# Is the term "racism" being stretched too far, applied to too many things?



## Bullgrit (Jul 14, 2015)

As the title says: Is the term "racism" being stretched too far, being applied to too many things, nowadays?

Is wearing a cultural costume for a photo, racism? Can an African man wear lederhosen while holding a stein of beer for a photo without being racist? Can a Swedish woman wear a kimono while holding an umbrella for a photo without being racist? Can a Japanese man and woman dress as Rhett and Scarlet for a costume party without being racist?

Is identifying a person by their race, (as one would identify a person by their shirt color, their long/short hair, etc.), racism?* 

Can one be an "accidental racist"? 

Is racism strictly a white person offense? (See African man in lederhosen example, above.)

* An example of what I mean: Black and White Difference blog post NOTE: I really don't want this discussion to be about this particular blog post. I'm only offering it here as an example of what I'm meaning by "identifying a person by their race."

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2015)

> Is racism strictly a white person offense?




Oh HELL no!

Every race has its racists...some of whom even hate their own kind.



> Can one be an "accidental racist"?




Most certainly!


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 14, 2015)

Oddly enough a friend of mine posted pictures of himself in full Bavarian Oktoberfest tracht last year, while he was in Germany. He's also black. I would refer to it as more comical than racist.

The term racist is not only overused, but generally improperly used. The appropriate term is generally "bigot." Given that the classic concept of race is also going the way of the dodo, the term racist should probably be retired too.

Identifying someone by their 'race' can be an effective shorthand for certain physical attributes, when used appropriately, without being 'racist.' It can also be very vague and there are times when it's meaningless. For example me identifying my friend in lederhosen as black only really has meaning in the context of this thread. I would otherwise just refer to him as "Franz." (Yes, the black guy who posted pictures of himself in full Oktoberfest regalia has a Germanic name)

No, I don't think that you can be an 'accidental' racist. You could be an obtuse racist. Thick. Very un-self aware.

I've experienced bigotry as a Caucasian. I've seen racism by one 'non white' group against a member of another 'non white' group. People make value judgments. Sometimes those judgments are based on bigotry.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 14, 2015)

The thing that seems odd to me is that there seems to be a big move among some progressive types to say that you cannot call something racism unless their is systemic power involved, which leads them to the conclusion that in the Canada, the US, and the like, mostly only white people can be "racist" , unless someone else is perhaps talking about aboriginals. 

While I understand this point completely, the fact is that it runs contrary the how the _vast majority_ of white people use the term "racism" . In language, usage is supposedly king. And there is another strain in progressive thought that suggests we should be cool with the diversification of language, as that which leads to dialects; that we should consider a lingo like Ebonix as a legitimate dialect of English and not something to be ironed out of people. Yet I can easily believe those same people that would encourage that sort of thing would then turn around and get all bent out of shape by the most people will use the term "racism" to not just mean "systemic oppression" but also common prejudice and bigotry of all sorts.

To answer some of your questions though, I am not sure if it is becoming too widely used a term in general. And you can totally be an accidental racist. That is why they call it "ignorance" . Whether all cultural appropriation counts as racism is a little dicey, I suppose. Particularly as what exactly counts as appropriation is kind of confusing, at least to me. If you look at some of the debates around cultural appropriation in popular music, I am not sure what makes something count as appropriation instead of exchange when it has been sold commercially for decades to a wide audience.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 14, 2015)

In some ways, maybe it's not being stretched enough. There are elements of nationalistic prejudice or stereotype which very closely mimic racism but are based on citizenship rather than ethnicity.



Bullgrit said:


> Can a Japanese man and woman dress as Rhett and Scarlet for a costume party without being racist?




That one is easy.  You can dress as any specific character without being racist.  I can dress as Blade; Dannyalcatraz can dress as Robin Hood.  Changing your skin colour for it is not OK, of course.

I can't dress as "a black guy" and he can't dress as "a white guy".  A Japanese person can't dress as "a white person", but they can dress as Rhett and Scarlet.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

On accidental racism: Isn't racism the belief/stance that one race (usually one's own) is superior, or that another race is inferior? So I don't see how a person can accidentally believe something. 

