people how to prevent the development of those. If we are not going to do it, we shall either die out in a very short while and in a very violent painful way (which, I guess, is not what you would wish for your children) or some groups will be forced to exterminate others - back to the "good" old times. This is what is happening to quite a number of nations today which are "doomed" due to their genetical and reproductive health and perception of it not needing any modification or care. Sorry, I do not enjoy seeing it.

So you shall have to consider me Nazi as well from now on as long as I have chosen to pursue the career in demography, reproductive health and attempts to propagate the knowledge of genetics and medicine and of how to avoid mass illnesses for the future generation and how to strive for a healthier offspring and gene pool. I`m afraid, all UNFPA experts shal be branded Nazi this way. Eugenics was initially about all that. The differences between different races are a fact but, as I said before and do not tire to repeat: there is nothing humiliating, demeaning or offencisve in this fact, this is just as all of us have different blood groups, psychological types and physical abilities. If one type is more prone to a certain illness, we have to recognise and try to change the situation and not blithely avoid thinking and talking about it wallowing in the false political correctness. If some "nice" people have attached their own motives and wishes to this science - a big thanks to them.


----------



## danielfranco

Well, thank you for your point of view, Setwale_Charm. But you must forgive my obtuseness, since I don't understand what set off your rant.

Was it something I said?

I invite you to read my post (#51) again, and pretend you are not angry at me, or that you still think well of me.
In case I was unable to express myself completely in that post, allow me to clarify, without editing:
My observation says that I was MISTAKEN in equating Eugenics with racism. Further, it mentions clearly that the efforts IN THE PRESENT TIME are geared towards the betterment of humanity.
In passing, I also recognized that MY MISTAKE was to identify the NAZIS with the concept of Eugenics because of their inhuman application of it.
And, in my previous post, the only people identified as NAZIS are, in fact, the Nazis themselves.
So, basically, congratulations for feeling the way you feel about science and the betterment of humanity. And, like you, I also repeat across many different threads in many different subjects the same thing, over and over, and do not get tired of mentioning it every chance I have:

There is only one human race.


I believe, if I read you correctly, and if you care to re-read my previous post, that this last statement is the only place where we disagree.
Thank you, again, for your earnest opinion.
D.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly.
> 
> *Question #1.* If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response.
> 
> a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body."
> 
> b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.
> 
> c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.
> 
> d) You'll pass out.
> 
> e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).
> 
> d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy.
> 
> e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.
> 
> f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."
> 
> f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages.
> 
> g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa Rica the next day.
> 
> h) Other (please specify)
> 
> 
> So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?


I was just wondering what a U.S. American with black skin thinks about this test.

.,,


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Oh dear! I am not angry with you Daniel! Not in the least! In fact, I am much happier to hear that sort of opinion than something homophobic.  I just read your thoughts about genetical sciences and that really made me want to speak on the aspect which surrounds me in my daily life too. I suppose, one sees the common accusation and puts the author of it into the usual category.. My post was addressed not only to you. This is one of the major problems of the racism - anti-racism thing, I think. I must say that political correctness has really gone too far and anti-racists have turned into bigots just as much as racists are. You wouldn`t be able to imagine what one has to go through in my field. Any attempt to deal with subjects related to the aspect of different nations/races is simply fraught with life danger or, at least, with the danger of being "pelt down" with rotten tomatoes. You cannot publish anything on genetical differences and diseases existing in Africa, especially, those brought in by immigrants to the West. This is part of national health analysis but one cannot do it!!what if it will offend somebody. One cannot publish anything on low educational standards in some countries because they go and complain of racism! And the fact that eugenics has received such a negative label and people give a jump at the simple suggestion that we should strive to outbreed the defective genes and treat people for that before they can have children, has led to some countries having 80% of all children born completely degenerate. But many scientific truths may be considered not politically correct these days.
 
  Furthemore, it is not only science. One is not able to publish the statistic on the immigrant crime in some countries which is vital for social workers. My friends from the police complain of having to go through much harassment in order to charge somebody of another ethnic background and communities with most appalling crimes, there `s always the fear of not being politically correct. I know for myself that it is extremely difficult to extradite some criminals from certain countries because you cannot even talk of them being terrorists or criminals. It has nothing to do with the colour of the skin, other races are not more murderous but it looks like for fear of discovering something of the kind many begin to make just absurd decisions.   
 And you constantly hear those words 'racist' and "nazi" used without any relevance, those have just become handy words, I feel. We do not profit from going to other extremes  The human race is one, so let`s treat it as one with no preferential treatment for some or vice-versa.


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:


> Oh dear! I am not angry with you Daniel! Not in the least! In fact, I am much happier to hear that sort of opinion than something homophobic. I just read your thoughts about genetical sciences and that really made me want to speak on the aspect which surrounds me in my daily life too. I suppose, one sees the common accusation and puts the author of it into the usual category.. My post was addressed not only to you. This is one of the major problems of the racism - anti-racism thing, I think. I must say that political correctness has really gone too far and anti-racists have turned into bigots just as much as racists are. You wouldn`t be able to imagine what one has to go through in my field. Any attempt to deal with subjects related to the aspect of different nations/races is simply fraught with life danger or, at least, with the danger of being "pelt down" with rotten tomatoes. You cannot publish anything on genetical differences and diseases existing in Africa, especially, those brought in by immigrants to the West. This is part of national health analysis but one cannot do it!!what if it will offend somebody. One cannot publish anything on low educational standards in some countries because they go and complain of racism! And the fact that eugenics has received such a negative label and people give a jump at the simple suggestion that we should strive to outbreed the defective genes and treat people for that before they can have children, has led to some countries having 80% of all children born completely degenerate. But many scientific truths may be considered not politically correct these days.
> 
> Furthemore, it is not only science. One is not able to publish the statistic on the immigrant crime in some countries which is vital for social workers. My friends from the police complain of having to go through much harassment in order to charge somebody of another ethnic background and communities with most appalling crimes, there `s always the fear of not being politically correct. I know for myself that it is extremely difficult to extradite some criminals from certain countries because you cannot even talk of them being terrorists or criminals. It has nothing to do with the colour of the skin, other races are not more murderous but it looks like for fear of discovering something of the kind many begin to make just absurd decisions.
> And you constantly hear those words 'racist' and "nazi" used without any relevance, those have just become handy words, I feel. We do not profit from going to other extremes The human race is one, so let`s treat it as one with no preferential treatment for some or vice-versa.


Which countries have 80% of all children born completely degenerate?
Why do immigrants make up a higher proportion of the prison population per capita than native citizens in ALL countries?
Why are so few immigrants on a per capita basis wealthy when compared to native citizens?

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

Thank you for your reassurances, and sorry to hear of all the ill-will you must wade through in order to pursue your endeavors.
Godspeed, as it were.

And I commend you for this sentence, especially in light of the topic of this thread. Allow me to highlight it for everyone's enjoyment:



> Originally posted by Setwale_Charm
> The human race is one, so let`s treat it as one with no preferential treatment for some or vice-versa.


----------



## maxiogee

Setwale_Charm said:


> "the betterment of humanity by nullifying the defective genes and attempting to eliminate hereditary illnesses" is what — the whole concept of evolution is about!
> 
> the extinction of the weak and the incapable was at all times the natural and essential condition for the surviving not only of humans but of all living beings.



Congratulations Setwale, you have managed to totally misunderstand "the whole concept of evolution".   

It is not the "weak and incapable" who become extinct, it is those not best suited to their environment. Nor is evolution about the betterment of a species - think about it - how can any cross-breeding benefit the healthiest in a species? It cannot.
Imagine the quintessential lion — the fastest, the keenest eye, the sharpest teeth, etc., etc. Now which lioness will it mate with? With whichever is available? With the best lioness - it will not match him in profile - and its offspring will be "less" than he is. 

What heredity is about is constant modification, blind progress, there is no 'aim' to heredity, no goal towards which the genes are striving. There is no purpose to the modifications, they are just what happens. That they sometimes throw up individuals who are stunningly suited to their particular environmental niche is a side-effect, and one which ensures that that individual has a much better chance of passing on its genes to the next and succeeding generations.

Hereditary illnesses are part and parcel of evolution. They go hand-in-hand with hereditary benefits. 

The "weak and incapable" in one generation, might well be, when the environment changes, the strong and the capable in the next. Evolution doesn't "know", or care, which genes survive. The weaker animals driven out of their grasslands by stronger, fiercer creatures were the ones which crossed the landbridge from Asia into America - were they being eliminated by nature?

Darwin didn't coin the phrase "survival of the fittest", but he did agree with it when he came across Spencer's use of it - this concept of the word "fit" was about 'best fitting into one's environmental niche'.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Thank you, Maxiogee. I am always delighted to find a colleague who knows better . You have been helpful once and I appreciate your eagerness. It so happens unfortunately that colleagues sometimes misunderstand totally my posts, and what quarrel they have with my words or what quarrel I have with their words I cannot see for the second time already, but that is no problem. We do have that in the scientific world, guys . By the way, I am not among Darwinists, that is curable, I believe. Altogether, I do not see where I contradict yu apart from two minor details.



Just Thank you for not saying some "F" word ( I still hold on to things that Jesus and Mohammad wouldn`t do, poor me!) and please, do not say 'bother!; either. I have always found it ...unpleasant...hindering my evolution.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Racism:  the assumption of an inherent link between certain traits or characteristics and race.
> 
> I like this definition, because it covers both positive and negative perceptions of that link, and both positive and negative perceptions about one's own race.



I'm not sure how that statement could have been interpreted as endorsing racism in any way whatsoever, but let me clarify it for those who misunderstood.

By positive perceptions, I mean such broad statements as "People from that race are terrific tap dancers", or "Our race has the most perfect body type".  The statements are positive ... but nevertheless racist.


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> By positive perceptions, I mean such broad statements as "People from that race are terrific tap dancers", or "Our race has the most perfect body type". The statements are positive ... but nevertheless racist.


Do you not understand that by saying something positive about one 'race' you must by definition infer the same thing as a negativity about another 'race'.

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Conclusions again.  

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how you have deduced this lack of comprehension on my part.


----------



## ireney

stephyjh said:


> Actually, in the US there were also black slave owners. Admittedly they were a small percentage, but when you consider how few actual slaveholders in the antebellum South *were* amassing a significant amount of wealth based on slave labor, rather than having one or two slaves to help bring in enough of a crop to help the family survive (the major plantation owners were fewer and farther between than most people realize), it's something to consider.


 

No it is not. Slavery and racism are NOT the same thing. They are both wrong but NOT the same. When however, someone considers that a particular race, or a particular ethnicity or other group of people _should_ be slave because they are inferior, then slavery is an expression of racism. There were black people who had black slaves in the USA (I didn't know but if you say so I trust you). How many black, or white people had white slaves?

Throughout the ages, practically everybody had slaves. Once again I state that slavery is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! 
When however, Africans took other Africans as slaves, in most of the cases, it wasn't racism (it was when they hunted the poor Bushmen). When Greeks took slaves but also considered being caught and sold as slave tragic to say the least but part of life it wasn't racism.


----------



## maxiogee

Setwale_Charm said:


> The differences between different races are a fact


That depends on what you regard as the differences.




> but, as I said before and do not tire to repeat: there is nothing humiliating, demeaning or offencisve in this fact, this is just as all of us have different blood groups, psychological types and physical abilities.


 And those 'types' are not conditional upon, or connected to ethnicity. They may be connected to race. They may well be particular to the human race and not occur in other species - I do not know.




> If one type is more prone to a certain illness, we have to recognise and try to change the situation


"Changing the situation" could mean doing away with people like you who think that the situation 'requires' changing! 
Illnesses are not something to be written off - they develop the species. What is today an illness might mutate in a genetic development into a positive advantage in a future environment.

Who knows what the bubonic, or other plagues saved mankind from? By the survival of those who didn't succumb to them it is possible that we weren't wiped out totally by something else. We shall never know - and it is that unknowingness which should stay our hand regarding eugenics.

====



Setwale_Charm said:


> Altogether, I do not see where I contradict yu apart from two minor details.


I think the understanding of heredity and the concept of evolution hardly fall into the category of "minor details".

You speak of


> If we are not going to do it, we shall either die out in a very short while and in a very violent painful way (which, I guess, is not what you would wish for your children) or some groups will be forced to exterminate others - back to the "good" old times.


Please enlighten us about this forthcoming dying out? It seems to be a conspiracy of silence as I haven't read or heard any mention of it. And, how would any extermination of "groups" help in the survival of other groups. Whether Group X survives or not is not conditional on the genetic makeup of Group Y.
I am agog awaiting your explanations.


----------



## Everness

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I'm not sure how that statement could have been interpreted as endorsing racism in any way whatsoever, but let me clarify it for those who misunderstood.
> 
> By positive perceptions, I mean such broad statements as "People from that race are terrific tap dancers", or "Our race has the most perfect body type".  The statements are positive ... but nevertheless racist.



Why are those statements racist? Are you saying that any reference to race positive or negative is racist? I think that the problem is when we use a yardstick to compare races and perceive certain races as superior or inferior than other ones. Even people of color tend to internalize this yardstick and sometimes compare themselves unfavorably to whites. Why? Because folks know that in a racist society your chances to succeed grow exponentially when your skin is on the lighter side. So when I see a black kid saying, "Black is beautiful," I don't read it as racist but as a way of combating racism and its effects on society and people's psyches. 

There are people who argue that we should stop using the word race or race classifications altogether. They argue that this is what keeps racism alive: too much emphasis on race as a category. I think they have a point. However, we shouldn't forget that race has been used as a social construct to exploit blacks for centuries. It would be very convenient for majority groups to stop using it. I find it outrageous that that some white folks want affirmative action initiatives to be eradicated because it amounts to reverse discrimination. We still live live in racist and classist society which foundation was built over a long period of time. To argue that racism has been eradicated from the US is perversely stupid. 

We need to retain race as a category so we can make sure that we understand three things. 1) That people of color don't want or enjoy being poor. It's not a choice. 2) That the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor in America can be explained by the practice of Institutionalized racism over hundreds of years. Let's stop blaming the victim and focus on socio-economic and political structures that foster injustice. 3) We need to continue working together in undoing what racism did. The field isn't yet leveled.


----------



## Bonjules

Hello, 
I'd like to help clarify one thing, even if it's slightly off topic.
I think what 
Setwale Charm
has been trying to say - without labelling itas such, is the famous '
'Paradox of modern Medicine' (another one of those, doctors and ethicists don't like to talk about):
The better the Medicine, the sicker gets (in the long run ) the population.
Reason: Medicine is fundamentally opposed to biology, tries to fool it.
Sick people (acute, but esp. chronic) stay alive and procreate, would have died otherwise (without us interfering)or at least would have had more difficulty to have children. 
That is obviously esp. true with our decision to make fertility possible by all means for everybody who wants children. Diabetic? We can do! Result: Increase in chronically ill people(many of these diseases have heredetary tendencies). So, esp with
the advances (are they? - not passing judgement here, merely pointing to the fact) of fertility tx's we have been practicing -reverse- eugenics for a long time.

More to the topic itself: I think the discussion has suffered from the
term 'racism', implying the need for more or less clearly definable distinguishing characteristics, although frequently that makes it much 'easier' to set others 'apart', for sure.
However, this ease with which we are ready to discriminate, draw some
kind of a line between 'them and 'us' points to a much deeper problem.
I am not an anthropo-psychologist, but it seems this tendency is so powerful that it must be deeply rooted in our evolution.
Think of the Hutu women who had in some cases themselves raised Tutsie
children in their families, but had no problem 'pointing them out' when the time came. You'd be hard pressed to find much obvious 'genetic' or even 'cultural' differences...
Or Yugoslavia, a great mix of genes for a long time, poeple look alike, talke pretty much alike..
etc. etc...yet when the time came lines were drawn with astonishing speed between longtime neighbors and 'friends' - we'd be deluding our
selves if we only think of this problem in terms of 'race'. There are many more examples.
(Thus, it is equally deluding ourselves to think it takes a great effort
to turn a child into a prejudiced human being..)
saludos

P.S. I am in no way trying to take away from anything Everness said in the last post. 
On the contrary, I agree with it totally. All I am saying is that the problem is probably even fundamentally deeper than the concept of 'traditional racism'. That the consequences of the latter
have to be addressed. and fast, there is no doubt.


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly.
> 
> *Question #1.* If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response.
> 
> a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body."
> 
> b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.
> 
> c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.
> 
> d) You'll pass out.
> 
> e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).
> 
> d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy.
> 
> e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.
> 
> f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."
> 
> f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages.
> 
> g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa  Rica the next day.
> 
> h) Other (please specify)
> 
> 
> So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?


