|
Racism (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DeviantxPete |
| Woudln't it just be easier to put this in the "gay or asian?" thread? |
|
|
| mndeg |
omg i less than three asiaphiles!!
you don't need to justify who you date ok |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
Excellent thread.
However, I do have to concur with you on the fact that it is our society that blatantly misues the term of "racism". Racism is now preferred to be the excuse to any sort of violent act, and rather than examining the evidence and deciding based on the amount of facts gathered and clearly studying the situation, Americans (along with other countries) are satisfied with throwing the case aside with the label of "act of racism" stamped on the top.
The term of racism is not only misinterpreted based on definition, but based on which ethnicity the racism is being charged against. It is clearly defined that racism pertains to a group of people whom is believed to be inferior to you/your race. It's disturbing to think that it is common belief to think that there is no racism against a white person, simply because many ancestors at one point and time were slave owners. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
so i the end, what should we be calling the acts that we now label racism? Is it just prejudice, discrimination....
you cite a lot of examples of what is not racism, but do not go into what it exactly is. and just like any language over time, definitions change according to usage. So if the more and more english speakers are using racism the way you say it should not be used....you are eventually going to in the wrong.
thats just linguistics though, I am interested in knowing what those acts really are to you. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
so i the end, what should we be calling the acts that we now label racism? Is it just prejudice, discrimination....
you cite a lot of examples of what is not racism, but do not go into what it exactly is. and just like any language over time, definitions change according to usage. So if the more and more english speakers are using racism the way you say it should not be used....you are eventually going to in the wrong.
thats just linguistics though, I am interested in knowing what those acts really are to you. |
Prejudice.
One could call it discrimination as well, but the true meaning of discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. Therefore prejudice is the most accurate term to describe it.
Of course, "prejudice" is considered more of a "weak" term than "racism", which is probably the reason people prefer the latter. It sounds authoritative.
If the meaning of racism is going to change according to usage, then so will its implications; if racism is to encompass a much broader range of behaviour, then its meaning will be equivalently less powerful. In the words of Homer, when Marge said it's the worst thing he's ever done: "You say that so often it's lost all meaning." |
|
|
| djSlain |
USA is full of racism because so many people seperate the ethnicities almost like we are different species with the same body parts. In Brazil, there are no "rio de janerio"-ans or "brasillia"-ins. Everyone is just called brazillians. However, Brazillians are all types of colors. Black, light, brown. They've grown up so close for so long that there is no difference in any person by any pair of eyes. They are all as one: brazillian
unlike, "hispanics" "african americans" "asian-americans"
just say we are americans |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Thanks for all your responses.
| quote: | Originally posted by Iyrlk
Racism isnt just a word anymore. It is a global, moral issue that concerns humanistic values. Dictionary definitions are not applicable anymore on courts and modern life when it comes to words like racism.
|
Dictionary definitions are all we have. If we abandon an objective standard for classifying something as "racist" or "not racist" then the term completely loses all meaning.
If, in fact, the statement "In a more extreme example, possessing a sense of hatred against a particular racial group is not racist" is an opinion as you claim, then it can't be evaluated for truth or false, nor classified as "good" or "bad." It's just an opinion. If all classifications of racism are opinions, then the the statements "eating chinese food is racist" and "believing all chinese people are inferior is racist" are opinions as well - which means that one is no more true than the other. Is that really how we should be discussing issues of race and ethnicity? I don't think so, nor do I see how anyone who is genuinely interested in solving racial issues could think so.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Edit: Now that I think of it, this has been a very common and very successful tactic for agenda groups like multiculturalists and feminists, hasn't it? Take a word that in the past could only refer to something grossly unacceptable (like racism, or sexual harassment), twist its meaning to refer to just about anything against your agenda, and force the new meaning into people's heads so hard that they start to forget what it used to mean, and they now consider everything against your agenda to be equally unacceptable. Interesting political strategy - who wants to form a new lobby group?
|
It does seem to be a tactic which has both increased in prevalence and proven quite successful in the last few decades particularly. Besides terms like "racism" it is also beginning to be used with regards to "terrorism" as you've no doubt seen in the politics forum. It's probably accurate to classify this tactic as a form of equivocation.
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
so i the end, what should we be calling the acts that we now label racism? Is it just prejudice, discrimination....
you cite a lot of examples of what is not racism, but do not go into what it exactly is. and just like any language over time, definitions change according to usage. So if the more and more english speakers are using racism the way you say it should not be used....you are eventually going to in the wrong.
thats just linguistics though, I am interested in knowing what those acts really are to you.
|
I would probably agree with DigiNut that "prejudice" is the most accurate term to describe what is commonly referred to as "racism."