I've heard people point out accidental racism, and it always struck me as so very odd.

On seeing a guy acting suspicious around his friend's bicycle: "Hey, dude, that guy is checking out your unlocked bike. He might be thinking of stealing it."

If the guy is white, well, "Thanks for the warning. I'll keep my eye on him."

If the guy is black, well, "Hey, that's racist." I've seen this kind of thing pointed out as "accidental racism."



> I can't dress as "a black guy" and he can't dress as "a white guy". A Japanese person can't dress as "a white person", but they can dress as Rhett and Scarlet.



I meant to say "dressed in antebellum attire" because I was trying to pick something definitely "white," but then I balked and went with specific characters. (Not that anyone would recognize those two specific characters without being told.) And what about the other two examples in that paragraph?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> No, I don't think that you can be an 'accidental' racist. You could be an obtuse racist. Thick. Very un-self aware.




[video=youtube;j1Rl65upsqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Rl65upsqE&sns=em[/video]

I think this lady genuinely didn't know what she was saying when she used a racist epithet- her co-anchor vouched for her.

I posted an INCREDIBLY bigoted post here a few years ago, completely by accident.  I was trying to make a point about Islamic extremism...but in my haste to post before running an errand, I left out the important qualifiers like "extremism".  IOW, I called _every Muslim in the world _a terrorist, which was not my intent, and in no way describes my mindset.

By the time I got home a few hours later, I found I had gotten a 3 day ban, and appropriately so, even though the event was completely accidental.  The mods- I believe it was Umbran who actually swung the hammer- had no way of reading my mind.  As far as anyone could see, I was a Grade A bigot.



> On accidental racism: Isn't racism the belief/stance that one race (usually one's own) is superior, or that another race is inferior? So I don't see how a person can accidentally believe something.




As you can probably guess from my examples, I think that "accidental racism" can be as simple as using language, expressing an idea or behaving in a way that is racist without realizing it.

Are teachers being intentionally racist when they disproportionally call on white kids more than black kids?  Or punish blacks more than whites?  I don't think so, but it happens.  A LOT.  It's called implicit bias, and blacks do it too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/black-students-punished_n_7449538.html


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think this lady genuinely didn't know what she was saying when she used a racist epithet- her co-anchor vouched for her.




Is she a racist if she didn't have a clue what the word meant, or does she just have room for rent in the penthouse? I would say the latter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Is she a racist if she didn't have a clue what the word meant, or does she just have room for rent in the penthouse? I would say the latter.



I think she simply used a word that she didn't know the meaning of, I don't think she was (otherwise) stupid.

She had probably heard someone else use the word in context- since she DID use it in a common manner- but without understanding that the speaker meant the context to be offensive.

Because- let's face it- if you had no idea of the word's meaning, it sounds too...funny...to be hateful.  Absent its history, it sounds like something you might find in a kid's book.  Or possibly as a Pokemon character, alongside Jigglypuff & Pikachu.

"I choose YOU, __________!"

(Try it, it sounds hi_lar_ious.)


----------



## Dioltach (Jul 15, 2015)

A couple of random thoughts -- I slept badly and my mind is a bit too fuzzy to make a structured argument:

I find that my acquaintances of Asian descent tend to be quite racist toward black people. Note that I'm only talking about people I know myself, not Asian people in general.

I used to frequent rugby discussion forums. The Welsh fans in particular had a tendency to accuse the English fans of racism. I know that in the rugby community England and its fans are generally labelled "arrogant", but the Welsh fans would take any expression of confidence from an English fan (a "Saes") as "racism" toward the "Celts".

A few months ago Benedict Cumberbatch was accused of being racist when he used the expression "people of colour". A while ago that was considered a very neutral term, but things have changed and BC hadn't realised. Does that make him racist, even accidentally?


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 15, 2015)

I've got no problem with extending the concept of Racism to include prejudice and bigotry towards a persons Ancestral Origins, Ethnicity, Melanin levels, Nationality and even Culture, trying to argue that the word is being wrongly applied 'because race doesn't exist' avoids the issue that prejudice does exist and in many cultures has become ingrained.

