Racial insinuation?

[jayel]

It's great that you personally haven't experienced racism. Lucky you! That doesn't mean society isn't all that racist anymore. Have you followed any of the dialogue over the Dem nomination? Have you heard of the Jena 6 at all?

I live in freaking Louisiana, so yes I've heard of the Jena 6. Again, I think it mainly stems from backlash.

And I think it is truly obnoxious to assume that you can determine other people's cultures and "unique heritages" based on physical racial clues.

Just assume I know he's Mexican for a fact. This is an example of you twisting my statement and grabbing at straws to make some sort of argument.

I can act like I am the Governor of Delaware, doesn't mean I am.

No one's been able to tell me the important difference between acting like a racist and being one, so I'm not worried about this argument anymore.

If justice should be blind, why not society?

Justice is blind in that we're all treated the same, not that we don't notice each others differences. Which is what I've been saying is okay all along.

Sometimes, it not just about being right, it's about making an effort to get along.

I get along pretty well with most people. But I, knowing in my heart I am not a racist, am not going to walk around on my tippy toes and worrying about how every little thing I say may be miconstrued. If I say something you take as racism, it's your problem, not mine, because I will know that's not how I meant it.

[jayel]

I'm done dealing with someone who is flailing about desperately trying not to get the point. If he demonstrates a desire for honest debate, then yea, I might respond to him again. But looks to me like he's just going to keep going with the double standards and hypocrisy, so he's not worth my time.

Yeah, I think we've made our points very clearly and now they're trying to twist every possible scenario into a pretzel. The important points have been made and I think they stand. So yeah, there's not much more we can say here. It's been fun though!

[Zyanya]

Yeah, I think we've made our points very clearly and now they're trying to twist every possible scenario into a pretzel. The important points have been made and I think they stand. So yeah, there's not much more we can say here. It's been fun though!

Well, there is one more thing they've neglected to think about.

Sometimes, noticing 'race' is a good thing, especially as it pertains to culture.

As an example, let's say people from the island of Krakow have a tendency towards some particular physical traits. They also find it deeply offensive when someone offers to shake hands, apparently in their culture the same gesture used to offer to shake hands is part of their sign language for 'your mother sucks elephant dick'.

So someone with the particular physical traits of someone from the island of Krakow comes into your place of business and you must greet them. You notice the traits, and keep your hands at your sides instead of reaching out to shake hands.


No racism, simple politeness, but a couple in this thread would find your actions offensive.


No matter. They'll refuse to get this point too. Probably imply I'm a racist for using an elephant in my example or something. Or swear up and down 'but that's different' without ever covering WHY it's different.

I suppose I could have used the real-life examples of left hand vs right hand, soles of the feet, pointing with the wrong finger, etc...

[ebonyknight]

I can always tell that a debate is on it's way over, and the opposition has no more points to make, when they start arguing semantics and nit picking over every small wording issue.

Give me a break. Zyan said I called them racist and that was the entire basis for Zyan's getting bent out of shape. I never did, they couldn't quote me and you acknowledged that.

When you tell someone that their actions are indicative of an inherently racist society, that implies to me that you are saying they have racist tendencies, thus acting like a racist. Not a hard pattern to follow.

There was nothing to imply since I had stated earlier on three occasions (twice to you, ironically) that I don't believe that an individual doing this was based on racism, but is because of institutional racism. Despite that disclaimer if you want to put words in my mouth..... *shrug*

But I did notice you responded to everything except.

Anriana, beat me to it. How do you know that someone is African or Asian? My wife is mistaken for being Hispanic ALL the time. Doesn't mean it's correct. If you call an Indian a Pakistani or vice versa, they WILL get offended. I had a friend in grade school who's mom was white and dad was black. His hair was straight as can be, and looked white, except his skin was quite dark. I am sure no one thought twice about thinking he is Arabic, yet he was neither.

And these days, you call someone Arabic who isn't, you are going to piss someone off. Hell, if you call a Persian an Arab, you might start a fight. So just because it's no big deal to you, doesn't mean it means nothing to everyone else.

I remember on this very board I referred to a mod as he, instead of she and someone took minor offense to it. Did I think it was a big deal, no. But I understood how it could be taken offensively and understood their position. I apologized and corrected myself. Sometimes, it not just about being right, it's about making an effort to get along.