Although words can and do evolve in their meaning over time, it can be dangerous to ignore the fact that they are doing so in some situations, and I think this is one of them. If we are going to redefine racism, then we have to re-evaluate how society looks at racism (since we are no longer referring to the original set of beliefs). This is especially important if we are going to expand the definition of racism to encompass mere opinions. If all one has to do to be considered racist is hold certain opinions, then we cannot say that racism is "wrong" since opinions cannot be "right" or "wrong."
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
USA is full of racism because so many people seperate the ethnicities almost like we are different species with the same body parts. In Brazil, there are no "rio de janerio"-ans or "brasillia"-ins. Everyone is just called brazillians. However, Brazillians are all types of colors. Black, light, brown. They've grown up so close for so long that there is no difference in any person by any pair of eyes. They are all as one: brazillian
unlike, "hispanics" "african americans" "asian-americans"
just say we are americans
|
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, the multiculturalist agenda has exacerbated this problem under the guise of promoting cultural, racial, and ethnic tolerance. Because multiculturalism places such a tremendous emphasis on diversity, it prevents the sort of unity which would allow us to think of ourselves as simply "Americans."
Cheers,
Arbiter |
|
|
| Omegasox |
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
USA is full of racism because so many people seperate the ethnicities almost like we are different species with the same body parts. In Brazil, there are no "rio de janerio"-ans or "brasillia"-ins. Everyone is just called brazillians. However, Brazillians are all types of colors. Black, light, brown. They've grown up so close for so long that there is no difference in any person by any pair of eyes. They are all as one: brazillian
unlike, "hispanics" "african americans" "asian-americans"
just say we are americans |
I have to disagree with you. There is racism within those who are colored but of the same "race", although not necessarily in Brazil even though I'm not sure how you would know there isn't any form of racism there. That's a pretty broad generalization. It would be nice to hear Maaz's objectivity on this.
I've seen first hand a group of African Americans who hate light colored African Americans more than white people themselves. They feel they are superior because they are of a darker shade and thus have not been tainted by any European blood. This allows them to claim they are closer in bloodline to their ancestors from Africa. |
|
|
| Iyrlk |
| quote: | | Arbiter, as always you've hit the nail on the head, but I fear that the people who should be reading your post the most closely are the same people who will either skim it and shrug their shoulders or not read it at all. They are the victims of a sick society indoctrinated with the ridiculous notion of "equality for all", and any inequality whatsoever is what they consider to be racism. One of them even went so far to say that dictionary definitions are irrelevant. It just goes to show how people have not only twisted this word to such an extent that it's become meaningless, but also accepted the new term as part of their everyday vernacular. |
i feel that this was directed to me and i must clarify some things. i have read arbiter's post pretty thoroughly and just argued a counterstatement(s) to it. To assume oppositions against opinions as not having read the post closely is disrespectful and even detestable. I do not think the equality for all is a ridiculous notion at all. I am as pessimistic about human nature and the way that this world runs as any sensible person. I do not believe in perfection, or in ABSOLUTE equality for all. However, just discarding the issue of racism because you think "equality for all" is a "ridiculous notion" is an even more poor attempt to deal with the problems and situation. I have never stated that "any inequality whatsoever is what they consider to be racism." You have just assumed and carried on to say things like this on grounds of your own words, not mine. Why are you being a hypocrite by saying that "I fear that the people who should be reading your post the most closely are the same people who will either skim it and shrug their shoulders or not read it at all." and YOU yourself isnt even reading posts correctly. I have stated that the dictionary's definition in current world does not apply as well as before anymore and must be redefined. Positive or not, racism is a word used often in many kinds of situations. Like the posts before, some people just use racism whenever and wherever they feel inferior in any way. I was never stating those kinds of situations. I see Arbiter meant that sometimes it is used in a wrong way and people just forgot about the real meaning. But I took his words as generally people do this. And i completely disagree with that. Diginut, you have concentrated more on flaming and carrying your opposition against me than making a point. My final thing for you would be no more than this: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omegasox
I have to disagree with you. There is racism within those who are colored but of the same "race", although not necessarily in Brazil even though I'm not sure how you would know there isn't any form of racism there. That's a pretty broad generalization. It would be nice to hear Maaz's objectivity on this. |
w00t, I've been invoked :D I shall be serious for a while now :)
Yes, there is racism here, but it's different from what you guys are used to. First of all, it's true that we're all mixed-blooded by now. I, under Brazilian standards, am considered white, whereas my own father is not (here's a somewhat bizarre picture in which you can compare our skin colours). This fact alone shows how subjective the distinction between ethnic groups are here. I remember reading an article that said White Brazilians have 30% of african blood and 6% of Native American blood in them. Afro-Brazilians have 46% of European blood and 6% of Native American blood in them. I don't believe it would happen the same way in the US (would it?). Not to mention that our definition of ethnic groups is a lot broader: both European and Arab people are considered white, for example (unless we're talking about very tanned Saudis :p).