Thats why I don't think accidental racism is a thing. Ignorance is no excuse for actions and statements that whilst appearing innocent are in fact based in segregation of the "Other". There was an incident a few years back of an American Athlete who was specifically described as a "Black American Woman Runner" when she won. The question was why describe her "Blackness" as being in anyway connected to her winning a Running race.

Thats different though to the Guy wearing Lederhosen which is probably innocent, but a bit iffy in the case of the Swede in a Kimono - especially if its one of those short sexy Kimonos Not that I'm going to call out what a person wears unless it is completely offensive


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

> A few months ago Benedict Cumberbatch was accused of being racist when he used the expression "people of colour". A while ago that was considered a very neutral term, but things have changed and BC hadn't realised. Does that make him racist, even accidentally?




Hm.  News to me.

But the thing is, language evolves, and in this area, it has been evolving very quickly, and not everyone gets the memo...or even agrees with it.  You may have noticed I refer to myself as "black"- I never liked the term "African-American."  I won't use it, and I often (gently) correct others who call me that.  The only time I'm "African-American" is when I'm checking boxes on state or institutional documents, and don't have a choice.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 15, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> I've got no problem with extending the concept of Racism to include prejudice and bigotry towards a persons Ancestral Origins, Ethnicity, Melanin levels, Nationality and even Culture, trying to argue that the word is being wrongly applied 'because race doesn't exist' avoids the issue that prejudice does exist and in many cultures has become ingrained.
> 
> Thats why I don't think accidental racism is a thing. Ignorance is no excuse for actions and statements that whilst appearing innocent are in fact based in segregation of the "Other". There was an incident a few years back of an American Athlete who was specifically described as a "Black American Woman Runner" when she won. The question was why describe her "Blackness" as being in anyway connected to her winning a Running race.
> 
> Thats different though to the Guy wearing Lederhosen which is probably innocent, but a bit iffy in the case of the Swede in a Kimono - especially if its one of those short sexy Kimonos Not that I'm going to call out what a person wears unless it is completely offensive




Hardly, when in the same quote I pointed out that the term "bigotry" is more often the correct one to use.


----------



## JWO (Jul 15, 2015)

It's probably worth me mentioning that I'm a white guy in the UK so my experiences and opinions are seen through that lens.



Dioltach said:


> A few months ago Benedict Cumberbatch was accused of being racist when he used the expression "people of colour". A while ago that was considered a very neutral term, but things have changed and BC hadn't realised. Does that make him racist, even accidentally?




He actually said 'coloured people' rather than 'people of colour'. As I understand it, 'people of colour' is currently the accepted term for anyone who isn't white, whereas 'coloured people' is a definite (and obvious) no-no. His slip up was an incidence of racism (even inadvertently), but he learned from it, apologised (seemingly genuinely) and moved on. It seemed like everyone was happy about what had happened but then you got the usual anti-PC brigade squawkers coming out and complaining about how he was being censored. I'm so over those guys!

I actually do subscribe to the idea that there has to have some kind of systemic power balance involved for something to be considered racism (see also, sexism). As someone further up the thread mentioned, language evolves and we have a better understanding nowadays of the fact that there are inherent power balances in the world that unfairly benefit certain groups of people (white people) at the expense of others (everyone else). The word has to take this into account.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I meant to say "dressed in antebellum attire" because I was trying to pick something definitely "white," but then I balked and went with specific characters. (Not that anyone would recognize those two specific characters without being told.) And what about the other two examples in that paragraph?
> 
> Bullgrit




You're talking nationality rather than ethnicity? There are black Germans, of course, and - albeit a very small number - white Japanese people.