An interesting start, Everness.... 
Funnily and oddly enough, I encountered that situation in 2000. My 2o-something son rang to tell me he was marrying a Maori woman. My reaction was 'cool'! (Actually it was a shriek of joy.) There are four  reasons for this - (1) I knew her very well (2) _It just isn't an issue in NZ _(3) his father (my ex-husband) is part-Maori, so race isn't an issue for me (4) I knew he'd always wanted to be married and  settled and he's found the right woman. That she is the right woman has been amply proven in the 10 years they've been together.
Good luck with the survey!


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> I am not an anthropo-psychologist, but it seems this tendency is so powerful that it must be deeply rooted in our evolution.
> Think of the Hutu women who had in some cases themselves raised Tutsie
> children in their families, but had no problem 'pointing them out' when the time came. You'd be hard pressed to find much obvious 'genetic' or even 'cultural' differences...
> Or Yugoslavia, a great mix of genes for a long time, poeple look alike, talke pretty much alike..
> etc. etc...yet when the time came lines were drawn with astonishing speed between longtime neighbors and 'friends' - we'd be deluding our
> selves if we only think of this problem in terms of 'race'. There are many more examples.


Thankfully for the hope of the continued survival of our species I think you may be drawing a long bow with your two cited examples.
Neither case displayed racist (I conceed that the word is correct because I can not think of a replacement) tendencies at all.
Logic tells me that in the case of Tutsie children raised by Hutu women (and men) the ethnic origin of the children would have been obvious to all and the women (and men) were at the point of the sword if they did not give in to the demands of a mob of psychopaths armed to the teeth and bent on destruction.  I am sad for the Hutu women (and men) but when it is looked at objectively they did what the did to save their own lives.
I would imagine that it could be said that the same sad chain of events draped itself over The Balkans.
We are not fundamentally bad.
We are not going to hell in a handbasket.
Racists are in the utterly despised minority and with civilisation their influence is waning.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

*Question
----------*
Am I the only one here who thinks that, behind all the
comments on race here, there lurks the shadow of colour?

Nobody seems to be concerned that their offspring might marry an Inuit, or a Lapp, or a person from any other isolated, and possibly 'different' race - the head-hunters of Papua New Guinea, for instance.

It all seems to be showing a huge concern for blackness and whiteness.
Why?


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> *Question*
> *----------*
> Am I the only one here who thinks that, behind all the
> comments on race here, there lurks the shadow of colour?
> 
> Nobody seems to be concerned that their offspring might marry an Inuit, or a Lapp, or a person from any other isolated, and possibly 'different' race - the head-hunters of Papua New Guinea, for instance.
> 
> It all seems to be showing a huge concern for blackness and whiteness.
> Why?


My guess is that you're going to have to wait for a bigotted answer on that particularly fascinating difficulty.
I don't have a clue.
Is this thread an example of irony.
The problem is black and white but the problem is far from black and white.

.,,


----------



## delaila

Setwale_Charm said:


> And the fact that eugenics has received such a negative label and people give a jump at the simple suggestion that we should strive to outbreed the defective genes and treat people for that before they can have children, has led to *some countries having 80% of all children born completely degenerate*. .


I`m sorry to butt in here, but I read this for the first time and what is written in this post seems unbelievable to me!
Can you say which are these countries where there are "80% of all children born completely degenerate"??? (hopefully not be Spain).
Strightforward answer, please.


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:


> An interesting start, Everness....
> Funnily and oddly enough, I encountered that situation in 2000. My 2o-something son rang to tell me he was marrying a Maori woman. My reaction was 'cool'! (Actually it was a shriek of joy.) There are four  reasons for this - (1) I knew her very well (2) _It just isn't an issue in NZ _(3) his father (my ex-husband) is part-Maori, so race isn't an issue for me (4) I knew he'd always wanted to be married and  settled and he's found the right woman. That she is the right woman has been amply proven in the 10 years they've been together.
> Good luck with the survey!



Victoria,

Thank you for sharing! My experience has been that cross-cultural marriages aren't impossible but require extra work --lot's of it!-- by the couple. Most of the times, families of origin and extended families are the ones that get in the way. It's clear that race isn't an issue for you, namely, that you have developed a non-racist outlook on life. But can you speak for an entire country? I'm reacting to your statement, "It just isn't an issue in NZ." Warning: a positive answer could prompt me to move to your beautiful New Zealand.   Just kiddin'. I'm too happy in my beautiful America with all her struggles and challenges!


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Victoria,
> 
> Thank you for sharing! My experience has been that cross-cultural marriages aren't impossible but require extra work --lot's of it!-- by the couple.



This is subjective and conjecture, pure and simple.

How can anyone, who is not a party to a particular marriage, say how much "work" must be put into it?
Who can judge if the couple at No. 26 are putting in more than the couple at No. 25, or less than the couple at No. 27?
If someone says "I was in a cross-cultural marriage and it was harder work than my same-culture marriage" then one of their marriages, at least, has failed and they are hardly in a position to discuss how much work is needed to hold a marriage together.


----------



## KateNicole

maxiogee said:


> This is subjective and conjecture, pure and simple.
> 
> How can anyone, who is not a party to a particular marriage, say how much "work" must be put into it?
> Who can judge if the couple at No. 26 are putting in more than the couple at No. 25, or less than the couple at No. 27?
> If someone says "I was in a cross-cultural marriage and it was harder work than my same-culture marriage" then one of their marriages, at least, has failed and they are hardly in a position to discuss how much work is needed to hold a marriage together.


I've never been in a cross-cultural marriage, but I've been in many cross-cultural relationships, and I honestly don't think they were more "work" than my same-race/same-cultural relationships. Why? I'm simply _not _concerned with other people's worries about my love life. Those that _outwardly _disapprove (I'm talking about the people that would disown someone over an interracial relationship, spit, shout slurs, etc.--not people that are just curious or have quiet reservations) are usually simpletons, anyway. As offensive as this may sound, I think one needs to be incredibly simple-minded to get worked up about someone _else's_ choice in a life companion/boyfriend/girlfriend/etc. If I get a dirty look, life goes on. If a stranger makes a snide remark, I feel embarassed for that person--not myself. It's 2006, and I'm not going to apologize to anyone who doesn't approve. I don't know why, but I've always associated a fear of interracial relationships and racism in general with low intelligence, low academic achievement, lack of perspective, lack of travel, and plain and simple small mindedness. I think it all stems from an inability to step outside your box and seize the rest of the world that awaits you. This is why negative reactions from these people roll right off my back. The beauty in the situation is that when people disapprove, my love life goes on . . . quite pleasantly, if I might add.


----------



## curly

danielfranco said:


> While reading many of the posts in this thread, and appreciating the fact that people seem to be sharing opinions without trying to challenge each other to a duel (well, mostly...), while discussing a notoriously fractious issue, I've had a revelation:
> I often wondered how it was possible that the some of the most celebrated and capable minds of the first half of the Twentieth Century would embrace and promote the concept of "Eugenics"...
> I suppose the problem wasn't the concept _per se_, but the easy and comfortable slippery slide down the tubes into racism that followed... I mean, although mostly now a used as a watchword and approached with trembling fingers, Eugenics' premise of the betterment of humanity by selective breeding finds a compassionate application in the discovery of hereditary illnesses, and the ongoing research to isolate, and ultimately discover a way to nullify, the genes that cause such diseases.
> Maybe science would have be a lot more advanced in that respect if not for the complete f*uck-all situation of the application of the Eugenics' concept by the Nazis in the 1930's.
> 
> And now, back to our regular programme...


 
There are some real problems with science and racism. The problem mainly being racist people abusing honest science in order to promote and give credibility to their personal views. It is surprising that there is any research into genetic differences at all considering the terrible image of any scientist willing to work with these matters. 

Firstly by ignorant people who selectively believe polls, experiments and theories to suit themselves, and secondly by over zealous anti-racism activists who claim that it is immoral to conduct research into medicines and cures for diseases, both diseases that are more prevalent in certain races (and indeed cultures) and into cures that work more often or produce better results with certain races.

One example is a drug that was found to work best for those of puerto rican descent and almost not at all for other races. The moment it was made public the was a huge controversy about the ethics of something that benifits one race only, and more controversially whether this drug would mean that there really ARE fundemental differences between races.

It is supremely naive to think that the only differences between races are skin deep only there are of course small differences in other things, but who can say that any difference is for better or worse. 

Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions. How wonderful would it be if people could look at statistics and see only numbers, so what if 2% more black people passed an exam, it only means that 2%  more passed. Statisics have no intentions, they don't tell you about the future or how things should or must be.

Science can and always has been abused for political and other reasons but that does not mean that any science is inherently good or evil. 
It just is.


----------



## KateNicole

I wonder if said drug would have anything to do with race, since the is an _amazing_ racial mix in Puerto Rico.  There's every color under the sun there, and it's one of the very few places where brother and sisters of the same parents can come out with very different looking skin tones, hair texture, facial features, etc.


----------



## curly

I don't remember exactly the name of the drug or the race that it was supposed to work for, it is only my recollection that they were these and it may well may that i'm mistaken(i would appreciate very much the person who could tell me the name of the drug)  but the main point was the abuse of well-intentioned scientists who are repeatedly accused, abused and mis-quoted.


----------



## Outsider

curly said:


> Firstly by ignorant people who selectively believe polls, experiments and theories to suit themselves, and secondly by over zealous anti-racism activists who claim that it is immoral to conduct research into medicines and cures for diseases, both diseases that are more prevalent in certain races (and indeed cultures) and into cures that work more often or produce better results with certain races.
> 
> One example is a drug that was found to work best for those of puerto rican descent and almost not at all for other races. The moment it was made public the was a huge controversy about the ethics of something that benifits one race only, and more controversially whether this drug would mean that there really ARE fundemental differences between races.


You and others who have expressed the same idea should read the article _Getting The Numbers Right: Statistical Mischief and Racial Profiling In Heart Failure Research_, here.

Here's the gist of it: behind those medications that supposedly work better in certain races, there is a lot of data manipulation (and I'm using kind words).


----------



## Everness

KateNicole said:


> I've never been in a cross-cultural marriage, but I've been in many cross-cultural relationships, and I honestly don't think they were more "work" than my same-race/same-cultural relationships. Why? I'm simply _not _concerned with other people's worries about my love life.



Let's set the record straight. I'm happy that Victoria's son found the right woman. The 10 years that they have been together proves that she was the right woman and that interracial marriages work. I'm also happy that you and thousands of young Americans are relating to guys and gals without their race and/or ethnicity. However, we should put the issue of interracial marriages in perspective. 

Here are some facts: 

_In *1965*, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who had married in Washington, D.C., writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. 
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

Ready for a quiz? In what year of the 19th century were the anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court? No need to go so far back in time. It was in *1967*. And at that time, *less than 40 years ago,* *16 * *(sixteen)* states still had laws prohibiting interethnic marriage. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

And here's the shocker (although nothing shocks me anymore): 

The anti-miscegenation laws were not completely repealed until *November 2000,* when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

See my point? There's nothing wrong with interracial marriages.  However, and until 6 years ago, if you were black and your fiancee was white, you couldn't get married in one of our 50 states. It was illegal. I'm sure that white and black folks in Alabama who fall in love in 2006 think it twice about holding hands in public or, God forbid, marrying. At least I would. There are too many crazy bigots out there. 

The fact that more people are marrying across races and ethnicities is a great accomplishment. It means that our society is healing. But declaring interracial marriages legal isn't enough to combat racism. Exterior and interior pressures are still operating coaching folks to marry within their race and ethnicity. The war against racism is far from over....


----------



## curly

I have been stabbed upon my own sword. After banging on about those who believe selectively to support their own views I see that i am guilty of it myself. 

After reading the article that you posted a link to I have a very different view. I'm amazed at the magnitude of the mistake and i thank you for pointing it out to me.

Crow tastes quite salty.


----------



## ireney

Well, I know that far less people would object if I married a non - Caucasian (in fact only the local die-hard racist would) than if I married an Albanian; bear in mind that most Albanians are less dark (of skin and often hair and eyes) than most Greeks.

There's never been a legal problem with marrying whomever you wanted (although I suspect, in the past, the pressure to marry an Orthodox if you were an Orthodox even in name was huge) but racism is not always targetted towards those with a darker skin.

Remember some posts about Africans (as they called them) taking "our" jobs and having lots of kids and immigrating in numbers? Remember how these posts tended to view the black as inferior? Well, for our local bigots Albanians are "Africans".

Nothing to do with colour. Nothing to do with race. Nothing to do with culture because marrying i.e. a German would be ok.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> This is subjective and conjecture, pure and simple.
> 
> How can anyone, who is not a party to a particular marriage, say how much "work" must be put into it?
> Who can judge if the couple at No. 26 are putting in more than the couple at No. 25, or less than the couple at No. 27?
> If someone says "I was in a cross-cultural marriage and it was harder work than my same-culture marriage" then one of their marriages, at least, has failed and they are hardly in a position to discuss how much work is needed to hold a marriage together.


From my twenty years of experience with a cross cultural marraige I can tell you that one of the main benefits is that I can still pretend that I do not know what my mother in law is saying.
The rest is a bonus.  I didn't want to marry me.

.,,


----------



## vince

ireney said:


> Well, I know that far less people would reject if I married a non - Caucasian (in fact only the local die-hard racist would) than if I married an Albanian; bear in mind that most Albanians are less dark (of skin and often hair and eyes) than most Greeks.
> 
> There's never been a legal problem with marrying whomever you wanted (although I suspect, in the past, the pressure to marry an Orthodox if you were an Orthodox even in name was huge) but racism is not always targetted towards those with a darker skin.
> 
> Remember some posts about Africans (as they called them) taking "our" jobs and having lots of kids and immigrating in numbers? Remember how these posts tended to view the black as inferior? Well, for our local bigots Albanians are "Africans".
> 
> Nothing to do with colour. Nothing to do with race. Nothing to do with culture because marrying i.e. a German would be ok.



This is STILL racism, but it is a type of racism I call "enlightened racism": one is grouped into ethnic groups that are subsets of the races, still determined by "ancestry" rather than actual political and cultural allegiances. If the person is culturally Greek and born in Greece, but her/his parents are from Albania, yet the person is seen as Albanian and therefore gets scorn, then there is racism.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The comment about race-based drugs led me to do a bit of research, as it was completely new to me.

Here is one article on a drug combination called BiDil, which, according to the tests (upon which some doubt has been shed), works best on the black population.  This article surfaced in a joint paper by the University of Minnesota and the University of Puerto Rico.

There's even a term for this - "race-based medicine".

Here is another article (PDF version) which strongly disagrees with the idea.

Given the tiny genetic discrepancy between people of different skin colour, I'm more inclined to go along with the latter paper, which is an interesting read.

I did not find anything to substantiate the claim that there was a drug out there that worked best for people of Puerto Rican descent.  Where did you find this information?


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> Victoria,
> 
> Thank you for sharing! My experience has been that cross-cultural marriages aren't impossible but require extra work --lot's of it!-- by the couple. Most of the times, families of origin and extended families are the ones that get in the way. It's clear that race isn't an issue for you, namely, that you have developed a non-racist outlook on life. But can you speak for an entire country? I'm reacting to your statement, "It just isn't an issue in NZ." Warning: a positive answer could prompt me to move to your beautiful New Zealand.  Just kiddin'. I'm too happy in my beautiful America with all her struggles and challenges!


I have to say that for _the majority of New Zealanders, it isn't an issue_ - I grew up in a town where Maori were probably 30% of the population and Maori was spoken as a mother tongue - most of my friends were what you'd call 'mixed race', and for my generation it wasn't an issue and for probably my parents', grandparents' and further back, this was also the case... 
In fact, I can't think of anyone I've met, New Zealander or otherwise where inter-racial relationships are/would be an issue. That being said, there are issues around Maori/Pakeha relations and the lifestyles of one or the other, mostly a legacy of, I think, market economics and 'liberal' (anarchistic) Friedmanite thinking which dominated NZ in the 1990s, and caused a great division between high and low income people, and a racial divide as people at the bottom competed: Maori vs Pacific Islander vs white... and all feared Asian immigration! Economics, pah!


----------



## zena168

. said:


> From my twenty years of experience with a cross cultural marraige I can tell you that one of the main benefits is that I can still pretend that I do not know what my mother in law is saying.
> The rest is a bonus. I didn't want to marry me.
> 
> .,,


 
Ha, this is a good one!!


----------



## Brioche

Here are some facts: 

_In *1965*, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who had married in Washington, D.C., writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _

I love that bit!
If you follow the learned judge's opinions then obviously it was against the laws of Almighty God for Europeans to come to America, and for Europeans to bring African slaves to America! They should have all stayed on the continents where A.G. had put them.