Do you not acknowledge that referring to people's race can be offensive?

[anriana]

Do you not acknowledge that referring to people's race can be offensive?

I guess that person vaguely did by saying anyone who finds it offensive should deal with it, as it is their problem, not his/hers.

[ebonyknight]

I guess that person vaguely did by saying anyone who finds it offensive should deal with it, as it is their problem, not his/hers.

I guess getting along is a one-way street.

[Slytovhand]

Sheesh!! What's gone on here???

From the OP... If Hat had said 'Indian', when the guy (uh-oh... sexist slur ) was actually Pakistani or Bangladeshi, or Fijian... then I see that there's an issue. (for the record, Australia, and Edible_Hat is in Adelaide, South Australia) has a large Indian population... these days a lot of immigrants come over to do Master's Degrees - usually accounting these days (so I was told by one of my Indian mates at the last job I was at - "If you see an Indian student, they're probably doing accounting - IT has been overdone now").

Skin colour does not equate to race... just a technicality - which would also technically mean that describing someone as 'black' isn't racist. I work with a Kenyan, and he doesn't find it offensive to be called 'black' (depending on the usage). I'm 'white' - unless I'm sunburnt... or envious in which case I'm green... or sad, in which case I'm blue.... I often find the one's calling on the 'race card' (doesn't happen a lot over here...) are trying to defend other people - not themselves. Black people call themselves 'black' - white people call themselves 'white'.

If in a different country (say if I go to Kenya), I'll be a 'white' guy to some people, and a 'black' guy to others... that's because a of numerical difference in the population.

'Justice is blind'... ummm - if the police are looking for someone, the description will be - sexist, racist, ageist, heightist, weightist and fashionist.... eg female caucasian, approx 30-35 years old, 5'6" tall, medium build, wearing pink trackies....

(couldn't be bothered going back a page - so I'll use this quote)..

Do you not acknowledge that referring to people's race can be offensive?

I'm thinking... getting a person's race or nationality wrong would be offensive... otherwise it may well be taken as showing interest.


Back to the argument... EK and Boozy... I'll go with Zyan and J with part of this - I don't see much of a difference between 'racist' and 'product of a racist (or institutionalised) environment'... I haven't seen any specifics that show that difference. And thus, when Zyan commented on EK's 'content to call someone racist', she was referring to not seeing a distinction here either. So... please explain... in detail.

I guess getting along is a one-way street.

Sometimes... yes. Well - in as much as sometimes people want to make something into an issue. Just look at all the CS posts about some idiot trying to use a 'race card' for the most ridiculous things. Out of curiosity... if someone is referring to me using a generic term, and I'm not offended by it, but someone else takes offense... what's the go there? And vice-versa? If I say "All Aussies are great"... (which they are, btw.. - well, maybe not all)...), is that racist as well?

(getting a little OT here - aren't we?)


Slyt

[Boozy]

Back to the argument... EK and Boozy... I'll go with Zyan and J with part of this - I don't see much of a difference between 'racist' and 'product of a racist (or institutionalised) environment'...

All right. Despite my better judgment, I'll give this one more try:

Institutional racism can be defined as a group of societal patterns that have the net effect of creating negative conditions for a certain racial or ethnic group. It differs greatly from individual racism in it's intent; institutional racism is more of a product of inertia than malice.

The US has made great strides in solving the problems of individual racism, but institutional racism still exists. Non-racists living in America adhere to societal norms because they are forced to; it is so ingrained that minorities themselves adhere to these norms.

A good example of this can be seen in police forces: Black officers have been shown to be every bit as likely to "racially profile" blacks as their white counterparts. Of course, it would be ludicrous to draw the conclusion that blacks are actively and personally prejudiced against their own race. It is institutional racism we see at work here.

Institutional racism is not well understood by the general public, a fact that civil rights leaders are well aware of. Martin Luther King's writings were almost entirely focussed on institutional racism, a fact which is often overlooked.

[jayel]

... the same gesture used to offer to shake hands is part of their sign language for 'your mother sucks elephant dick'.

Lmao. Thanks, I needed that bit of levity.