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

JWO said:


> It's probably worth me mentioning that I'm a white guy in the UK so my experiences and opinions are seen through that lens.
> 
> 
> 
> He actually said 'coloured people' rather than 'people of colour'. As I understand it, 'people of colour' is currently the accepted term for anyone who isn't white, whereas 'coloured people' is a definite (and obvious) no-no. His slip up was an incidence of racism (even inadvertently), but he learned from it, apologised (seemingly genuinely) and moved on. It seemed like everyone was happy about what had happened but then you got the usual anti-PC brigade squawkers coming out and complaining about how he was being censored. I'm so over those guys!




Hang on, what exactly is the difference between "colored people" and "people of color" besides the word "of" as a separator and the order of two words?

To get offended by a variation of speech using simple words is ridiculous.  Obviously, there could be some rearrangement of words that changes the meaning, but it's pretty obvious both variations means "people who aren't white"

This strikes me more as Outragism.  If he's not being mean to not-white people, not trying to use a recognized offensive term, this should not have been an issue.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> Hang on, what exactly is the difference between "colored people" and "people of color" besides the word "of" as a separator and the order of two words?
> 
> To get offended by a variation of speech using simple words is ridiculous.  Obviously, there could be some rearrangement of words that changes the meaning, but it's pretty obvious both variations means "people who aren't white"
> 
> This strikes me more as Outragism.  If he's not being mean to not-white people, not trying to use a recognized offensive term, this should not have been an issue.




"People of colour" emphasises that they are people first of whom their colour is an incidental feature, whereas "Coloured people" presents the non-white colour as an identifying label as one would with "French people" or "Chinese people" or "Stupid people". 

Its the same reason why "People with disabilities" is preferred to "Disabled People"


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

> I think she simply used a word that she didn't know the meaning of, I don't think she was (otherwise) stupid.
> 
> She had probably heard someone else use the word in context- since she DID use it in a common manner- but without understanding that the speaker meant the context to be offensive.



She probably thought she did know the meaning of the word because she had heard it used in a context that suggested to her, "a cacophony of varied overwhelming sounds." I mean, look at her hand gestures and how she was saying that Lady Gaga's voice is usually drowned out by her usual accompanying music.

I'm sure we've all learned a new word by hearing it used, only to later find out, oops, we didn't actually understand the word as we thought.

The "person of color" vs. "colored person" thing -- really, how can one be acceptable and the other be offensive? They are the same thing. Even the NAACP uses "colored person".

These are things that I don't see how they can be called racism. A verbal mistake, an embarrassing error, sure. But *racism*? That's like calling eating a burger, "murder." When you apply a serious word to a minor gaff, you weaken the serious word. You make it silly.

I sometimes wonder:
Are some folks trying to make racism seem more prevalent by identifying so much little stuff as racist.
or
Are some folks trying to make racism seem overblown by identifying so much little stuff as racist.

I think this world would be a lot happier if we only took offense when someone actually intended offense.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> "People of colour" emphasises that they are people first of whom their colour is an incidental feature, whereas "Coloured people" presents the non-white colour as an identifying label as one would with "French people" or "Chinese people" or "Stupid people".
> 
> Its the same reason why "People with disabilities" is preferred to "Disabled People"




I would bet only half of the human population parses meaning from language so finely.  This kind of linguistic subtext is what fuels anti-PC behavior and resentment because it tries to finger somebody as a racist or insensitive by looking for offense where none was intended.

How about we just eliminate adjectives from the language all together?  No descriptors.  Nobody's to be described as human, male, black, gay, chinese,disabled, happy or whatever anymore because I find such distinction offensive.


----------



## JWO (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> Hang on, what exactly is the difference between "colored people" and "people of color" besides the word "of" as a separator and the order of two words?
> 
> To get offended by a variation of speech using simple words is ridiculous.  Obviously, there could be some rearrangement of words that changes the meaning, but it's pretty obvious both variations means "people who aren't white"
> 
> This strikes me more as Outragism.  If he's not being mean to not-white people, not trying to use a recognized offensive term, this should not have been an issue.




As I understand it 'coloured people' has a history of being used in discriminatory, racist contexts, a term used by white people against black people. 'People of colour' is a term that was specifically created by the people it is used to describe, supposedly because it's preferable to the term 'non-white' as 'non-white' suggests that white people are the default people and any variations from that are in some way abnormal. 'People of colour' describes people by what they are rather than what they aren't.