----------



## ireney

vince said:


> This is STILL racism, but it is a type of racism I call "enlightened racism": one is grouped into ethnic groups that are subsets of the races, still determined by "ancestry" rather than actual political and cultural allegiances. If the person is culturally Greek and born in Greece, but her/his parents are from Albania, yet the person is seen as Albanian and therefore gets scorn, then there is racism.




"Enlightened racism"? I know you put it in brackets but still...


----------



## KateNicole

Brioche said:


> Here are some facts:
> 
> _In *1965*, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who had married in Washington, D.C., writing:_
> 
> _Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> I love that bit!
> If you follow the learned judge's opinions then obviously it was against the laws of Almighty God for Europeans to come to America, and for Europeans to bring African slaves to America! They should have all stayed on the continents where A.G. had put them.


Are you being sarcastic?


----------



## Brioche

KateNicole said:


> Are you being sarcastic?


 
Where's the sarcasm?

I am simply applying the logic of Leon Bazile's judgment.
His own presence in America contracts his 'separation' argument.


----------



## Everness

ireney said:


> "Enlightened racism"? I know you put it in brackets but still...



Actually, it's not "enlightnened racism," it's "smart racism."


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> Where's the sarcasm?
> 
> I am simply applying the logic of Leon Bazile's judgment.
> His own presence in America contracts his 'separation' argument.



But maybe this f*cking racist white judge considered Europe a white continent... Just a thought.


----------



## maxiogee

The point is that he considered America to be a "white" one, surely?

If his Almighty placed the judge's ancestors in Europe, or wherever, why didn't they stay there?


----------



## vince

ireney said:


> "Enlightened racism"? I know you put it in brackets but still...



standard (dumb) racism: "you're Asian, you eat with chopsticks and are a bad driver."

Enlightened racism: "You're Chinese, you eat with chopsticks and are a bad driver. But you're still better than a Korean."

Why is enlightened racism still racism? Because one is still classifying others based on genetically-determined (though arbitrary) ethnic groups, which are subsets of races.

Why enlightened? Because instead of just characterizing people by their race (which is physically obvious to the everyday racist), you first characterize by race, then divide up the race category into individual ethnic groups. It takes more effort to develop personal prejudices along not only broad racial lines, but also the finer ethnic lines, therefore it is more "enlightened". Also, many enlightened racists claim that they are not racist because "hey, I may hate Japanese people but I like Chinese people, who are also Asian, so you can't say I hate Asians."

(By Chinese/Japanese/Asian I mean people who are determined by racist society and individuals as such due to their genetics, not only those who happen to have lived in those countries.)


----------



## .   1

vince said:


> standard (dumb) racism: "you're Asian, you eat with chopsticks and are a bad driver."
> 
> Enlightened racism: "You're Chinese, you eat with chopsticks and are a bad driver. But you're still better than a Korean."
> 
> Why is enlightened racism still racism? Because one is still classifying others based on genetically-determined (though arbitrary) ethnic groups, which are subsets of races.
> 
> Why enlightened? Because instead of just characterizing people by their race (which is physically obvious to the everyday racist), you first characterize by race, then divide up the race category into individual ethnic groups. It takes more effort to develop personal prejudices along not only broad racial lines, but also the finer ethnic lines, therefore it is more "enlightened". Also, many enlightened racists claim that they are not racist because "hey, I may hate Japanese people but I like Chinese people, who are also Asian, so you can't say I hate Asians."
> 
> (By Chinese/Japanese/Asian I mean people who are determined by racist society and individuals as such due to their genetics, not only those who happen to have lived in those countries.)


Thanks vince.
ANY form of racism is racism. ANY effort to separate people into subgroups to assign traits is racism. Smartarsed backstabbers use 'positive' or 'enlightened' or 'intelligent' racism to try to pitifully hided their own lack of spine.
Any statement that claims that one ethnic group has inherent biological advantages over another ethnic group must be looked at as saying the reverse - it is pure logic. If one group is 'better' then there must be a group that is 'worse' so that the 'better' group can be compared with it.
A 'partial' racist is still a racist. A racist is not necessarily a xenophobe.

.,,


----------



## Pivra

. said:


> Thanks vince.
> ANY form of racism is racism. ANY effort to separate people into subgroups to assign traits is racism. Smartarsed backstabbers use 'positive' or 'enlightened' or 'intelligent' racism to try to pitifully hided their own lack of spine.
> Any statement that claims that one ethnic group has inherent biological advantages over another ethnic group must be looked at as saying the reverse - it is pure logic. If one group is 'better' then there must be a group that is 'worse' so that the 'better' group can be compared with it.
> A 'partial' racist is still a racist. A racist is not necessarily a xenophobe.
> 
> .,,


 

 Talking about chopsticks, me and my Thai friends went into Chinese restaurant in Edmonton like 2 months ago. The waiter heard us speaking Thai, so he asked us if we were comfortable with using chopsticks are would we like forks and spoons instead. Of course, we picked the second option.

 I learned how to use chopsticks in Canada. lol But still, it would take me decades to finish a meal. (Im really good with using only 1 hand to eat btw. but not with chopsticks)

 Thais are not bad drivers either because ....... we can only go at the speed of 20 km/ hour in BKK  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. (I like to make fun of my own country....)


----------



## ireney

. said:


> Thanks vince.
> ANY form of racism is racism. ANY effort to separate people into subgroups to assign traits is racism. Smartarsed backstabbers use 'positive' or 'enlightened' or 'intelligent' racism to try to pitifully hided their own lack of spine.
> Any statement that claims that one ethnic group has inherent biological advantages over another ethnic group must be looked at as saying the reverse - it is pure logic. If one group is 'better' then there must be a group that is 'worse' so that the 'better' group can be compared with it.
> A 'partial' racist is still a racist. A racist is not necessarily a xenophobe.
> 
> .,,




Thank you for that!

That's what I meant. I can't see why being racist towards the Albanians can be called enlightened.
The basic reason I pointed out which group of people is the favourite target of racism in Greece, is that too many people seem to  stick to the idea that racism has to do with "races" (skin colour) only.
My point is that, in countries like Greece were there has been little interaction with other races  (people from Asia [minus Near East] usually come over here as tourists, or at least used to, up to something like a year ago when quite a few Chinese shops opened in all Greece. Very few immigrants from Africa came here until recently and practically none from any other continent) bigots focus their racism in other 'handy' groups that, for one reason or another,  a)they feel  "threatened by", b) cannot react (or they think that they cannot react) against their racism.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> That's what I meant. I can't see why being racist towards the Albanians can be called enlightened.
> The basic reason I pointed out which group of people is the favourite target of racism in Greece, is that too many people seem to  stick to the idea that racism has to do with "races" (skin colour) only.



I've got to agree.
As an Irishman who has seen what bigotry does to people I can say that I honestly believe that most 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' are just pretty clothes put on arrant racism. 
They all boil down to the ludicrous notion that the little bit of earth where I was born is "special" in some way. The only reason why another person is 'less' than I is because they weren't born here? I'm sorry, but I've never understood that. 
I'm 'white' (pinkish actually) and you're not? So if you _were_ born here then your ancestors weren't so I'm better? Nope, that one misses me also.
My locale is very pretty, and lovely to look at - but there are thugs, saints, idiots and all sorts of people living around me, just like they live around you. 
One of the forer@s here expressed recently that they found some pictures of Ireland incredible for their greenness. The forer@, being used to more arid places felt they were beautiful. Well I like them too, don't get me wrong, but they aren't special - I'm struck by the beauty of places which are strange to me - the Rockies when I was in Canada were stunning. I like it here, but I'm not about to claim that it's better than anywhere else, particularly places I've never seen.
And the great thing about my outlook is that if my wee island isn't anywhere special, then your place holds no power over me either, so I won't be put down by any idiots who live near you.


----------



## User1001

french4beth said:


> A previous thread on bigotry inspired this thread (original thread here).
> 
> What is racism to you?



- the discrimination of another person or group of people, based purely on race, culture, language, or skin tone


----------



## vince

tspier2 said:


> - the discrimination of another person or group of people, based purely on race, culture, language, or skin tone



Discrimination based on culture and/or language alone are not necessarily racist.

Not racist (but closed-minded): Store forbids people who speak English from coming into the store. Cantonese-speakers only! People heard speaking English are told to leave the store.

Racist: Store forbids people who speak other languages from coming into the store. The store manager sees a "White" person entering the store, assumes she speaks English, and tells her to leave. She was born in Hong Kong, identifies with HK culture, and is therefore Chinese!

A perhaps more controversial example:

Not racist (but closed minded): Nightclub in Japan forbids foreigners from coming into the store. Japanese people only! All entrants must show proof of citizenship. If found to be a foreigner, then they must leave.

Racist: Same situation. The club bouncer sees a "White" person trying to get it. He assumes he is a foreigner and tells him to leave. He was born in Japan, identifies with Japanese culture, and is therefore Japanese!


----------



## Everness

vince said:


> Discrimination based on culture and/or language alone are not necessarily racist.


Hi Vince. I have a question for you:

Let's pretend that you are the manager of a large department store. During operating hours, Hispanic employees tend to talk to each other in Spanish, although they are also fluent in English. You find this offensive, and you think customers find this offensive too. You’d like to establish an “English-only policy” that would apply during business hours when customers are in the store. Can you adopt such a policy (at least in the US)? Would it be racist? Would it be discriminatory? Would it be both or neither?


----------



## Brioche

Everness said:


> Hi Vince. I have a question for you:
> 
> Let's pretend that you are the manager of a large department store. During operating hours, Hispanic employees tend to talk to each other in Spanish, although they are also fluent in English. You find this offensive, and you think customers find this offensive too. You’d like to establish an “English-only policy” that would apply during business hours when customers are in the store. Can you adopt such a policy (at least in the US)? Would it be racist? Would it be discriminatory? Would it be both or neither?


 
Since the employees are on the boss's time, the boss can instruct them not to have private conversations at work, and to use English for business purposes. The boss needs to be up-front about this, and make sure that potential employees are aware of the rules. 
For me, it's not different from expecting employees to wear a certain uniform at work.

On their own time, the employees can have all the private conversations they want, in whatever language they like, and wear whatever clothes they like.


----------



## Everness

Brioche said:


> Since the employees are on the boss's time, the boss can instruct them not to have private conversations at work, and to use English for business purposes. The boss needs to be up-front about this, and make sure that potential employees are aware of the rules.
> For me, it's not different from expecting employees to wear a certain uniform at work.
> 
> On their own time, the employees can have all the private conversations they want, in whatever language they like, and wear whatever clothes they like.



Hi Brioche,

Well, if you lived in the US and proceeded to implement an English-only policy, affected employees could sue you. Here's the answer to the above case study. 

http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-ans...y-policies-cautiously.asp?date=October-6-2003


----------



## vince

Everness said:


> Hi Vince. I have a question for you:
> 
> Let's pretend that you are the manager of a large department store. During operating hours, Hispanic employees tend to talk to each other in Spanish, although they are also fluent in English. You find this offensive, and you think customers find this offensive too. You’d like to establish an “English-only policy” that would apply during business hours when customers are in the store. Can you adopt such a policy (at least in the US)? Would it be racist? Would it be discriminatory? Would it be both or neither?



Discriminatory against Spanish-speakers
but not racist. Being a Spanish speaker is not an inherited genetic trait.

The fact that many Hispanics are Spanish-speakers doesn't make it racist, even if the motive behind such a move might be a racist one (for example, the employer thinks that prohibiting Spanish speaking might keep out Hispanis).

But the motive may be innocent, e.g. it prevents the division of the colleague social circle into Spanish-speaking and non-Spanish-speaking enclaves.


----------



## Everness

vince said:


> Discriminatory against Spanish-speakers
> but not racist. Being a Spanish speaker is not an inherited genetic trait.
> 
> The fact that many Hispanics are Spanish-speakers doesn't make it racist, even if the motive behind such a move might be a racist one.



I don't think there's a law declaring racism illegal. However, there are plenty of anti-discriminatory laws. Discrimination based on race, age, national origin, etc. is illegal; racism no. However, I see them as two sides of the same coin. Institutionalized racism informs discriminatory practices in the workplace but you are sued by the latter not the former.


----------



## Brioche

Everness said:


> Hi Brioche,
> 
> Well, if you lived in the US and proceeded to implement an English-only policy, affected employees could sue you. Here's the answer to the above case study.
> 
> http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-ans...y-policies-cautiously.asp?date=October-6-2003


 
I don't have a death wish, so I have no intention of ever living in the US, and no intention of ever being an employer!

Naturally, you can get sued in the US. 
It's a major growth industry there. A good outcome and you're set up for life.
It's better than the lottery, since you don't have to pay tax on your winnings - once your lawyer has had her cut.

But I think you have over-stated what the link suggests.
Having read the link, I think that I actually covered the three salient points.
1. I specifically said that employees could do what they like in their own time.
2. There was not racial qualification - one in, all in.
3. Employees need to be aware of the rules and ramifications.

Then there's Quebec, where they send you to jail if your customers hear your employees speak anything but French at work.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> Hi Vince. I have a question for you:
> 
> Let's pretend that you are the manager of a large department store. During operating hours, Hispanic employees tend to talk to each other in Spanish, although they are also fluent in English. You find this offensive, and you think customers find this offensive too. You’d like to establish an “English-only policy” that would apply during business hours when customers are in the store. Can you adopt such a policy (at least in the US)? Would it be racist? Would it be discriminatory? Would it be both or neither?


Your question was addressed at Vince, but I can't resist replying, too. Is it racism? Not from your description.

However, I really, REALLY don't understand why anyone would find such a thing "offensive"! It's not like the employers are calling the boss's mother dirty names, is it? Why should someone feel _hurt_ that someone else is using a language they don't understand? It boggles my mind.

As for whether it would be discriminatory, I think that would have to be decided by the courts. I actually sympathize a bit with Brioche's point of view that the employer has the right to demand his employees to speak only English when they're working, although I still don't see why the language they use should matter.

However, in the law at least, the U.S. have no official language, so I see how the employers could have a case against their boss.


----------



## Victoria32

Outsider said:


> Your question was addressed at Vince, but I can't resist replying, too. Is it racism? Not from your description.
> 
> However, I really, REALLY don't understand why anyone would find such a thing "offensive"! It's not like the employers are calling the boss's mother dirty names, is it? Why should someone feel _hurt_ that someone else is using a language they don't understand? It boggles my mind.
> 
> As for whether it would be discriminatory, I think that would have to be decided by the courts. I actually sympathize a bit with Brioche's point of view that the employer has the right to demand his employees to speak only English when they're working, although I still don't see why the language they use should matter.
> 
> However, in the law at least, the U.S. have no official language, so I see how the employers could have a case against their boss.


As an aside, back in 2004, I worked briefly in a nursing home, where most of the employees were from the same Pacific Island, and on breaks, I sat confused while they talked Niuean around me...
On one occasion a Russian occupational therapist and I were the only people speaking English in the break area.
I accepted it - thinking of my Asian language students and how they would have felt surrounded by English speaking people - they were not allowed to speak Chinese while at the school, (although they did and in other language schools did even more of course. ) That made me understand...


----------



## ForzaItalia

Racism is what ever the potically correct establishment want it to be.

 In England for example, it is a complete no no to insult black or Asian people, but there seems to be an open house for insulting Italians, Spanish, the French etc. and especially Germans, or for that matter any white person, in particular English.

You could argue that most people are racist as they generally prefer to live within their own communities, respecting their own values and traditions, but beware those who start off a conversation by saying 'I'm not a racist, but....". They tent to be the worst offenders!


----------



## cuchuflete

What does the poll tell you?  (For those who are too lazy to  read a magazine article that refers to it...)

You refer to "prior scholarship".  What prior scholarship is that?   Is it stuff you heard a friend talk about, or something you have laid eyes on?   What, exactly, did that prior scholarship say?

The news article does not present the findings of the poll.  It offers a very few snippets of information about poll results, and some interpretation.   To say, "The results pf tos sirveu were published...." is a gross exaggeration.  

The magazine article has a quote which seems contrary to a recent thread suggesting that US residents are, perhaps, overly preoccupied with race:   "Whites have invented subtle ways to convince themselves that race isn't a problem in America."






Everness said:


> I know that polls, studies and surveys are not very popular among us. However, I thought that some of us would be interested in this survey that was conducted by University of Minnesota sociologists. It's the nation's first ever whiteness survey (Can you believe that? ) and it provides some insight on race. The results of this survey were published by Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html
> 
> I haven't been able to locate the survey online to look at the technical stuff. The study, available upon request, is part of the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States.
> 
> I think that the most important outcome of this survey is that it has apparently disproved the assumption behind prior scholarship that whites in the US overlooked their own race.
> 
> Ah, I got feedback from a conservative friend of mine in relationship to this poll: "I take it the left hasn't yet taught you how to be apologetic for being white...;-)"


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> I know that polls, studies and surveys are not very popular among us.