Despite of the famous Brazilian miscigenation (which most of us are proud of, by the way), we still have some prejudice due to social factors. When african slaves slowly acquired their freedom, they were in worse economical conditions compared to European blooded people. Also, when more European immigrants came (specially to Southern parts) these new comers raised the amount of "rich white people". Even though there was an impressive social mobility, the socio-economical situation of people with lighter skin is usually better than those who look more African. This is slowly changing, but the fake image of "white superiority over the black masses" somehow remains hidden (but active): white people do the intelectual work, black people get their hands dirty (reason why jobs done outdoors are under-rated in our culture). See our football players: most of them have darker skin.
It's very complicated to talk about racism here in Brazil as it's a very subtle and it's slowly disappearing, in my opinion, despite of some iniciatives (like a recent policy of affirmative action in the university I study) that only make racism become more present. In fact, I'd say that most racism present now is so hidden (and uncounscious) that we can't notice it anymore, specially in cities with a higher percentage of afro-descendents: Salvador, São Luís and Rio de Janeiro (but in Rio you can notice that darker people usually live in the slams). If I were to explain everything, this post would be too huge, taking too much of your time :)
As for Asians, they're at most 2% of our population, distributed in cities like Belém, São Paulo, Curitiba, Brasília and Londrina. Although there's some racism towards (and from) them, the younger generations are a lot more tolerant, because the nuclei they live in is slowy become less stronger due to the opportunities of better life conditions amongst the rest of us.
I hope my post isn't too confusing :p |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Dictionary definitions are all we have. If we abandon an objective standard for classifying something as "racist" or "not racist" then the term completely loses all meaning.
|
I'm a little bit confused here, Arbiter. If you claim that we must abide by an objective source, how can you also claim that its given definition (albeit a secondary one) is incorrect? Whether or not definitions should be updated to reflect their use in society is a question we must necessarily leave to those whom we trust to compile our objective source (viz., the editors of Merriam-Webster). Once they have made their choice, we must accept it, whether or not we believe it has an apocryphal etymology.
To be perfectly honest, I consider myself a very well-read and well-educated individual, and yet I cannot say that I have ever heard an objection to this second use. Although I, too, am a champion of using words in their "societally unadulterated" forms, in this case I cannot yet accept the sole validity of the first definition. Perhaps more research is in order on my part.
On another note, although it's scientifically accepted that there is no genetic basis for race, there is certainly a genetic basis for skin color and other attributes. This does give rise to statistics that leave room for racism--for example, that African-Americans have a considerably higher risk of sickle-cell anemia. As long as there are genetic predipositions in groups that we can visually identify, there will unfortunately be room for racism.
Finally (to whoever brought this up), "sexism" is a different word. It's primary definition is "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women." This brings up another issue: the word "gender" is inappropriate here, as "gender" is NOT a synonym for "sex." But we'll save that for another day. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Iyrlk
i feel that this was directed to me and i must clarify some things. i have read arbiter's post pretty thoroughly and just argued a counterstatement(s) to it. To assume oppositions against opinions as not having read the post closely is disrespectful and even detestable. I do not think the equality for all is a ridiculous notion at all. I am as pessimistic about human nature and the way that this world runs as any sensible person. I do not believe in perfection, or in ABSOLUTE equality for all. However, just discarding the issue of racism because you think "equality for all" is a "ridiculous notion" is an even more poor attempt to deal with the problems and situation. I have never stated that "any inequality whatsoever is what they consider to be racism." You have just assumed and carried on to say things like this on grounds of your own words, not mine. Why are you being a hypocrite by saying that "I fear that the people who should be reading your post the most closely are the same people who will either skim it and shrug their shoulders or not read it at all." and YOU yourself isnt even reading posts correctly. I have stated that the dictionary's definition in current world does not apply as well as before anymore and must be redefined. Positive or not, racism is a word used often in many kinds of situations. Like the posts before, some people just use racism whenever and wherever they feel inferior in any way. I was never stating those kinds of situations. I see Arbiter meant that sometimes it is used in a wrong way and people just forgot about the real meaning. But I took his words as generally people do this. And i completely disagree with that. Diginut, you have concentrated more on flaming and carrying your opposition against me than making a point. My final thing for you would be no more than this: :rolleyes: |
It was not directed at you in any way whatsoever.
Good luck on your paper that you said you were going to write though, if you have a logical, factual way to refute the original post then go for it, I'm sure we'd all very much appreciating hearing the other side of the story as long as it's presented rationally. |
|
|
|
|