I don't think anyone was outraged by what he said. It was only an issue in the sense that his gaffe was pointed out, he recognised it as such and apologised and then moved on. The only people who were outraged were the people who then jumped in and claimed that it was 'political correctness gone mad', that he was being censored, etc.

I'm white so it's not really my position to tell people of colour how they should be referring to themselves. I'd much rather sit back and listen and correct myself when I make mistakes.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I sometimes wonder:
> Are some folks trying to make racism seem more prevalent by identifying so much little stuff as racist.
> or
> Are some folks trying to make racism seem overblown by identifying so much little stuff as racist.
> ...




I think you've hit on an important point.

We're going through - largely enabled by the internet and the communication it offers, but historically it happens over and over again - a large social change.  The internet is a wonderful tool in its ability to enable or support such things.  This change is primarily focused on race, gender, and sexuality right now, and its very high profile.  

The overall outcome will be social change for the better.  But big changes require a decreased level of tolerance for minor issues, because that trickles through.  So in any social upheaval, you get a whole class of people who object to what they consider minor infractions being elevated to a higher importance.

That, unfortunately, is just too bad -- that's how social change gets powered.  And yeah, it probably bothers some people, but that's OK too.  It happens constantly, all the time, throughout history.  When many of the inequalities in these areas improve, it'll be other stuff - ageism, nationalism, something else.  And a bunch of different people will get upset about that; but that will be OK, too.  

It's OK to find it annoying that the way things are phrased gets so much attention; but unfortunately, however annoying it can be, it's necessary.  And people being annoyed is better than people being discriminated.

Make no mistake, something as trivial-seeming as language is an incredibly important and powerful agent of change.  And the changes people strive for are changes for the better, and language is a fantastic tool in that battle.  

And it's working.


----------



## JWO (Jul 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> *And people being annoyed is better than people being discriminated.*




Quoted for truth.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

I remember a _Sanford and Son_ episode where . . . goes to YouTube, and SCORE!
[video=youtube;XEDzNA39Vvc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDzNA39Vvc[/video]
"Were they colored?"
"Yeah, white."

Oh man, I loved that show. Used to watch it with my dad.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> She probably thought she did know the meaning of the word because she had heard it used in a context that suggested to her, "a cacophony of varied overwhelming sounds." I mean, look at her hand gestures and how she was saying that Lady Gaga's voice is usually drowned out by her usual accompanying music.
> 
> I'm sure we've all learned a new word by hearing it used, only to later find out, oops, we didn't actually understand the word as we thought.




Exactly!


----------



## billd91 (Jul 15, 2015)

I think the criticism gets a bit overly shrill sometimes. I've said in another thread that I'm not exactly a fan of the furor over cultural appropriation. Getting on an individual's case about racism because they're a Swede in a kimono, a white woman in a sari, a white person with a Kokopelli tattoo, or, ripped from recent headlines, a white girl wearing cornrows is excessive. These generally aren't acts of racism. They're acts of personal style and the freedom to undertake those acts is part of what helps spread a culture's art and can help break down the use of those choices as negative cultural markers. If the hijab ever caught on as a publicly worn style among white European women, the French would have a harder time using them to negatively profile Muslim women.

That said, I can accept that some elements, particularly driven stereotyping and caricaturing rather than understanding, can be problematic. It would be nice if people on social media would calm their outragist tendencies and focus on those priorities rather than a relatively benign hairstyle, but that's the internet for you.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Exactly!




Yep, the language has quite a few common terms of speech like welshing on a bet, getting gypped, getting picked up in the paddywagon, and so on that have negative undertones. I figure everyone can get forgiven use by ignorance, but once they're up to speed, they should be a lot more circumspect.


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

JWO said:


> People of colour' is a term that was specifically created by the people it is used to describe
> 
> ..snip..
> I'm white so it's not really my position to tell people of colour how they should be referring to themselves. I'd much rather sit back and listen and correct myself when I make mistakes.