That is a nonsensical statement.  The thread about "Studies show that..." discusses how citations and references to studies can be misused.  It is not a popularity contest or survey.

Who is "us"?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> I know that polls, studies and surveys are not very popular among us. However, I thought that some of us would be interested in this survey that was conducted by University of Minnesota sociologists. It's the nation's first ever whiteness survey (Can you believe that? ) and it provides some insight on race. The results of this survey were published by Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html
> 
> I haven't been able to locate the survey online to look at the technical stuff. The study, available upon request, is part of the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States.
> 
> I think that the most important outcome of this survey is that it has apparently disproved the assumption behind prior scholarship that whites in the US overlooked their own race.
> 
> Ah, I got feedback from a conservative friend of mine in relationship to this poll: "I take it the left hasn't yet taught you how to be apologetic for being white...;-)"


The University of Minnesota is infamous for the development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
This personality test was developed by asking the residents of a Minnesota Institution for the mentally damaged to answer a series of questions to establish who is insane and the test was callibrated by polling a control sample of normal people.  In this case the pollsters decided to use the family members of and visitors to the Institution as the control.

The MMPI is an amazing series of yes/no questions.  There is no creativity allowed in the answers and every question must be answered.

The questions are loaded and the participant is compelled to respond as a lack of response is deemed to be... You guessed it, not normal.

The questions are kept secret to the point that even Supreme Court Judges are not allowed to see the questions.

All of the tests are interpreted by psychologists and sociologists and I doubt if I have ever had interaction with a stranger group of people in my llife.

I will have nothing to do with anything eminating from the University of Minnesota.  The Simpsons have done a parody of the MMPI with their episode dealing with Michael Jackson.

When I read of polls I always think of my dah cutting the horns off young bulls as the end result was usually an unhappy young bull a steaming pile of bullshit.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Well, I don't know much about the University of Minnesota, but nothing in what the article says the study found sounds surprising to me...


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> The news article does not present the findings of the poll.  It offers a very few snippets of information about poll results, and some interpretation.   To say, "The results pf tos sirveu were published...." is a gross exaggeration.



You are right. I couldn't find this damned survey anywhere in the web so I decided to delete my post. As soon as I find it I'll repost.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

ireney said:


> Oh dear! I hadn't seen the one about Survivor. Well, I don't know if it was actually aired but I remember that for the longest time, the local Suvivor geniouses were advertising a new set of episodes with ... "*GREECE vs **TURKEY*" trying as hard as they could to make it seem as if we were still at each other's throat (evidently one team would be formed by Greeks and the other from Turks). I wouldn't take anything that Survivor does seriously. It doesn't deserve to be commented upon is what I mean



I'll comment on this because I have some worries over the situtation. It really disturbs me.

It hasn't aired yet, I heard it is going to air on 18th September here and probably in Greece at the same time.

On commercials, I saw Turkish team with axes in their hands was singing 10th year march, which has lines like "We won every war in ten years and Turk, never stop! Go ahead!" I have to tell you that it's the most nationalist song. On the Internet, I've read that one guy in Turkish team said: "I would't give a damn if anyone in Greek team died."

I don't know what Greek team say for Turkish team, but it's very sad that they take it too serious. It's just a show, not a goddamn war!

On a Turkish forum, one member was saying he was very worried because it may lead a mutual racisim.

People go with their money and bet for "Which nation is going to survive?" It's getting more and more serious and it hasn't even aired yet!

The most incredible thing is, they say both Greek and Turkish producers are trying to get the green light from government to use Kardak(Ίμια) for final episode. That island was once going to be a casus belli and lead a war between Greece and Turkey. It is one of the biggest crisis in Turkish-Greek history.

Now I call this racism of showbiz!


----------



## ireney

Chazzwozzer said:


> I don't know what Greek team say for Turkish team, but it's very sad that they take it too serious. It's just a show, not a goddamn war!
> 
> On a Turkish forum, one member was saying he was very worried because it may lead a mutual racisim.
> 
> People go with their money and bet for "Which nation is going to survive?" It's getting more and more serious and it hasn't even aired yet!



Great! I bet our guys say similar silly things (haven't watched much TV lately)



> The most incredible thing is, they say both Greek and Turkish producers are trying to get the green light from government to use Kardak(Ίμια) for final episode. That island was once going to be a casus belli and lead a war between Greece and Turkey. It is one of the biggest crisis in Turkish-Greek history.
> 
> Now I call this racism of showbiz!



 !!! They CAN'T be serious!!! Sure, at the end they are going to say how this will actually bring us closer together but they just CAN'T be serious! 

I wouldn't worry about Survivour in general but the Kardak/Imia thing is definitely over the top! Can you imagine the winner going around the island waving a Turkish/Greek flag ? Just what our nations' nazionalists need!

You are right, they are using racism for numbers and it's just awful (if they really wanted to promote friendship they'd have made mixed teams)


----------



## Chazzwozzer

ireney said:


> !!! They CAN'T be serious!!! Sure, at the end they are going to say how this will actually bring us closer together but they just CAN'T be serious!
> 
> You are right, they are using racism for numbers and it's just awful (if they really wanted to promote friendship they'd have made mixed teams)


It would be ridiculous if they said they were doing this for the sake of friendship while there was soldier kind of talk on commercials. 



ireney said:


> I wouldn't worry about Survivour in general but the Kardak/Imia thing is definitely over the top! Can you imagine the winner going around the island waving a Turkish/Greek flag ? Just what our nations' nazionalists need!


Exactly. It's actually what a Turkish columnist say as well. It reminds me of what Mrs Çiller, the prime minister, said over the Imia/Kardak dispute: "That soldier will leave and that flag will retreat!"

Everything was incredible. Two countries were going to make war for a set of two small uninhabited islets. I can recall they broadcasted live the flag-wars in 1996! It's been still disputed for ten years. Just a couple of months ago, because of a fishing boat near Imia/Kardak, a mini crisis happened again. I don't believe Survivor will be allowed on Imia/Kardak, it's too much.

Well, it's already too much with all the current disputes we have. Continental shelf, FIR, territorial waters, national airspace, Imia/Kardak, Cyprus and so on... What's next? Survivor dispute?!


----------



## TonioMiguel

KateNicole said:


> What proof, Bernik? Can you give me a concrete example of someone being racist against his or her own race?
> 
> I'm not challenging you--I just want some concrete examples (like a situation--I don't need a link to a specific thread or anything).




I may not be Bernik but I can honestly say I have been racist about my own race.  I have actually refused to speak to "white" people who do not choose to speak the appropriate language of the country they are visiting.

I was in Guanajuato, Mexico in 2003 during the famous Cervantino Arts festival and ran into some white English only speakers.  They spoke to me in English but I angrily chose only to speak Spanish.  I was upset about people of my country and other English speaking nations arogantly expecting other nations to speak English for them.  I chose to pick them out and judge them because they only spoke English and make a fool out of them.  Yes, I picked on their color and I am "white" by any Mexican's perspective.  I have had to rethink many times how I take monolingual ethnocentric north Americans.  They are part of me as much I am them.


This is an example of myself a stereotyped white person picking on the ethnocentric monolingual English speakers and at the same time being racist.  I judged them and did not try to get to know them.  Rather than flattering them with my English I chose only to speak Spanish.

Yes, racist of ones own race is highly possible and does happen.


----------



## divina

vince said:


> This is the problem France is facing. The immigrants from North Africa are not becoming European after their arrival, they often remain segregated into ghettos and live lives of violence and crime, endangering French people.
> 
> But this is not a problem of too much immigration, as you may think. It is a matter of the attitude of the French toward immigrants. Even if many want to integrate and become French, French society has many racist elements that refuse to accept them. To them, they aren't French, they are "bougnouls" even if they are born in France. How can they get out of the cycle of poverty and crime if they are branded as criminals at birth?



This is the same situation with new "waves" of immigrants in any country.


----------



## maxiogee

TonioMiguel said:


> I have actually refused to speak to "white" people who do not choose to speak the appropriate language of the country they are visiting.



Do you seek to imply that one should not be allowed to travel to somewhere where one cannot speak the language?


----------



## Outsider

*Tonio*, perhaps you just had a moment of vanity. It happens to the best of us.


----------



## ireney

Outsider what happens to the best of us? Refusing to talk in the language one is addressed if he or she speaks that language? You mean I shouldn't speak in English, broken French or slaughtered and minced to little pieces Spanish to tourists but insist they know Greek? (mind you I always try to establish they speak English before "executing"  any of the last two languages.

That would be bigotry, against logic, rude and against all the principles of hosting. We take hosting seriously around here you know and we'd be very poor hosts if we treated people that way.

Mind you I see that TonioMiguel accepts that what he did was wrong (I think).


----------



## Outsider

ireney said:


> We take hosting seriously around here you know and we'd be very poor hosts if we treated people that way.


Was Toni a host when he was back in Mexico? I thought he was visiting the country. Perhaps we'll never know...


----------



## ireney

The people asked him something. He undertood. He didn't answer. He may not have been acting as a host but he was still very rude. Does this satisfy your question. It might not be against the principles of hosting but it was bigoted, against logic and rude.


----------



## divina

Everness said:


> Victoria,
> 
> Thank you for sharing! My experience has been that cross-cultural marriages aren't impossible but require extra work --lot's of it!-- by the couple. Most of the times, families of origin and extended families are the ones that get in the way. It's clear that race isn't an issue for you, namely, that you have developed a non-racist outlook on life. But can you speak for an entire country? I'm reacting to your statement, "It just isn't an issue in NZ." Warning: a positive answer could prompt me to move to your beautiful New Zealand.   Just kiddin'. I'm too happy in my beautiful America with all her struggles and challenges!



What exactly do you mean by "work"?


----------



## cuchuflete

Brioche said:


> Here are some facts:
> 
> _In *1965*, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile sentenced to jail an interethnic couple who had married in Washington, D.C., writing:
> 
> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. _
> 
> I love that bit!
> If you follow the learned judge's opinions then obviously it was against the laws of Almighty God for Europeans to come to America, and for Europeans to bring African slaves to America! They should have all stayed on the continents where A.G. had put them.



The US Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, threw out Bazile's idiocy, stating,

"_To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."_


----------



## .   1

divina said:


> What exactly do you mean by "work"?


Answering difficult questions posed in an attempt to clarify ambiguous provocative posts.  This is the type of work that the original poster considers too difficult to do.
There are only difficulties in cross cultural marriages when viewed through bigotted eyes.

.,,


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> The US Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, threw out Bazile's idiocy, stating,
> 
> "_To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."_


Can anyone tell me what happened to Bazile after the Supreme Court finished with him?  He should have been sentenced to life with Sybile. 

.,,


----------



## TonioMiguel

maxiogee said:


> Do you seek to imply that one should not be allowed to travel to somewhere where one cannot speak the language?



No, actually I was picking on my own attitude.  I was giving others an example of a white person being racist to other people of his own race.

I do have some opinions about traveling around the world.  Yet, I would argue a person who does not try to speak a language while in a country of that different language fails to really get to know much about the country they are visiting.  I understand more about the English monolinguals to the point that I am not as racist to my own people.  Although I do despise a group of people in Miguel Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico who have lived for many years in Mexico and expect the Mexicans to learn English rather than them (the monolingual wealthy Americans living happily in Mexico) learning to speak Spanish.  Yet, one could point out the same problem in California with many Spanish communities.


----------



## TonioMiguel

Outsider said:


> *Tonio*, perhaps you just had a moment of vanity. It happens to the best of us.




No, I was not being vane.  I was flabbergasted with English Monolinguals taking trips in Mexico and assuming there were English speakers on every corner.  They were in Guanajuato...Kansas of Mexico...as some might call as far into Mexico that one could travel north or south and take the same amount of time to get to another country.  I have since forgiven them but I do hold a grudge on people who think the world should just speak English.  I am a Bilingual Spanish-English speaker and I feel that people who want to travel need to be sensitive to other peoples languages.  Even if they are basic second language learners is better than being an arrogant monolingual.


----------



## maxiogee

TonioMiguel said:


> No, actually I was picking on my own attitude.  I was giving others an example of a white person being racist to other people of his own race.


No, you spoke about what you called your own 'racism' - but in fact what you described was an outrageous insult to people you apparently didn't know, but could well understand. You appeared to believe that you were acting from some high-minded morality, when in fact the people you were speaking with may well have been people who never had a chance to learn any Spanish prior to finding themselves in a Spanish-speaking place. You called them "white English only speakers" when all you really knew was that they spoke English but not Spanish. They could have been French-Canadians with poor 'second-language' English, or they could have been anything else, but you took offence on behalf of the natives. How noble of you.


----------



## Brioche

TonioMiguel said:


> No, I was not being vane vain. I was flabbergasted with English Monolinguals taking trips in Mexico and assuming there were English speakers on every corner.
> 
> _We've had people in these forums complaining that there are US residents who are Spanish-only speakers, and who expect everyone to understand them. So it's not confined to one language group._
> 
> I am a Bilingual Spanish-English speaker and I feel that people who want to travel need to be sensitive to other peoples languages. Even if they are basic second language learners is better than being an arrogant monolingual.


 
_How sensitive are we supposed to be? There are 21 official languages in the European Union. Are you going to learn 19 languages before you set foot in the European Union?_


----------



## jediknight13

fenixpollo said:


> For me, racism is not a set of behaviors or words, as your examples show, but a set of beliefs, which are actually based on typical human traits.
> 
> prejudgement ----->
> As a self-preservation strategy, humans pre-judge each other and the social situations they are in. In order to survive, humans often must make an instant evaluation of the other person and decide whether he is friend or foe, based on the most limited of information. Hence the exaggerated importance of "the first impression".
> 
> prejudgement -----> assumption
> Humans construct patterns to better understand each other, based on their experience. If most smiling people they meet tend to be friendly, then the next smiling person they meet, they will be more likely to be open to that person. If most (insert skin color here) people they meet smell different than they do, then their mental pattern -- their paradigm -- is that (skin color) people are smelly. The next (skin color) person they meet, they are more likely to assume that the person will stink.
> 
> In reality, what we call "prejudice" and "racism" are just a set of behaviors that are based on innate human traits. When you add these traits with the fear/ignorance/intolerance of differences that is so common to humans, you end up with behavior that we label "racist".


 

I have a problem with your definition of racism. It seems that you ascribe racist behavior the trait of being spawned from overly simplified causal relationships. Billy sees a [race] man who smells like apples and therefore thinks that all [race] men smell like apples and furthermore bases his demeanor and the way he will treat [race] people on that one experience.

 Oversimplified. 

Racism is an agressive act - from the more mild forms such as thinking that anyone with brown skin speaks Spanish to more caustic forms such as physical manifestations of violence. We need to remember that the individual is the executor of his or her own actions and not just an automaton who received programmed instruction from sensory input. That individual's behavior is a direct reflection of a choice, not simply of finding oneself in a set of circumstances whose chaotic disposition is due to an unpredictable and equally chaotic set of sensory perceptions.

Also, to cite the importance of the first impression as some kind of survival strategy is once again to trivialize the matter of choice. We all have a choice when we meet someone for the first time. We can choose to view that person with a mind's eye unencumbered by prejudice and bigotry or we can get in our own way and allow all kinds of societal morays and incessantly repeated input from the past (i.e. gangster movies that depict all black people as criminals) to interfere with an honest and open evaluation of the human being standing in front of us.

I think that we have to hold ourselves to higher standards in the 21st century if we ever want to get beyond this conversation and start worrying about things that really matter. Go Patriots.


----------



## jediknight13

Brioche said:


> _How sensitive are we supposed to be? There are 21 official languages in the European Union. Are you going to learn 19 languages before you set foot in the European Union?_


 
You give away your own monolingualness with this quote here. I am from the US and I speak 4 languages. I am caucasian, from the middle class. This makes me a rare thing in this country. Now I am not trying to point out how special I am. Rather I am trying to point out how alone I am. Most of our countrymen get frightened or angry or both when people speak a language that isn't English. They get mad. Maybe they think the person is talking about them in a negative manner. Maybe they think that we should all be the same because that is more comfortable for them to believe. I don't know.

However, I do know that as an international traveller, educator, and writer it is embarrassing that our nation is monolingual. But it makes sense. Look at Rome right before it fell all those thousands of years ago... A huge empire, thousands of square miles of land, diverse peoples, occupations, infrastructure and all the rest... and just Latin was spoken on the Senate floor. O well. Maybe we'll learn just like they did that part of a great nation's fall is closing its mind to options which exactly what purposefully, ignorantly and sometimes violently shutting out the value of other languages from our lives will ultimately do.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> Answering difficult questions posed in an attempt to clarify ambiguous provocative posts. This is the type of work that the original poster considers too difficult to do.
> There are only difficulties in cross cultural marriages when viewed through bigotted eyes.
> 
> .,,


Not so, there really can be difficulties! Even between two 'similar' cultures (perhaps more so, because they are unexpected..) 