[Slytovhand]

All right. Despite my better judgment, I'll give this one more try:

Good version of 'despite better judgement'... clears up things a lot for me

Now... as to the results of that... I still don't see that identifying a person by their most obvious characteristic as inherently 'racist'. It isn't saying anything about the person except their skin colour...

I am thinking that the 'institutionalised racism' as described here is the precursor to the debate on here... if it's not malice in intent, then is it still 'racism' if it's not actually stereotyping? (which the OP wasn't). There is absolutely no judgement calls being made on the individuals when a 'descriptor' is used... only if it is being used as a 'prescriptor'.

[DesignFox]

I think myself, zyanya and jayel were all making the point that just because we mention the color of someone's skin doesn't mean we're making judgements about that person.

ok?

And yes, I've heard of the Jena 6 and that's the biggest bunch of BS I've had to read about. I'm glad the racial tensions aren't as high in my area as they are in Louisiana. (and I guess we could make another thread about that, if anyone wanted to de-rail this one)

Yes, I can understand that someone may be upset if you incorrectly label their culture, but I would think that adults could use the opportunity to talk to one another and get a better understanding of their cultural differences rather than having a fist fight over it. I guess I'm an idealist.

For those who are offended by the term "Indian" or "Pakistani" we can use the terms "South Asian" and "Middle Eastern."



For the love of Pete.

[Boozy]

There is absolutely no judgement calls being made on the individuals when a 'descriptor' is used... only if it is being used as a 'prescriptor'.

Which is why both ebonyknight and I agree that calling an Indian guy "Indian" is not necessarily malicious or judgmental, and therefore not racist in the colloquial meaning of the term. Here's a quote from EK:

I did not find the OP offensive at all....
While I don't find the use of racial descriptors racially malicious, they are indeed an indicative sign of institutional racism.

Institutional racism is a difficult concept to grasp for many of us, which is partly why its discussion has been relegated to academic circles instead of taking its rightful place in public discourse. The word "racism" is so loaded that it can be difficult to discuss these concepts openly without one or both parties thinking they are being called names.

I think myself, zyanya and jayel were all making the point that just because we mention the color of someone's skin doesn't mean we're making judgements about that person.

I have never asserted otherwise.

[DesignFox]

I have never asserted otherwise.

Thank you. I didn't think you did Boozy.

I am interested in hearing more about this institutional racism idea, though.

Any rate, saying someone is a product of racism because they recognize that there are differences in skin color sounds a lot like saying the person is racist and they just can't help it...because that's the way society is.

I disagree that it's racist to see color. I think it IS racist to form your opinions about the person based on the color of their skin.

I disagree that seeing color is necessarily the product of a racist society. Attitudes formed about those differences are slowly changing- attitudes born of former racist ideas.

[anriana]

Yes, I can understand that someone may be upset if you incorrectly label their culture, but I would think that adults could use the opportunity to talk to one another and get a better understanding of their cultural differences rather than having a fist fight over it. I guess I'm an idealist.

So if you had people coming up to you ever day and mislabeling your culture, you'd take the time to calmly and rationally talk about your actual heritage to every single one of them? I don't know if you meant that to be condescending or not, but you seem to be implying that anyone who gets upset over anything as silly as this is being excessively immature, and having seen first-hand a fraction of the things my partner deals with, I find that offensive.

[Pedersen]

So if you had people coming up to you ever day and mislabeling your culture, you'd take the time to calmly and rationally talk about your actual heritage to every single one of them?

Slight derailment: Look at my handle. That is my real life last name.

Now, close your eyes and spell it.

If you're like most people, you spelled it in one of a few ways: Peterson, Petersen, Pederson, or Penderson.

Not one of those spellings is correct. Pretty much every day, I see someone spell it wrong.

I now have two choices: I can say something to every one of them. Or I can just acknowledge that they are trying to spell it, don't even know they've spelled it wrong, and would be somewhat embarrassed to learn that they were wrong. To do that second option, I just have to grin and bear it.

Which option do you think I take? And why? Because it's not worth the aggravation to me to try to force everybody to get it right.

I know, I know, it's not the same, not everybody sees my last name, yadda yadda yadda. Maybe you'll still get the point of my having told you about this.

Returning you to your regularly scheduled thread.