Let's back up?  How do we know that people of color invented the phrase people of color?  What conference was this at?  What declaration of preference was made?  If it ain't on the national news and promoted, I call BS that anybody decided anything.

Somebody introduced the phrase.  And made up a reason for it.  And it's a fine enough reason.  But there's no proof that the people who the phrase describes invented the phrase.  Especially when the largest demographic is poor people and they sure as heck did not attend a conference debating the matter or vote on it.

So at best, a bunch of intellectuals who were black met and decided on it.  The only legitimacy that has it that it is how THEY want to be addressed.

The side effect of what's going on is that whoever raises one of these points first seems to get to win.  Now I look like a jerk for pointing out how they're just making stuff up and forcing everybody to go along.

How do we know whoever is changing the language is doing so in an actual good way?  Because a side effect of this linguistic correctness is that its bullying.  These guys are basically saying "since our way sounds smart, anybody who objects must be a racist, so we have to win by default."  Except for Donald Trump, nobody wants to sound like a racist.  It's a dickish way to change the world.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

There are also those that get morphed over time due to misuse: consider "Indian giver".

If you look at the meaning of the term- one who gives a gift and takes it back- it rather pointedly describes the behavior of white leaders towards Native Americans.  Properly used, it's the pale-faces who get stereotyped by that one...but DON'T use that term around your native friends & family, even correctly.  Somehow, it has become an insult to them, not to their erstwhile oppressors.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I think the criticism gets a bit overly shrill sometimes.




Sure. Omelets, eggs.  There's no perfect mechanism for anything (just like the reparations discussion).  But being occasionally annoyed at some shrill voices isn't really *that* much of a hardship, especially compared to the overall trend of positive social change. Like I said, some people being annoyed is the price of social change, and it's a perfectly fine - and trivial - price by me.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> How do we know whoever is changing the language is doing so in an actual good way?  Because a side effect of this linguistic correctness is that its bullying.  These guys are basically saying "since our way sounds smart, anybody who objects must be a racist, so we have to win by default."  Except for Donald Trump, nobody wants to sound like a racist.  It's a dickish way to change the world.




Woah! Back up a bit there, hoss! 

If the goal is "changing the world", I guess if the price for that is "someone thinks we're dickish" then it's a price worth paying. But there's no Illuminati-style governing body directing all this!  Language and social change are organic creatures.  Nobody controls them. Nobody _can_ control them (and many have tried).  There's no secret .. err "dickish".. cabal inventing linguistic rules to force on you.



Janx said:


> I would bet only half of the human population parses meaning from language so finely.  This kind of linguistic subtext is what fuels anti-PC behavior and resentment because it tries to finger somebody as a racist or insensitive by looking for offense where none was intended.
> 
> How about we just eliminate adjectives from the language all together?  No descriptors.  Nobody's to be described as human, male, black, gay, chinese,disabled, happy or whatever anymore because I find such distinction offensive.




I think you're kinda missing the point.  But I get that it irritates you.  With respect, that's unfortunate, but I'm OK with people being irritated at a thing which does them no harm, but which is part of a in important social change for the better.  I'd personally rather you redirect your anger at how words are being used and instead point it towards the actual inequalities and issues real people are experiencing, of course.

If your biggest problem is that you object to using "people of colour" rather than "coloured people", I envy you.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

> It's OK to find it annoying that the way things are phrased gets so much attention; but unfortunately, however annoying it can be, it's necessary. And people being annoyed is better than people being discriminated.



It's not an issue of anyone being annoyed. It's an issue of watering down the meaning of something. If simply acknowledging a person's race is racism, if using an out-of-date neutral term is racism, if wearing a garment from outside your own culture is racism, then what is actually discriminating against a person because of their race?

If you equate a very minor item (be it a goof or misunderstanding or even neither) with a very major problem (like slavery, genocide), you are weakening the impact of the major problem. 







Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> It's not an issue of anyone being annoyed. It's an issue of watering down the meaning of something.




Language changes; that's OK. It's an organic thing, and if the definitions of certain things shift over time, that's perfectly natural.  It's words we're debating here, when what's important are the actual issues.  Words aren't people; who cares if they get watered down?  They can't be harmed. 