To say so isn't bigotry, it's realism.


----------



## Brioche

jediknight13 said:


> You give away your own monolingualness with this quote here. I am from the US and I speak 4 languages. I am caucasian, from the middle class. This makes me a rare thing in this country.
> 
> Look at Rome right before it fell all those thousands of years ago... A huge empire, thousands of square miles of land, diverse peoples, occupations, infrastructure and all the rest... and just Latin was spoken on the Senate floor.


 
Wie kommst du darauf, dass ich einsprachig bin?  

Was hat die Einsprachigkeit der Senatoren mit der Sache zu tun? 
Erstens ist es nicht wahr. Die Eliten von Rom sprachen auch Griechisch. Griechisch war der Antike lingua franca. 
Zweitens war der Senat schon vierhundert Jahre vor dem Untergang des römischen Reiches nur eine machtlose Quasselbude. 

Geht die chinesische Voksrepublik bald unter, weil in der Großen Halle des Volkes nur Putonghua gesprochen wird?


----------



## jediknight13

So, you decided to write back in German, huh? Well good thing I'm good with a dictionary. I had no way to know that you weren't monolingual. You should have said something. Your comment about sensitivity was what set me off. Also, insofar as the Chinese only speaking Potonghua in their equivalent to the Senate.. yes I think it's a sign of the beginning of cultural collapse. As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance. I know the Romans spoke Greek, but if you are careful, you'll notice that when the Senate was in session, they only allowed Latin to be spoken there. Even delagates from other parts of the empire were not allowed translators.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

jediknight13 said:


> As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance.



That statement is sweeping and offensive.   Monolingualism is more often a sign of a lack of resources and opportunities, and/or of an insular government.

Monolingual people, like uneducated people, are not by any stretch of the imagination ignorant.  Ignorance, as frequently and graphically demonstrated, cuts across all socio-economic boundaries.... as does racism.


----------



## jediknight13

Easy there. If you noticed, I was talking about my own country, the USA. So, are you still offended? Didn't think so. Thanks for coming though.


----------



## Brioche

jediknight13 said:


> I had no way to know that you weren't monolingual.


 
That's not what you said earlier!



jediknight13 said:


> You give away your own monolingualness with this quote here.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

jediknight13 said:


> Easy there. If you noticed, I was talking about my own country, the USA. So, are you still offended? Didn't think so. Thanks for coming though.



So it isn't offensive (or doesn't have the potential to be construed as racist) to call monolingual Americans ignorant?

Pardon my ignorance.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> In England for example, it is a complete no no to insult black or Asian people, but there seems to be an open house for insulting Italians, Spanish, the French etc. and especially Germans, or for that matter any white person, in particular English.



This annoys me as well, why the hell IS that the case? Possibly because blacks and asians have had a harder time and the whole slavery thing, but still, racism isn't about blacks, it's about "race" so where is the logic in our culture?


----------



## maxiogee

jediknight13 said:


> So, you decided to write back in German, huh? Well good thing I'm good with a dictionary. I had no way to know that you weren't monolingual. You should have said something. Your comment about sensitivity was what set me off. Also, insofar as the Chinese only speaking Potonghua in their equivalent to the Senate.. yes I think it's a sign of the beginning of cultural collapse. As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance. I know the Romans spoke Greek, but if you are careful, you'll notice that when the Senate was in session, they only allowed Latin to be spoken there. Even delagates from other parts of the empire were not allowed translators.





Chaska Ñawi said:


> That statement is sweeping and offensive.   Monolingualism is more often a sign of a lack of resources and opportunities, and/or of an insular government.
> 
> Monolingual people, like uneducated people, are not by any stretch of the imagination ignorant.  Ignorance, as frequently and graphically demonstrated, cuts across all socio-economic boundaries.... as does racism.





jediknight13 said:


> Easy there. If you noticed, I was talking about my own country, the USA.


Show me where you say that, please as I can't find it anywhere near where you mentioned your country. You only mentioned China and the ancient Romans as I can see.
In an earlier post you mention that you are from the US, but nowhere do you say that anything you say only applies to the US.


----------



## maxiogee

ForzaItalia said:


> In England for example, it is a complete no no to insult black or Asian people, but there seems to be an open house for insulting Italians, Spanish, the French etc. and especially Germans, or for that matter any white person, in particular English.



Could that be that (to follow your metaphor of "open house") that before one insults one's guests, it is advisable to welcome them and show them that you mean them no harm?
Blacks in Britain have been subject to abuse and attack - just for being black - since they started arriving in large numbers. This is not true of other incoming groupings.


----------



## .   1

jediknight13 said:


> So, you decided to write back in German, huh? Well good thing I'm good with a dictionary. I had no way to know that you weren't monolingual. You should have said something. Your comment about sensitivity was what set me off. Also, insofar as the Chinese only speaking Potonghua in their equivalent to the Senate.. yes I think it's a sign of the beginning of cultural collapse. As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance. I know the Romans spoke Greek, but if you are careful, you'll notice that when the Senate was in session, they only allowed Latin to be spoken there. Even delagates from other parts of the empire were not allowed translators.


This post mentions German, Chinese, Greek, Latin and Roman and contains the provocative statement that monolinguism is a sign of ignorance.
When challenged you stated that you were referring to your own country but I can find no reference to the U.S.A. in the contentious post.
I am left wondering how monolinguism indicates ignorance.

.,,


----------



## KESHUGOMU

Para mí el racismo no sólo es blanco y negro yo pienso que también es hacia la gente que es diferente a los que nosotros creemos es normal, en alguna parte de nuestra vida nosotros hemos tenido un acto de racismo y esto es inevitable.
Por alguna razón alguna vez rechazamos al raro como comunmente se le denomina.
Así que creo que debemos de recapacitar más acerca de nuestros actos y tratar de convivir con la gente en paz.
Aunque yo se que a veces es muy difícil pero lo podemos lograr.


Adios y peace & love.


----------



## Everness

jediknight13 said:


> As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance.



I'm not sure if monolingualism is a sign of ignorance but being proud of being monolingual is a sign of blissful ignorance. In that sense, I could say that there are too many Americans who are proud blissful ignorants...


----------



## paulol

jediknight13 said:
			
		

> As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance.


I don't think that monolingualism is in itself a sign of ignorance. On that basis, bilingualism is also a sign of ignorance... I mean, why only speak 2 languages when you can speak 10 or 20?


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> Could that be that (to follow your metaphor of "open house") that before one insults one's guests, it is advisable to welcome them and show them that you mean them no harm?
> Blacks in Britain have been subject to abuse and attack - just for being black - since they started arriving in large numbers. This is not true of other incoming groupings.


 
Have a chat with some elderly Irish people who lived in England before WW2.
Irish people were subject to abuse and attack, in part for being Irish, and in part for being Roman Catholic - those two traits being seen as almost interchangeable, and synonyms for disloyalty.

I don't know how the Germans could qualify as guests, and thus insultable. Demonisation of the Hun dates back to WW1.


----------



## ireney

jediknight13 said:


> So, you decided to write back in German, huh? Well good thing I'm good with a dictionary. I had no way to know that you weren't monolingual. You should have said something. Your comment about sensitivity was what set me off. Also, insofar as the Chinese only speaking Potonghua in their equivalent to the Senate.. yes I think it's a sign of the beginning of cultural collapse. As we both well know, monolingualism is a sign of ignorance. I know the Romans spoke Greek, but if you are careful, you'll notice that when the Senate was in session, they only allowed Latin to be spoken there. Even delagates from other parts of the empire were not allowed translators.




I am sorry, let me get this straight: 

a)If the Romans spoke Greek in their Senate as well as Latin that would make a difference?

b) The fact that they didn't speak Greek in their Senate didn't make them monolingual. 

c) So in the Greek Parliament for instance members of the Parliament should also speak in any other of the languages they know?

d) Would you define ignorance please as pertaining to the Romans? I can agree with calling them snobbish, chauvinists, biggotted and any other term of modern word we wish to super-impose to an ancient civilisation, but I'd say that, as far as ignorance goes, the way I personally understand the word, most "delagates from other parts of the empire" had more chances to being ignorant than the Senators even if they also spoke Latin.

e) The _cultural_ collapse of the Roman Empire is due to the fact that they only allowed Latin to be spoken in the Senate?


----------



## paulol

Brioche said:


> in part for being Irish, and in part for being Roman Catholic - those two traits being seen as almost interchangeable, and synonyms for disloyalty.


A bit off-topic but...
I disagree with that because there were already millions of Catholics in England by the time of WWII, most of whom wouldn't have been considered Irish (or considered themselves as Irish) just because of being RC.
I'm basing that on what my grandparents have told me.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I have roped and hogtied our original topic, which was romping all over the back forty, and now present it for our perusal.

*What is racism to you?*


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> Have a chat with some elderly Irish people who lived in England before WW2.



No need to, I gtrew up amongst them.
The abuse of the Irish neither was vicious nor as random as that meted out to blacks. My brother in the late 60s was able to see boarding houses in London with "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs" in their windows - that was just bigotry. The Irish who had worked "the navigations" and the railways in times gone by weren't as looked down upon. However, he had no problems speaking with an Irish accent when out, or at work. Neither did my mother (nor any of her siblings) in her time in England before and during the Second World War. Both my parents-in-law lived and worked in England in the same period, and after it, and with no malice or enmity making itself known.

And, it was partly as you say due to their Roman Catholicism that the Irish were reviled. Britain's dreadful relationship with Roman Catholicism is a story all to itself.



Brioche said:


> I don't know how the Germans could qualify as guests, and thus insultable. Demonisation of the Hun dates back to WW1.


They were adored when Albert were a lad! and had been all the rage when the Georges were rampantly regnant! Remember them, the Hanoverians - they led into the Saxe-Coburg Gothas, who magically became the Brown-Windsors!


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> I'm not sure if monolingualism is a sign of ignorance but being proud of being monolingual is a sign of blissful ignorance. In that sense, *I could say *that there are too many Americans who are proud blissful ignorants...



You could say it, but you must hang with a very strange crew of friends and associates if you come across such an attitude.

This is yet another attempt at either provocation or plain bigotry, and it is absurd to make such a sweeping generalization.  

You could say it? Why equivocate so much?   I am absolutely sure that monolingualism is not a sign of ignorance.   It also has nothing to do with racism.  

Produce a witness or two who proclaims pride in monolingualism, from among those you keep company with, or from anywhere else.  Then connect the dots from such rare declarations of pride in monolingualism to your own definition of racism.  

In my many decades of travel around the US, living and working among people of all economic, social, racial, and ethnic groups, I have never heard a single individual declare pride in monolingualism.  To the contrary, I have heard many monolingual Americans state that they wish they could speak other languages.   That's even true in Boston, for crying out loud!

I guess I just need to get out more, and find the card-carrying members of the "I'm proud to be monolingual, therefore I'm a racist" club.


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I have roped and hogtied our original topic, which was romping all over the back forty, and now present it for our perusal.
> 
> *What is racism to you?*


Racism is the most extreme form of stupid ignorance possible in the human species.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Racism is the most extreme form of stupid ignorance possible in the human species.
> 
> .,,



Tosh sirrah, what you describe there is re-marriage! 

Racism is when someone, feeling sh*tty about their lot in life, determines to find some group of people to whom to look as the source of all their troubles. These people need to be identifiable as a group, and politically less powerful than the offender, making it easy to "get away with" the offence.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> Tosh sirrah, what you describe there is re-marriage!
> 
> Racism is when someone, feeling sh*tty about their lot in life, determines to find some group of people to whom to look as the source of all their troubles. These people need to be identifiable as a group, and politically less powerful than the offender, making it easy to "get away with" the offence.


Re-marriage, the triumph of hope over experience!

Absolutely. I used to teach Asians and there's a lot of racism against them in NZ right now, I have had girl students in tears about it in my office..

Also, there's the old anti-Muslim thing, and the fact that some tossers can't tell Muslims from Sikhs, sigh.. Not that bashing either group is acceptable!


----------



## vince

. said:


> Thanks for the congratulations.
> This is a most confusing post and I am not sure which way to understand your mind on this matter.
> 
> .,,



That is because you are associating "ethnicity" with culture.


----------



## scotu

vince said:


> That is because you are associating "ethnicity" with culture.


 
What's wrong with associating "ethnicity" with culture, especially if it's done without stereotyping?


----------



## .   1

vince said:


> That is because you are associating "ethnicity" with culture.


Why did you leave the second sentence out of the quote?  It is most relevant to my comment.  To be paraphrased in this manner is disturbing.

.,,


----------



## whattheflock

A definite definiton: racism = pendejismo.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  The posts about cross-cultural marriage have been moved to the thread on cross-cultural love found here.


----------



## vince

scotu said:


> What's wrong with associating "ethnicity" with culture, especially if it's done without stereotyping?



Read my earlier posts in this thread.

I guess you have no problem with people making statements such as:

"You have Japanese blood in you, why do you act so white? I can't believe that white guy was teaching you how to use chopsticks. Come on, you're Japanese! I don't care that you were born and grew up in America. The fact that you can't use chopsticks or speak Japanese despite your ancestors being Japanese shows that you have forsaken and abandoned your own culture. You are white-washed."

Associating ethnicity with culture is racism. Saying that people should take on certain behaviors, traditions, and customs not by personal choice but by ethnic/racial background is racism.

---
To .,,:  I think the second part was cut off from the quote because part of the thread was split off into another one.


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Nigger is simply not used in Australia or at least I have never heard it used.


Well, these were your words:


> Wog lost the disrespectful overtone _*in a similar way that nigger is losing the negative overtone*_.


If this word is "simply not used in Australia", then I am confused about your comment. If you have never used the word yourself, what basis are you using to judge the seriousness of this world elsehwere?


> I feel very sad for the U.S.A. or any other country where a person could be killed for using a word.


Yes, it is sad. However, perhaps you do not know a lot about the story of racial problems in the US. What I was talking about is an extreme case. If you go into a ghetto area in a city such as Baltimore, calling someone black there a "nigger" is nearly suicidal.

On the other hand, where I live, a person using such a word as an insult would be treated like a scum—the person using the insult. It would be viewed as an unfortunate situation, and most likely everyone around the person insulted would express shame and suport.

There are many interracial marriagnes where I live. Frankly, no one thinks a thing about it. The US is a very large country. Opinions about such things vary more than you might believe from place to place.

Gaer


----------



## .   1

G'day Gaer,
Wog lost the negative overtone when wogs usurped the word and used it as a self description. This process is now virtually completed in Australia.
Nigger is being been usurped in U.S. America and is being used as a self description. This process is not complete and I am not sure if it ever will.
Nobody owned a wog. Nobody flogged a wog. Nobody lynched a wog.
Wog was never as nasty a word as was nigger.
I will use wog with gay abandon but I will eschew nigger.

.,,


----------



## gaer

. said:


> Nigger is being been usurped in U.S. America and is being used as a self description. This process is not complete and I am not sure if it ever will.


The problem is that it is only used in the "self-description" category among blacks/African-Americans, and it is also class-ralated too, in my experience.

In this situation, I think we are talking about a group that has been descriminated against taking the "sting" out of a very hurtful word by using it among themselves, but this is not the same as a word becoming less hurtful in general usage.

Anyone in the US will understand what I mean, I think, but it might not be so obvious in other places. 

Gaer


----------



## Outsider

Since we are drifting away from the topic, Fernando, I thought it would be better to continue here, before the moderators discontinue our conversation. 



Fernando said:


> Well, in a way they were a race on their own, were not they?


In a loose sense, you can say that. The technical term that's used nowadays is "endogamous". They refuse or avoid marrying outside their class. But still, amongst themselves, they have generally paid little attention to racial lines. 



Fernando said:


> How should I? I belong to a religion whose founder had a deep distrust of elites and preferred to tie with prostitutes and publicans.


Indeed. 



Fernando said:


> I really think that Hitler was a racist. Maybe he used the dumbness of the masses but he believed in the very scum he preached.


I've been searching for a quote or statement I once read on the net. Here's the best I've found so far:



> Scholar Max Weinreich quotes Hitler as admitting to an associate that "in the scientific sense, there is no such thing as race." But Hitler goes on to note that as a politician he needs a conception "_which enables the order which has hitherto existed on [an] historic basis to be abolished and an entirely new and anti-historical order enforced and given such an intellectual basis._ ...
> 
> source


What a shame it's so difficult to track down! It may be one of the most surprising quotes of the 20th century, although perhaps it shouldn't be.


----------



## Outsider

Pedro y La Torre said:


> When was the last time you saw a European monarch marrying a black person?