I disagree with the premise that "everything is racism" (as your meme graphic states).  That's not even slightly true.  Sure, maybe the topic is too sensitive for your preference right now; that's often the nature of change.  A period of discomfort is often required.



> If simply acknowledging a person's race is racism, if using an out-of-date neutral term is racism, if wearing a garment from outside your own culture is racism, then what is actually discriminating against a person because of their race?




"Discrimination".  or, more specifically, "racial discrimination".


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

So discrimination is the very bad thing. Racism is just a minor thing? We can laugh at a racist comment, now?

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> So discrimination is the very bad thing. Racism is just a minor thing? We can laugh at a racist comment, now?




I don't really know what that means or where it came from.  No, racism is not a minor thing.  Nobody said any such thing or thinks any such thing. I don't quite get what you're trying to do here, Bullgrit, but that was slightly uncomfortable.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 15, 2015)

> Sure, maybe the topic is too sensitive for your preference right now; that's often the nature of change. A period of discomfort is often required.



I am getting annoyed, now. By you trying to make this about me. 

I remember now why I stopped posting here.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jul 15, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> I am getting annoyed, now. By you trying to make this about me.
> 
> I remember now why I stopped posting here.




Fine; I'll let you get on with it.  Consider me bowing out of the thread. It's making me incredibly uncomfortable right now, too.   Enjoy!


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There are also those that get morphed over time due to misuse: consider "Indian giver".
> 
> If you look at the meaning of the term- one who gives a gift and takes it back- it rather pointedly describes the behavior of white leaders towards Native Americans.  Properly used, it's the pale-faces who get stereotyped by that one...but DON'T use that term around your native friends & family, even correctly.  Somehow, it has become an insult to them, not to their erstwhile oppressors.




A clue with that one is that most folks (I assume) know it has a negative connotation.  That it then references a demographic of people, makes it obvious that we should avoid using it.  At least to me.

Whereas, the differentiation on people of color vs colored people vs blacks vs African American just strikes me as finding insult in nuance.

Ultimately, it becomes a minefield to reference or talk about race because somebody is going to object to how you phrased something.   If talking is how things get better, quibbling over how somebody talks is what makes talking difficult and less desirable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

The deal about "African-American" being a sore point for some?  Well it raises certain issues: 

1) everyone else gets a country- Irish American, German American, Mexican American- we get a content instead, because our origins have been obscured or outright obliterated

2) though intended as a descriptor of American blacks, objectively, the term could objectively apply to African immigrants...including those who are Caucasian.

3) a lot of Africans don't want to be lumped in with American blacks.  Remember, white people didn't go to Africa and collect their own slaves- it was Arab and African slavers who sold them to the Americans.  Foreign Africans were also treated differently than American blacks in parts of the south, even during the 1800s.

Re: colored vs "people of color"

Honestly, that term was often used as just another racial epithet for blacks, whereas the latter is a neutral and broad term for non-whites.  Persons taking offense at the latter are in error.  Persons not realizing the former is an insult need a history lesson.


----------



## JWO (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> Let's back up?  How do we know that people of color invented the phrase people of color?  What conference was this at?  What declaration of preference was made?  If it ain't on the national news and promoted, I call BS that anybody decided anything.
> 
> Somebody introduced the phrase.  And made up a reason for it.  And it's a fine enough reason.  But there's no proof that the people who the phrase describes invented the phrase.  Especially when the largest demographic is poor people and they sure as heck did not attend a conference debating the matter or vote on it.
> 
> ...




Well I've already stated that I'm just presenting my understanding of the issues. I don't know for sure who originally coined the term 'people of colour' but from my reading, that's the term that people of colour are generally using nowadays so that's what I'm going to stick with until someone tells me otherwise.