I'm not sure a European monarch ever married a person of the darkest shade of black, but there were some marriages with people of mixed blood in the past. Not many, to be sure, and their number has dropped to nill in the last centuries. However, as Fernando pointed out, they at least have the excuse that, as a rule, they don't marry _anyone_ outside the continent's nobility.


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> ANY form of racism is racism. ANY effort to separate people into subgroups to assign traits is racism. Smartarsed backstabbers use 'positive' or 'enlightened' or 'intelligent' racism to try to pitifully hided their own lack of spine.
> Any statement that claims that one ethnic group has inherent biological advantages over another ethnic group must be looked at as saying the reverse - it is pure logic. If one group is 'better' then there must be a group that is 'worse' so that the 'better' group can be compared with it.
> A 'partial' racist is still a racist. A racist is not necessarily a xenophobe.
> 
> .,,


 
Can anyone explain what "enlightened racism" means?
I don't get it. Or "intelligent racism". Or "positive racism". 
How can racism be positive or enlightened or intelligent.


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:


> In a loose sense, you can say that. The technical term that's used nowadays is "endogamous". They refuse or avoid marrying outside their class. But still, amongst themselves, they have generally paid little attention to racial lines.



Well, certainly this is not a matter of race, rather of class. There is a relation, but the problem nowadays is too small to be signifi¡cant. There is classism (outside nobility), which relates with racial lines.



Outsider said:


> What a shame it's so difficult to track down! It may be one of the most surprising quotes of the 20th century, although perhaps it shouldn't be.



I must admit that my sources about Hitler are second-handed. According to Ian Kershaw's biography, Hitler became an anti-semite in one point between his stay in Vienna and (more probably) the end of WWI. Again, according to Kershaw, its anti-semitism was genuine, even irrational.


----------



## Fernando

alexacohen said:


> Can anyone explain what "enlightened racism" means?
> I don't get it. Or "intelligent racism". Or "positive racism".
> How can racism be positive or enlightened or intelligent.



I did not know the term, but take into consideration that racism was encouraged by the end of 19th century for darwinism (social darwinism). So, many people watched History as a clash of races. 

Many anti-darwinists of beginning 20th century (Tolstoi, as an example) rejected it as a way to reject its preceived consequences: the oppression of some races for other races. Stephen Jay Gould (I can not find now the reference) tell the story of an American quasi-socialist which becomes a Christian creationist, since many Prussian high officers in WWI justified their like of the war as a natural impulse, as all of them were darwinists (and, possibly, more "enlightened") that their Christian (or not) opponents.


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:


> Well, certainly this is not a matter of race, rather of class. There is a relation, but the problem nowadays is too small to be signifi¡cant. There is classism (outside nobility), which relates with racial lines.


I agree, race is intertwined with class.



Fernando said:


> I must admit that my sources about Hitler are second-handed. According to Ian Kershaw's biography, Hitler became an anti-semite in one point between his stay in Vienna and (more probably) the end of WWI. Again, according to Kershaw, its anti-semitism was genuine, even irrational.


Being antisemitic and believing that there's a scientific basis for race are two different things. After all, Jews are not a race in a strictly biological sense. They are more of an ethnicity that combines common descent with common religion and culture. I think Hitler's antisemitism was quite genuine (ridiculously so; he believed in international Jewish conspiracies, and that kind of nonsense).

Of course, it's quite possible that he was simply not entirely rational in what he 'believed'.


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:


> Being antisemitic and believing that there's a scientific basis for race are two different things. After all, Jews are not a race in a strictly biological sense. They are more of an ethnicity that combines common descent with common religion and culture.



Agreed, but "modern" anti-semitism is based in race rather than in ethnicity. Traditional anti-semitism (for example, in the Catholic world) was based in religion. So, a Jew who converted to Christianism was automatically no more a Jew. Of course, then the discussion moved to cripto-Judaism and "marranos" which covered a racist feeling.

For Nazis it made no difference if the Jew was Jew, Christian, Muslim or Nazi: he was to be destroyed. The laws that defined what a Jew was were based in ethnicity, not in religion, which was used only as evidence of the race.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

alexacohen said:


> Can anyone explain what "enlightened racism" means?
> I don't get it. Or "intelligent racism". Or "positive racism".
> *How can racism be positive or enlightened or intelligent*.


 
Le doy vueltas a tu pregunta, *Alexa*, y no encuentro respuesta satisfactoria. Lo cual, ya de por sí, casi me satisface, de no ser porque todos los días me encuentro con gente que sí cree tener una respuesta para este tipo de pregunta...


----------



## alexacohen

Alors, j'irais demander à ces gens-là...


----------



## dasboot

Greetings!



Fernando said:


> I did not know the term, but take into consideration that racism was encouraged by the end of 19th century for darwinism (social darwinism). So, many people watched History as a clash of races.
> 
> Many anti-darwinists of beginning 20th century (Tolstoi, as an example) rejected it as a way to reject its preceived consequences: the oppression of some races for other races. Stephen Jay Gould (I can not find now the reference) tell the story of an American quasi-socialist which becomes a Christian creationist, since many Prussian high officers in WWI justified their like of the war as a natural impulse, as all of them were darwinists (and, possibly, more "enlightened") that their Christian (or not) opponents.




Social Darwinism is just racism with a perverted understanding of a new branch of biology as its backing. It is a pseudoscience, and has absolutely  nothing to do with actual Darwinism. Also, I don't believe it relates to "enlightened racism," which, although I'm not sure, I would imagine is being racist or discriminatory in spite of  rejecting the pseudoscience behind race differences.


----------



## kinia22

I think it is discriminating people of other races only beacause of the race in all ways.


----------



## The Lord of Gluttony

Today everyone is entitled to feel offended about something - no matter how trivial. The next time someone call me a 'White Man' they will have a Writ on their doorstep the following day.

No sir, the days of Caucasian humour have long passed, thanks to the importation of 'Political Correctness' in most Western countries. Want to tell a joke.....Have you heard the one about the Englishman, the Irishman and the Scotsman....forget it.


----------



## ancalimon

People have traits that comes with genetics. But these things are not related to the outdated concept of race.

For example people whose ancestors mostly were horse riders of the steppe and lived on horses are not as long as many people in Europe. They are 175cm average. 

Or people who did not took refuge in caves but lived and hunted outdoors in ancient times (Asians) have slightly slanted eyes.

Race is certainly outdated in a globalized world where any person can make a baby with anyone in less than a day.   Also it certainly did not have any meaning for example in Central Asia where many different looking people intermingled. Their race was Central Asia.


----------



## Outsider

ancalimon said:


> People have traits that comes with genetics. But these things are not related to the outdated concept of race.
> 
> For example people whose ancestors mostly were horse riders of the steppe and lived on horses are not as long as many people in Europe. They are 175cm average.


I was under the opposite impression: that historically hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to be taller than sedentary peoples... In any case, height is strongly influenced by lifestyle, not just genetics.

The theory about slanted eyes you mention seems too far-fatched to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.


----------



## germanbz

I think the classical concept of racism is out of date. Rather is a kind of social superiority with a simple syllogism "if my country is "_better_" than yours then by default I, _citizen from this country_ am better that you "_citizen" from the other_.

And nowadays this feeling of "superiority" usually just based on macroeconomic figures works much more that old genetic racism based on colour, heigh and physical features. So, I wouldn't name this xECONphobia as a racism, but the way it works is similar: _I don't have to demonstrate I am better than you as indiviual person...my country does it by me...._


----------



## rusita preciosa

germanbz said:


> I think the classical concept of racism is out of date. Rather is a kind of social superiority with a simple syllogism "if my country is "_better_" than yours then by default I, _citizen from this country_ am better that you "_citizen" from the other_.


What about racism within one country?


----------



## Sepia

Outsider said:


> I was under the opposite impression: that historically hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to be taller than sedentary peoples... In any case, height is strongly influenced by lifestyle, not just genetics.
> 
> The theory about slanted eyes you mention seems too far-fatched to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.



Slanted eyes ... There has been a lot of traffic to and from East Asia going through Turkey for a few centuries. Could be important too. Once I had two Turkish co-workers - two sisters - one looked like an Arab and the ohter one, when I first met her I mistook her for an East Asian.


----------



## ancalimon

Outsider said:


> I was under the opposite impression: that historically hunter-gatherer peoples have tended to be taller than sedentary peoples... In any case, height is strongly influenced by lifestyle, not just genetics.
> 
> The theory about slanted eyes you mention seems too far-fatched to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.



I guess people that did not run and jump (horse riders) did not become long.

Also, slanted eyes is the the result of evolution. It's as serious as it gets. These people have a larger fat tissue over their eyes which protects their eyes from freezing and also the glare from snow and ice. That's because they were outside in the freezing cold hunting mammoths when people that do not have slanted eyes took shelter in caves.  That's why their eyes do not have this fatty tissue which protects it from cold and the glare of snow and ice.

In my opinion, this made most of Asian people better fighters and strategists and they ruled more territory, while the other made most of Europeans more beautiful than the rest of the world due to constant merry love making. They had more time to refine their genes. They also became better builders.


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

Wow, this is an old thread. What mystifies me is this post: 



> I'm trying to put together a survey/test to help people reflect on their racism or lack of racism. There will be 10 questions. I'd appreciate your feedback. I'm planning to apply it to different races (not ethnicities) and to keep it simple I'll use the categories: white, black, yellow, brown, and red. I'll use white as default just to pilot the questions but the racial categories can be changed accordingly.
> 
> *Question #1. If your 17-year-old daughter shows up at your home with her new black boyfriend and states that she wants to marry him, how would you react? Pick only one response.
> 
> a) You'll blurt something that will contain the expression "over my dead body."
> 
> b) You'll embrace your daughter and tell her that you are proud of her for being an inclusive and non-racist individual.
> 
> c) You'll have a drink after 15 years of sobriety.
> 
> d) You'll pass out.
> 
> e) There will no response (fatal heart attack).
> 
> d) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of joy.
> 
> e) You'll call your mother immediately to share the news while crying out of desperation.
> 
> f) After doing a), c), d) and/or e), you'll go to the bathroom look at yourself in the mirror and say, "You are a f*cking racist (your name here). Get your act together right now and let your daughter live her life."
> 
> f) You'll give your daughter and her black boyfriend a short unbiased lecture on the pros and cons of mixed marriages.
> 
> g) You'll wait until your daughter falls asleep, drug her up, and move to Costa Rica the next day.
> 
> h) Other (please specify)
> 
> 
> So people, what do you think? Is it user-friendly? Any changes before I move to question #2? Items that I left out or should leave out?*



Every answer I read seems utterly wrong to me, even the ones that state that they would welcome the boyfriend into the family. Because if one of my seventeen years old twins, who have been nowhere without their parents, know nothing about anything, are still studying, have no way of finding a job, have not seen anything of the world, came to me and said she wanted to get married I would send her to live with my cousin in Perth, as far away from said boyfriend as it can get. I don't care to be called a racist, I simply do not believe that any 17 years old girl is prepared to marry ANYONE.


----------



## merquiades

Wow.  I know the story.  This happened to an acquaintance of mine.  She was 16 or 17, from the midwest US, fell in love with a black man, and her parents sent her to Spain to forget him.  She did, and then married a Spaniard, never to return.


----------



## LilianaB

Racism in my opinion is anything that is not "color-blind". (including ethnicity-blind, not just the color of one's skin)


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

merquiades said:


> Wow.  I know the story.  This happened to an acquaintance of mine.  She was 16 or 17, from the midwest US, fell in love with a black man, and her parents sent her to Spain to forget him.  She did, and then married a Spaniard, never to return.


So what? I don't know why your friend's daughter has never returned home; but if she is happy here, why should she? Lots of people live abroad, and her parents could come to visit - had they wanted to. Maybe they objected to any man who wasn't WASP and a Spaniard isn't. 

Still, seventeen years old is underage: a parent or a guardian should take care of the welfare of the girl, and marrying when she does not have any way to support herself is not a good decision. We're not in the XIVth century, and they're not Romeo and Juliet. This, assuming they're both teenagers; if the boyfriend in question is 25 years old and has a job I would see that he ends up in prison for abusing a minor. I don't give two hoots about colour; he may have pointed ears and be a direct descendant of Mr. Spock and I wouldn't change my opinion.


----------



## The Lord of Gluttony

LilianaB said:


> Racism in my opinion is anything that is not "color blind". (including ethnicity blind, not just the color of one's skin)



What does color-blind mean?
Why don't people just say "not treating people in a different way because of their race or color" and why do they use indirect terms like color-blind?


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

The Lord of Gluttony said:


> What does color-blind mean?
> Why don't people just say "not treating people in a different way because of their race or color" and why do they use indirect terms like color-blind?



I don't know; I don't know what she means, anyway. I can see perfectly well people are different on the outside, I'm not colour blind. That doesn't change what I think of them; some are good people, some not so good, and I treat them as they deserve to be treated. It's just as simple as that; nothing to do with colour, but with character.


----------



## LilianaB

The Lord of Gluttony said:


> What does color-blind mean?
> Why don't people just say "not treating people in a different way because of their race or color" and why do they use indirect terms like color-blind?



It means that you don't see the person's color or ethnicity in any type of relations. It is just a term, a sort of a metaphor, I guess. I did not coin it, by the way.


----------



## rusita preciosa

merquiades said:


> Wow. I know the story. This happened to an acquaintance of mine. She was 16 or 17, from the midwest US, fell in love with a *black man*, and her parents sent her to Spain to forget him. She did, and then married a Spaniard, never to return.


Would it make a difference if she was in love with a white man?


----------



## merquiades

rusita preciosa said:


> Would it make a difference if she was in love with a white man?



I don't know.  She seemed to imply it was about race not age.  Otherwise she would not have said "black man"


----------



## rusita preciosa

Valeria Mesalina said:


> Every answer I read seems utterly wrong to me


That "questionnaire" is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in this forum so far.
Given how old it is, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and consider it a [poor] joke.


----------



## shawnee

. said:


> G'day Gaer,
> Wog lost the negative overtone when wogs usurped the word and used it as a self description. This process is now virtually completed in Australia.
> Nigger is being been usurped in U.S. America and is being used as a self description. This process is not complete and I am not sure if it ever will.
> Nobody owned a wog. Nobody flogged a wog. Nobody lynched a wog.
> Wog was never as nasty a word as was nigger.
> I will use wog with gay abandon but I will eschew nigger.
> 
> .,,


Yes, an old thread indeed. I just wanted to take the opportunity to refute in the strongest possible terms all the notions expressed in the quoted passage above. "Wog" is an inflamatory word, always has been and remains so, regarless of people who like to use it with some sort of impunity. There is also a comedian who has made movies with the word in the title, who thinks that by his exploitation of the term he can single handedly sanitise a word that is often used to target those of Mediterranean background. Use "wog" with gay abandon in my presence sport, and you'll come off second best!


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

rusita preciosa said:


> That "questionnaire" is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in this forum so far.



It is, isn't it? It's just a pretext to call everyone else a bigot and a racist. 

I've just realized the author was banned, so I won't say what I think of him.


----------



## LilianaB

Many parents these days, unfortunately, would like to know what kind of socks the boyfriend is wearing, so I really think the original question is beyond the point, or even the problem of racism.  There are economical and safety issues that are often involved, some of which may be based on stereotypes.


----------



## Outsider

ancalimon said:


> I guess people that did not run and jump (horse riders) did not become long.


From what I've read it had to do with nutrition: hunter-gatherers seem to have had a better diet, which allowed them to grow taller. On the other hand, though agriculture made for a poorer diet, it made it possible to feed larger numbers of people.


----------



## The Lord of Gluttony

In my opinion, the best way to end racism is to stop trying to end racism. You'll find that people aren't affected by racism until you teach them to be. Repeatedly beating the idea that the races aren't different into people's heads just makes them consider the validity of the opposite hypothesis.

It also doesn't help that modern social justice in the US seems to openly embrace the idea that blacks are incapable of doing anything for themselves and desperately need to be catered to specially in order to succeed.


----------



## germanbz

Yes this PC overprotection sometimes feed some kind of victimism or make stereotypes get stronger.
I mean, if a person here in Spain say: All Englishmen are XXXXX or All Germans are XXXX. That could be considered as a tasteless remark or a stupid generalisation but if the same person said all moroccan are XXXX, he inmediately would be accused as xenophobic, even thought the XXXX would have been the same in three cases.


----------



## Bonjules

Hola tod@s,

recent events in France (involving the Justice minister Taubira ) and in Greece and many other places show again how fast racism and xenophobia can raise their ugly heads, especially in times of social tension. France is of course not more or less racist than any other place but yes, it seems that a large part of the population never felt really comfortable accepting the many darker skinned immigrants from the former colonies as 'french'.
It can be safely assumed that the situation would not be much different in Germany, Scandinavia or any other place under similar circumstances.

To me, it confirmes my longstanding theory: We all have a serious propensity towards discrimination and xenophobia (racism being only the most extreme expression of these, since often based on obvious, visible, physical criteria but also on culturally sufficiently different habits or other presumed 'genetic' distinction). It doesn't need "to be taught", it comes naturally to us, and probably, in terms of evolution, offered significant survival advantages (no question of split loyalties etc etc) by not mixing 'tribes'.
Now, this tendency  could only be kept at bay, so it seems, if clearly sanctioned and suppressed by authority, as was the case in the old USSR( the one good thing they did); unfortunately, our 'liberal' modern states seem unable or unwilling to take such a strong stand.
So things are not looking good.
saludos


----------



## angea

When one group of people thinks that they are better than all the other people.


----------



## ESustad

_Racism_ is the belief that an individual's merit is largely or entirely determined by immutable characteristics.  This is narrower than _bigotry_, although both are noxious personality defects.  Anti-religious bias shouldn't be included under _racism_, since an individual has the choice whether to adhere to any creed.

In certain circles, _racism_ has been overused to shout down political opinions, and semantically the word has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.  An accusation of racism is the modern-day equivalent to a charge of witchcraft.


----------



## merquiades

ESustad said:


> _Racism_ is the belief that an individual's merit is largely or entirely determined by immutable racial characteristics.  This is narrower than _bigotry_, although both are noxious personality defects.  Anti-religious bias shouldn't be included under _racism_, since an individual has the choice whether to adhere to any creed.
> 
> In certain circles, _racism_ has been overused to shout down political opinions, and semantically the word has been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.  An accusation of racism is the modern-day equivalent to a charge of witchcraft.



I agree almost completely with you.  I'd just add the word racial above where I did.  If per se European Nationality Group A has a belief it is inherently better and more deserving in every way than European Nationality Group B, yet when placing these two peoples side by side and forbidding them from opening their mouths no one tell them apart, I don't think it's racism, ethnic discrimination and bigotry of the worst kind for sure, but not really racism.  

*I could replace European with any other geographic term... Asian, Native American, African, Middle Easterner, Pacific Islander etc..


----------



## Harry-Potter

If, in a discussion, one of the interlocutors stated that one race is statistically less intelligent than the other, would you label this person a racist?


----------



## merquiades

Harry-Potter said:


> If, in a discussion, one of the interlocutors stated that one race is statistically less intelligent than the other, would you label this person a racist?



I don't know why someone would want to make these comments in a discussion if he didn't believe them himself.


----------



## Harry-Potter

Well, I don't think it's relevant why they would want to make such comments, but just for the sake of this thread, let's assume the said group of people was talking about the level of intelligence among different racial groups.


----------



## merquiades

Harry-Potter said:


> Well, I don't think it's relevant why they would want to make such comments, but just for the sake of this thread, let's assume the said group of people was talking about the level of intelligence among different racial groups.



In that case I think the group would be racist.  Non-racists don't try to categorize intelligence by race.


----------



## Harry-Potter

You would label the whole group as racist? I see. What about categorizing people of the same race according to IQ? 
Any other opinions?


----------



## learnerr

Harry-Potter said:


> If, in a discussion, one of the interlocutors stated that one race is  statistically less intelligent than the other, would you label this  person a racist?


I don't know what you mean by 'intelligent', but IQ is not a means to determine intelligence. It is a means to determine ability to answer if-then questions.


----------



## Harry-Potter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient



> *An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence.*



Answering the original question, though. To me racism is a belief that one race is intrinsically worse than the other, which I personally find highly illogical.


----------



## jasio

Harry-Potter said:


> An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence.



And do you really believe it? Just read a little bit further (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Group_differences):



> Most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males.



Whatever the "intelligence" is, how are you going to match one with the other with such a politically correct definition? 



Harry-Potter said:


> To me racism is a belief that one race is intrinsically worse than the other, which I personally find highly illogical



Leaving aside a discussion of what is a precise meaning of a 'race', why do you find it 'highly illogical'? If one group of people lives long enough in conditions requiering higher mental skills, than another group, can't you expect them to become more 'intelligent' over time? Is it a racisim, or a mere darwinism?


----------



## Harry-Potter

Why wouldn't I believe it? Are you suggesting the IQ tests are a sham? That the Mensa society is just of bunch of people who merely passed some silly test?

I have no idea what that sentence about differences between females and males has to do with the subject. What's the reason why you pasted it here?

I agree intelligence is something that not only one definition is applicable for but  I think it stretches far beyond the topic we have at hand.

I don't understand your last sentence. Are you sure you understood properly what I wrote? I'm asking because I see no connection between my statement and your reply. You mentioned intelligence which I don't see to have any connection with my definition of racism. 

Answering your question, though, I find it highly illogical because I believe everybody is born equal at the most basic level (putting aside social differences etc), irregardless of race (whose definition I've always thought to be pretty straightforward), sex, ethnic minority etc. It's only through the later stages of life that we become better or worse than others.


----------



## jasio

Harry-Potter said:


> Why wouldn't I believe it? Are you suggesting the IQ tests are a sham? That the Mensa society is just of bunch of people who merely passed some silly test?



Does IQ test actually measure anything but the ability to pass the test? In fact, everything beyond this point is an interpretation rather than a measurement. 



Harry-Potter said:


> I have no idea what that sentence about differences between females and males has to do with the subject. What's the reason why you pasted it here?



Isn't it obvious? If "most IQ tests are constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males", it means that you *can* compare results of men (provided there are no other inherent weaknesses in the test), you *can* compare results of women, but you *must not* compare results between men and women, because the tests were deliberately designed to show no differences. Now: are there any other inherent weaknesses in the tests? I believe so. How can you compare IQ of an American student and a Khoisan hunter, if they have virtually nothing in common?

In fact, most of the tests (not only IQ tests) are designed for a particular purpose. Using them for other purposes is an abuse or manipulation. 



Harry-Potter said:


> I don't understand your last sentence. Are you sure you understood properly what I wrote?



I know, what I understood, I do not know, what you had in mind. Please, rephrase your statement then I'll be able to judge if I understand it the same way again. 



Harry-Potter said:


> I'm asking because I see no connection between my statement and your reply. You mentioned intelligence which I don't see to have any connection with my definition of racism.



Didn't you start the discussion about intelligence yourself, in post #206 and most (if not all) since then?



Harry-Potter said:


> Answering your question, though, I find it highly illogical because I believe (...)



It's my favourite argument  "I find it illogical, because I * believe* otherwise". "A stone cannot fall from the sky - there ARE no stones in the sky", "If the theory does not fit the facts, change the facts". I must admit though that you are in a good company. 

Personally, I prefer to trust evidence more than someone's beliefs.



Harry-Potter said:


> Answering your question, though, I find it highly illogical because I believe everybody is born equal at the most basic level (putting aside social differences etc), irregardless of race (whose definition I've always thought to be pretty straightforward), sex, ethnic minority etc. It's only through the later stages of life that we become better or worse than others.



Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...ations_and_various_definitions_of_the_concept) says: 


> There is a wide consensus that the racial categories that are common in  everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot  be biologically defined



So apparently, definition of race is not THAT straightforward. 

Anyway, do you have any evidence that "everybody is born equal at the most basic level (putting aside social differences)"? Intelligence (whatever the word means) is at least partially defined by your genes - why shouldn't it be otherwise? Actually, after decades of 'nature and nurture' debates, the most recent verdict I am aware of was 50/50.  Besides the brain is a pretty costly device. It uses ~20% of the body's  energy consuming only a high-octane glucose, so maintaining more intelligence than  you need for survival is nothing more than a waste. It's true that intelligence developes by social interactions and training, but at the very basic level it begins with the speed of impulse propagation in and between neurons, as well as in the way neurons are interconnected in the brain - and these factors ARE defined by biology. Since every biological feature can be modified between generations by a natural selection, why shouldn't it apply to intelligence as well?

Actually, intelligence is a rather sensitive topic. It's politically correct to discuss that some populations may be taller or shorter or heavier or lighter than the others, while it's not politically correct to discuss that some populations might be inherently more intelligent or more stupid, that's all. No further evidence is necessary.


----------



## Evgeniy

merquiades said:


> _Racism_ is the belief that an individual's merit is largely or entirely determined by immutable racial characteristics.
Click to expand...

An alternative definition: _racism_ is the belief that people ought to be judged (in the meaning: guilty or not, good or bad) per their racial merit... I also think that the word "merit" should be excluded from serious discussions on this topic, at least until this word is well-defined. You know, the kind of thinking "you are not moral enough (ie you have no merit), so you should be punished" is also along these lines, whether this merit has or has not been connected (either plausibly (per what 'moral' means to the connector) or not) to the race or to the nation.


jasio said:


> Is it a racisim, or a mere darwinism?


While I agree with you more than with Harry-Potter, I have the impression that social darwinism was the precursor and a very important cause to nazism; the most important cause if we consider that the raise of nazism in Germany was an accident, but the raise of nazism somewhere was historical justice to the humankind. If the best race/nation is one that survives best, then could not a race _prove_ that it's the best one by setting up an experiment on survival, i.e. a war? That idea could not avoid having appeared because it was logical and natural, so it did appear and gain popularity. Then, the question is, how to tell "mere darwinism" from nazism. I think the difference is that the first is an intellectual exercise (one that has a good merit), and the second is a command for action. Anything in the objective world, including dependence of people's merits on any factor, may be a subject of discussion, but certain actions (let us find out pros and cons of displacing such and such people because, you see, they don't have necessary merits) must not; also, people must avoid doing potentially harmful actions based on speculation (let us sack from jobs such kind of people because rumour goes they don't have necessary merits).


----------



## jasio

Evgeniy said:


> I have the impression that social darwinism (...)



Genya, but why do you refer to "social darwinism" in the first place? Did I mention it? Besides, the term meant completely different things throughout its history, so please specify what did you precisely mean - apart from recalling a widely criticized label?

Whether you like it, or not, Darwinism - a natural selection - just happens. We can consider it right or wrong, we can consider it legal or justified, or the opposite, the selection pressure may be stronger or weaker depending on circumstances, but it just happens! Children are born, some people have more children than the others, and at least partially your gens are responsible for the number of children you have. A pure Darwinism, end of story. 

BTW - please note that it does not necessarily work in favor of intelligence or any other specific feature. To give you an example: a few years ago I had a long discussion with a guy working for an orphanage. He told me a story about an alcoholic woman who had no job, no income other than a social support, and gave lives to five or six children (he worked with all of them), all of them in orphanages as mother did not care about them at all. He was surprised that her daughter had her first pregnancy at the age of 14 or 15. I was actually NOT that surprised. The woman might have been a social loser, but she was a Darwinist WINNER! From this standpoint she was worth more than five or six well educated, rich, successful and career making women! Admired, perhaps loved, perhaps intelligent, but their gens will be lost forever, as they had no children or just one!



Evgeniy said:


> If the best race/nation is one that survives best



Darwinism is not about the nations, it's about gens. Despite what the nazis said, perhaps except for a few isolated populations like Icelanders, it's NOT the same. The nation is a culture (your language, your religion, the way you behave), while the gens is the biology. They interact, but they are distinct. 



Evgeniy said:


> If the best race/nation is one that survives best, then could not a race  _prove_ that it's the best one by setting up an experiment on  survival, i.e. a war?



The war is NOT an experiment. The life itself IS. The war only changes the rules of the game. Like the floods, rains, droughts, starvation, overpopulation, richness, social care, etc. And the Darwinism is not that much about the populations, but more about individuals.



Evgeniy said:


> That idea could not avoid having appeared because  it was logical and natural, so it did appear and gain popularity. Then,  the question is, how to tell "mere darwinism" from nazism.



You seem to follow the well established criticism of nazism, but it's mostly forgotten that nazism stood for "national socialism". Everybody focuses on the 'national' part forgetting about the 'socialism' part.  This is to clarify, so please do not treat it as a political propaganda or whatever. But this is important to understand. The Germans supported nazism not necessarily to get rid of the Jews or other national or racial minorities (despite antisemitism present in most countries), but mainly to benefit from scrapping some of the capitalists' fortunes, labor rights, fighting unemployment, state protection, highways, volks wagens, and other promises of a welfare state. Plus, of course, to get rid of the 'shameful' and painful Versailles terms. Their Jewish neighbors just paid costs of those promises, just like the children in Bangladesh pay the costs of our cheep t-shirts, shoes, and dresses today. BTW, it can also be a reason of neo-nazism; the "socialism" made some promises which it cannot fulfill, so people try to find an alternative way to make them happen, because they don't believe that there is no free lunch in the nature.



Evgeniy said:


> I think the  difference is that the first is an intellectual exercise (one that has a  good merit), and the second is a command for action.


The everlasting difference between the 'positive' and 'normative' descriptions, or the world 'as it is now', and the world as 'it should be'. 
I focus only on the former, if anybody has doubts.


----------



## germanbz

For me this comparison "_Their Jewish neighbors just paid costs of those promises, *just like* the children in Bangladesh pay the costs of our cheep t-shirts_" is an absolute nonsense.


----------



## Evgeniy

jasio said:


> […] please specify what did you precisely mean - apart from recalling a widely criticized label?


A  set of social and racial ideas that follow, either via sound logic or via faulty logic,  from "mere darwinism". Most people — those on which politics always  depend — are not exactly intellectuals, so they follow  my  approach to defining terms rather than yours.  I did not intend  to criticise you, I intended to call for caution.


> The Germans supported nazism not necessarily to get rid of the  Jews or other national or racial minorities (despite antisemitism  present in most countries), but mainly to benefit from scrapping some of  the capitalists' fortunes, labor rights, fighting unemployment, state  protection, highways, volks wagens, and other promises of a welfare  state. Plus, of course, to get rid of the 'shameful' and painful  Versailles terms. Their Jewish neighbors just paid costs of those  promises, just like the children in Bangladesh pay the costs of our  cheep t-shirts, shoes, and dresses today.


I reject the idea  that political movements are products of will of a little number of  people, which are then transmitted in full to all the population by some magical apparatus and  then could be either supported or not. The Germans did not _support_  nazism; they _did_ nazism. Just like the Soviet people did not  _support_ Stalinism; they _did_ Stalinism; and so on. So,  every important feature needed a separate reason, for me. Now, the  question is not whether the nazist government followed your line of  thought, the question is whether many Germans followed your line of  thought ("we need better life economically, we cannot achieve it by  ourselves, those, those and those people are our good neighbours, but we  need them to give us some space, because, as was said, we cannot  achieve better life by ourselves"). The concept of "lebensraum" has  something to do with it, but the question is, how literally it was  perceived (it was not bound to have the described interpretation, or  indeed any economical interpretation); also, the way exactly Jews were  treated (even before the war happened) was not rational at all; also, even if exactly such rational   line of thought was massively followed, then some justification was  needed for following it anyway; "life is an experiment" sounds as a plausible one. And in such case, it could not have been such justification that should have been found after the actions were conceived (people usually don't plan it out such way), it should have been already present; I might guess it was merely a natural substitution for Christian morals, which went out of fashion, were largely misunderstood, had some faults both of exposition and, perhaps, of substance, and so had to be substituted by something with no less rational basis; that should have meant, in minds of people, something "looking scientific".


> BTW,  it can also be a reason of neo-nazism; the "socialism" made some  promises which it cannot fulfill, so people try to find an alternative  way to make them happen, because they don't believe that there is no  free lunch in the nature.


I think that you ascribe more  rationalism to people than they really have. The slogans of neo-nazism  are indeed, "aliens, give up the resources to us", but the main reasons,  I believe, must be psychological: people (especially youth) want to  belong to a group (not just a nation, but a welld-defined group of  like-minded people), they want to be recognised, they want to belong to  the number of "theirs" rather than "aliens", etc. Why do I think so?  Well, because economical reasons are: 1) something too abstract to think  about, we think with with emotions unless specifically required to  avoid "thinking by heart" by circumstances, 2) considering those  neo-nazis who indeed want to see and do see the bigger picture (I don't  know how big is this number, but usually such people are minority in a  group), these reasons are simply not enough.


> The everlasting  difference between the 'positive' and 'normative' descriptions, or the  world 'as it is now', and the world as 'it should be'.


Wrong wording, in my view. I count three: "to study the world according to what it is" (this approach should avoid, for example, the idea that people have freedom of will and study their behaviour on a purely scientific basis, which seeks to bind objects under study rather than free them), "to study the world according to what it should be" (which is, I think, a fallacy), "to make the world what it should be" (a different verb and a different action).


> I focus only on the former, if anybody has doubts.


I have none, believe me.


----------



## Evgeniy

Bonjules said:


> Now, this tendency  could only be kept at bay, so it seems, if clearly sanctioned and suppressed by authority, as was the case in the old USSR( the one good thing they did); unfortunately, our 'liberal' modern states seem unable or unwilling to take such a strong stand.


(Not true: there were many good things they did). I actually think that suppression is not a solution. The problem is exactly that the modern world does not have a moral system that explains convincingly to people why racism should be avoided; the only protection against racist theories is that they are a taboo (irrational prohibition) to discuss, there is no consistent explanation why they are wrong. Teaching people a moral system based on an individual desire for knowledge might be a key, but that might also be utopian. Yet, it has never been tried out: education was never considered to be something whose most important objective would be to demonstrate people the art and beauty of knowing, of enjoying links among notions.


----------



## jasio

Evgeniy said:


> (Not true: there were many good things they  did)


Indeed, people tend to think 'WE have built the houses, WE have built the schools, WE have built the roads, while THEY only suppressed our freedom". It's not that simple. "THEY ordered constructing houses, THEY ordered suppressing freedom, WE followed the orders in both cases" is closer to the truth, although it's not that simple either. 



Evgeniy said:


> The problem is exactly that the modern world  does not have a moral system that explains convincingly to people why  racism should be avoided;


I would even say that the modern world does not have a single, common and efficient moral system at all. But I don't think it may be a problem as long as people's individual or group moral systems are close enough. But I am afraid that if those individual moral systems will be too diverted, the whole system will collapse. 



Evgeniy said:


> the only protection against racist theories is  that they are a taboo (irrational prohibition) to discuss, there is no  consistent explanation why they are wrong.


Considering the meaning of the word taboo, belief in equality of the races, political correctness, or color blindness are also taboos. You may say that you still have a master - only a different one than the others, that's all. 



Evgeniy said:


> Teaching people a moral system based on an individual desire for knowledge might be a key, but that might also be utopian.


Do you mean a knowledge-based morality? I've read about a few attempts, I've lived in one, so - no, thank you. 



Evgeniy said:


> I reject the idea  that political movements are products of will of a little number of  people, which are then transmitted in full to all the population by some magical apparatus and  then could be either supported or not.


What about Lenin and his idea of a party of professional revolutionists?  
They had had the ideas, then they built the party apparatus, and then the whole society - willingly or forced - followed, and who did not follow, was then destroyed. Who followed was destroyed as well, as the revolution always eats its own children, but that's another story. 
The same happened in Germany: Hitler had his ideas, then he built the party apparatus, then he made people follow, then he won the election (an important difference to the USSR!), and then the whole society followed. 



Evgeniy said:


> The Germans did not _support_  nazism; they _did_ nazism. Just like the Soviet people did not  _support_ Stalinism; they _did_ Stalinism; and so on.


But why they DID in the first place? First they had to come to an idea that it (nazism, communism) would solve some of their problems - and then decided to actively participate. That's what I meant as 'supported', not 'just vote and step aside', as you seemed to understand. Even if they did not decide consciously but they lived their regular lives, the system involved them anyway. 

Germans did not wake up one day all turned magically into nazis, so did not Soviets. They were gradually bought or forced by the system. Almost one by one. 



Evgeniy said:


> Now, the  question is not whether the nazist government followed your line of  thought, the question is whether many Germans followed your line of  thought ("we need better life economically, we cannot achieve it by  ourselves, those, those and those people are our good neighbours, but we  need them to give us some space, because, as was said, we cannot  achieve better life by ourselves").


I don't think they thought about 'the Jews - our good neighbors', at least not at the beginning. I'd rather suppose they thought about 'the Jews - the bankers', 'the Jews - the capitalists', 'the Jews - the Ostjuden strangers', but not 'doctor Sigismund, my good neighbor and our physician'. "Oh, by the way, why doesn't he live here any more? Was he a damn Jew as well! Good he was taken care of and we can use his nice carpets bought for OUR money!". This is more or less how the processes go. 



Evgeniy said:


> The concept of "lebensraum" has  something to do with it, but the question is, how literally it was  perceived (it was not bound to have the described interpretation, or  indeed any economical interpretation);


The concept of _lebensraum_ has little to do with the Jews, at least not with the German Jews who had exactly NOTHING to do with it. It has more to do with the Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, even Russians - and the Jews living in those countries. This is where this _lebensraum_ was to be created. 



Evgeniy said:


> the way exactly Jews were  treated (even before the war happened) was not rational at all;


On the contrary, it was extremely rational - in the shed of the official views, of course. If you have a dangerous enemy it's only natural for you to protect yourself against him or destroy the enemy, otherwise you will eventually be weakened and destroyed, isn't it so? Whether the enemy is a witch, a Jew, a _kulak_, or an enemy of the people, once identified he HAS TO be neutralized one way or another.



Evgeniy said:


> even if exactly such rational   line of thought was massively followed, then some justification was  needed for following it anyway; "life is an experiment" sounds as a plausible one


Actually, I meant something completely different. You seem to be biased by violence and short term political thinking. I am not. And I am thinking in terms of centuries rather then from election to election. 
I just observe that if your gens influence the number of children you have, you don't need any "experiments", because your life itself is the best and the only experiment. If your gens make you have ten children, you are THE winner. If you have non - you are THE loser. That's all. If a society is constructed in a way that violent men tend to have more children than the peaceful, the percentage of violent men will gradually grow from generation to generation (or, in other words, the AVERAGE violence level of the whole population will grow). It's inevitable. If your society is constructed in a way that the intelligent men have more children than the dumb, the average intelligence level of the society will grow as well. As simple as that. 



Evgeniy said:


> I think that you ascribe more  rationalism to people than they really have. The slogans of neo-nazism  are indeed, "aliens, give up the resources to us", but the main reasons,  I believe, must be psychological: people (especially youth) want to  belong to a group (not just a nation, but a welld-defined group of  like-minded people), they want to be recognised, they want to belong to  the number of "theirs" rather than "aliens", etc.


Sure they do. It's just another one of many aspects involved. A need to break a glass ceiling caused by well-paid positions being already occupied by previous generations is another one - perhaps for people slightly older than teenagers though. 



Evgeniy said:


> Why do I think so? Well, because economical reasons are: 1) something too abstract to think  about, we think with with emotions unless specifically required to  avoid "thinking by heart" by circumstances,


On the contrary. "I can't afford my daily bread because the factory owner is stealing my money which he should have paid me" is very basic and very specific. "I have to close my shop, because those Jewish bankers have stolen all the money and people are poorer and poorer" is specific as well. BTW, modern Europe has an issue of this kind as well: a generation of 1000€ graduates earning too little to justify spending several years in universities, or unemployed at all. Whom they would blame? Sure not the ones, who convinced them to go to universities rather than to plumbing schools. They would blame "Polish plumbers" who apparently are stealing their jobs. 



germanbz said:


> For me this comparison "_Their Jewish neighbors just paid costs of those promises, *just like* the children in Bangladesh pay the costs of our cheep t-shirts_" is an absolute nonsense.


If you refer to the actual cost, you're right, undoubtly. If you refer to the way of thinking making someone else to suffer because of the benefits YOU are going to achieve, it's not. The difference is quantitative only, NOT the qualitative.


----------



## pob14

Harry-Potter said:


> Why wouldn't I believe it? Are you suggesting the IQ tests are a sham? That the Mensa society is just of bunch of people who merely passed some silly test?


I'm late to this discussion, but speaking as someone who qualifies for Mensa and as a former member of the society itself, I know that that's _exactly_ what Mensa is.


----------



## angea

Bonjules said:


> Now, this tendency  could only be kept at bay, so it seems, if clearly sanctioned and suppressed by authority, as was the case in the old USSR( the one good thing they did); unfortunately, our 'liberal' modern states seem unable or unwilling to take such a strong stand.
> So things are not looking good.
> saludos


 Is this a joke or a hidden Putin propaganda, or both? Racism, suppressed in the USSR? Indeed, they have many nice slogans and posters with people of different nations, clinging to each other in a "brotherly" embrace, everyone who was not Russian was a second rate citizen, was ridiculed and discriminated against. In schools, Russian students were seated at the first desks, with darker and darker students following, so the swarthier you were, the further from the teacher you were seated. Russian was the only language acceptable, if you spoke it with mistakes or with an accent, you were declared "stupid" and you were ridiculed. If parents picked up a school for their children, in which the main language of study was not Russian, these children were "stupid". They could not, later on, go study in a university, they were considered, from the beginning, a trade school material. Russian language has an enormous quantity of racial slurs and derogatory names for every nationality that has a bad luck to end in the USSR. Non-Russian people tried to pretend to be Russian desperately, they placed their children in Russian-language schools, changed their names into more Russian sounding, even changed their surnames to sound more Russian. Little "brothers" had to learn Russian, "superior" Russians never demeaned themselves to do it. But, after the "little brothers" learned Russian, and after the "little brothers" were ridiculed and humiliated, Russians liked to exclaim: "But I know a person of N nationality, we get along very well, we are all brothers!" Strangely, they never bothered to learn the language or the culture of them that brothers. 
Russian racism is one of the main thing why, after the USSR was ended, Russians found it so difficult to live in newly formed countries: from the early age, they were taught that Russians were superior to everyone and everything, and they just couldn't force themselves to learn a "lowly" language of their new country. In horror, they shrieked: "But they will force our children to speak N language!" (N- substitute any language of the former republic). They were not afraid of anything, but this. It's as if in ancient Rome some patricians were suddenly forced to learn a language of a German tribe, how disgusting! The superior Russians, learning some "lowly", "bad" languages. Why, they, themselves, call Russian - the best language in the world (automatically reducing all other languages to the second best, third best and so on).
I also thought that blatant propaganda like this was forbidden on this forum.


----------



## merquiades

angea said:


> Is this a joke or a hidden Putin propaganda......



Your comment does not sound objective, just totally rash, over-emotional even, full of sweeping generalizations, and really offensive to Russians.  You are actually trying to stigmatize Russians in the same way you allege they treat others.


----------



## jasio

merquiades said:


> Your comment does not sound objective, just totally rash, over-emotional even, full of sweeping generalizations, and really offensive to Russians.  You are actually trying to stigmatize Russians in the same way you allege they treat others.



'Every generalization is dangerous, even this one'. But other than that - do you consider them the saints? 

Estonia was a part of a Russian empire since 1700 to 1918, and then since 1944. Russians - who are mostly successors of the new immigrants, after WWII, especially military people and their families - do not tend to learn Estonian at all, although it's almost a generation since Estonia became an independent country. They even have separate political parties, other than Estonians.

Latvia - the same story, only the original Russian invasion was later, towards the mid-18th century. 

Lithuania - the same story, only the original  Russian invasion was later, towards the end of 18th century.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan - all similar stories. In all of these countries Russians avoid even learning the local languages.

The only two exceptions (to some extent) I am aware of are Belarus and Ukraine. Both Slavic countries where the spoken languages are somewhat similar to Russian. Belorussians are a nation of mostly peasant origin, so educated people mostly assumed Russian as an "educated" version of their language. Consequently, speaking Belorussian in Belarus sounded like being a 'red-neck'. After a short break in early 90's, when some Belorussians attempted to revive their language as a fully blown modern communications tool, Lukashenko returned to Russian as the official language, and since then speaking Belorussian in certain circumstances can be considered a political demonstration. 

In Ukraine (which is much larger and more populated then Belarus), there is a natural gradient from western dialects very distinct from Russian to the Eastern dialects sounding almost like Russian, yet still in the Eastern regions they speak more Russian than Eastern-Ukrainian. Most of Russian-speaking regions have never accepted liberation of Ukraine, you may find the results in the Internet or TV. BTW - have you heard of Transnistria? It's a part of Moldova along the Eastern banks of the Dniester river. Native Moldovans speak a language similar to Romanian (and sometimes considered a Romanian dialect), yet the Transnistrian population is mainly Russian. They refused to learn Moldovan, refused to accept Moldovan authorities, and even Moldovan passports. 

Of course, there are always people building bridges, but this is a general overview. 

BTW - do you know, how Caucasian people are called in Russian? And I do NOT mean an euphemism for the Whites, but REAL Caucasians from the Caucasus region:  Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Osetians, and many others? They are called 'chorniye', 'Blacks', although typically they only have dark hair and swarthy skin, not really black. And they are really treated as such, including a number of police operations to expel them from Moscow during recent decades. You're an American, aren't you? So perhaps you're familiar with the 'Polish jokes'? Russians also have this kind of jokes, yet they mock up Chukchis - who are closely related to American Inuit nations, living just on the other side of the Bering strait. 

And so forth. If you consider the above 'emotional and biased', just read some relevant articles at least in Wikipedia and good news services.


----------



## Hemza

bernik said:


> _"Can you give me a concrete example of someone being racist against his or her own race? "_
> 
> What you are really defending, not only in this thread but on this forum, is the current policy of massive immigration. I think this is madness. We have the same thing in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia. Countries where the population was until very recently overwhelmingly European. But the governments are in the process of replacing the European population with third-world people. This is an anti-European policy carried out by Europeans (although most people do not agree at all with this policy).
> 
> You would not dream of having a massive European immigration to Third world countries. Why is it OK to have the European population replaced with other people, but not OK to replace other people with Europeans ?
> 
> Also the idea that Europeans are oppressing other people has nothing to do with reality.
> 
> _"I think he (or she??) meant that originally (millions of years ago) blacks covered Africa and whites covered Europe, not that every single black person that is alive today was born in Africa. . . . At least I hope he didn't mean that!"_
> 
> You are being ridiculous.
> 
> PS: and I am not a girl !



Your statement is TYPICALLY the statement of some medias and mostly, of the ignorant people. Sorry to be so rude but your message really made me laugh. I'm from Moroccan origin (and a bit Saudi and Mauritanian) I was born in France, always living in France, travelling a lot in France, proud to have French language and French culture as part of my identity and your comment just show me again how *some* French people will never accept us as FRENCH. I've been called "foreigner" many times although I speak perfect French (native language) with no foreign accent, and my name is almost unknown for many French thus they don't expect me to be originally from North Africa. You're saying that Europeans are being replaced, that's totally bullshit, first, many North African descendants were born in France and know only France, they have no link with their origin country. For some of them, they're here for the 3rd generation (my parents are immigrants). Also, we're not very numerous compared to "native" French people (except if you follow Le Pen or Sarkozy propaganda) .

Why are you comparing Canada, Australia, USA with France? How can you compare those countries with France? Each case is different, also French case isn't the same as the British one, the German one, the Swedish one, etc. Shall I remind you that (no offence to those ones) Europeans who settled in America and Australia ARE also descendants of migrants? Shall I remind you that many French are descendants of Spanish, Portuguese and Italian people? The mayor of Paris is descendant of Spanish as an example. And what do you mean by "European people"? Who do you include in this definition?


----------



## angea

merquiades said:


> Your comment does not sound objective, just totally rash, over-emotional even, full of sweeping generalizations, and really offensive to Russians.  You are actually trying to stigmatize Russians in the same way you allege they treat others.


Allege? Why - allege? Do you have any proof that what I said was just an allegation? Was a "white tram" day an allegation also?  And "churka", "geyropa", "khokly", "chuchmek", "pindosy"? You have a derogatory name for all the creeds and nations on this planet, and you personally use them all the time as well.
You are alleging that racism didn't and does not exist among Russian, when there was and still is a huge propaganda machine, which alleges that Russians and their nation are better than the rest of the world.


----------



## rusita preciosa

angea said:


> And "churka", "geyropa", "khokly", "chuchmek", "pindosy"? You have a derogatory name for all the creeds and nations on this planet, and you personally use them all the time as well.


I do not know what type of English you speak, but here is a nice sampler for you. You persnonally use it all the time. Enjoy! 

Nigger, kike, beaner, abo, boong, paki, wog, brownie, buddhahead, sand nigger, sand monkey, ching chong, tar baby, chink, dago, wetback, dink, gook, frog, guido, gypo, hori, jap, kaffir, raghead, towelhead...


----------



## irinet

Ouch!  This thread is hot! First, I would have asked if racism is a catching disease or a dwarf deeply hidden into our neurons or, why not, even planted somehow?! Second, I wonder how would  the contributors here address to each other if they were face to face?!
And last, I think that it's better let the bells jingle and replay those peaceful and joyful sounds into our restless hearts whenever we feel our psyche invaded!


----------



## Sepia

It is probably a combination of two things: Instinct telling you, you have to belong to some group. And the feeling of being inferiour - so every other group has to be even more inferiour so you can still claim that your group is the best.

I have never met a strong and profoundly selfconfident individual who was neither homophobic nor a racist.


----------



## Bonjules

Sepia said:


> It is probably a combination of two things: Instinct telling you, you have to belong to some group. And the feeling of being inferiour - so every other group has to be even more inferiour so you can still claim that your group is the best.
> 
> I have never met a strong and profoundly selfconfident individual who was neither homophobic nor a racist.



You mean 'either', Sepia?


----------