I don't think that language develops in the way you seem to think it does. There's no group or council who are out there saying 'how can we make white people look racist?', it's more that a phrase gets coined, people latch onto it, people start using it and then it just becomes the accepted terminology organically over time.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> A clue with that one is that most folks (I assume) know it has a negative connotation.  That it then references a demographic of people, makes it obvious that we should avoid using it.  At least to me.
> 
> Whereas, the differentiation on people of color vs colored people vs blacks vs African American just strikes me as finding insult in nuance.
> 
> Ultimately, it becomes a minefield to reference or talk about race because somebody is going to object to how you phrased something.   If talking is how things get better, quibbling over how somebody talks is what makes talking difficult and less desirable.




Sometimes nuance can get in the way. There's a clip out there of a sports commentator talking about a player on the field during the World Cup. He referred to him as African-American... which might be OK if it he wasn't a French player. He would have been better off saying he was black rather than African-American - but the point arises, and I wonder, why he felt the need to bring up his race at all. And that's where the effect of racism gets you and can't be escaped. He's not just a soccer player. Or a French soccer player. He's a *black* soccer player.


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Morrus said:


> If your biggest problem is that you object to using "people of colour" rather than "coloured people", I envy you.




no, I object to people getting called out on it and made to look bad over something that shouldn't matter.

It's making enemies out of potential allies.  Who cares if I use the word "colored people" if I'm reducing the headcount of KKK members on a nightly basis*?

It's not the change of words.  It's the insistence of offense where none is intended for the goal to further a cause.

Ultimately, all I've learned from this thread is that it is downright dangerous to talk about race.  Ever.  Good luck fixing a problem when people are afraid to talk about it.


* (no, I am not personally Dexterizing nazis by night)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> It's making enemies out of potential allies.  Who cares if I use the word "colored people" if I'm reducing the headcount of KKK members on a nightly basis*?



People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists.  One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.

Just substitute one of the more obvious racial epithets in your sentence there and see how it sounds...


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Sometimes nuance can get in the way. There's a clip out there of a sports commentator talking about a player on the field during the World Cup. He referred to him as African-American... which might be OK if it he wasn't a French player. He would have been better off saying he was black rather than African-American - but the point arises, and I wonder, why he felt the need to bring up his race at all. And that's where the effect of racism gets you and can't be escaped. He's not just a soccer player. Or a French soccer player. He's a *black* soccer player.




Who knows.  I'd consider that a commentator's job is to fill the channel with chatter.  So he has to keep babbling, describing the game play and the players.

At some point his wires got crossed on what word to use "African American" vs. "black" and that likely jumped over a circuit on why race even mattered.  I doubt he even realized it happened until some furor arose over it.

I separate saying something stupid from actually trying to hurt somebody.  If we focused on the actual harm being done, and less on making the stupid things people say be part of the problem, the people saying stupid things would have an easier time adjusting.


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists.  One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.
> 
> Just substitute one of the more obvious racial epithets in your sentence there and see how it sounds...




Fair enough.  And to be clear, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "colored people" outside of this conversation (aka in the real world). I've had a feeling it wasn't kosher for plenty of time. Honestly, people of color seems just as bad.

So don't confuse my arguing a point with defending a specific thing.

I don't think there's any word or phrasing that is safe to use to describe the descendants of native Africans in America.  Somebody's going to get tetchy over it no matter what.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> People care because that phrase has baggage, and using it obfuscates your motives in Dexterizing (excellent term, BTW) racists.  One cannot be 100% sure if you are an ally or pruning the hate-garden of the ideologically impure.




This is true, but....

In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack.  It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 15, 2015)

JWO said:


> As I understand it 'coloured people' has a history of being used in discriminatory, racist contexts, a term used by white people against black people. 'People of colour' is a term that was specifically created by the people it is used to describe, supposedly because it's preferable to the term 'non-white' as 'non-white' suggests that white people are the default people and any variations from that are in some way abnormal. 'People of colour' describes people by what they are rather than what they aren't.
> 
> I don't think anyone was outraged by what he said. It was only an issue in the sense that his gaffe was pointed out, he recognised it as such and apologised and then moved on. The only people who were outraged were the people who then jumped in and claimed that it was 'political correctness gone mad', that he was being censored, etc.
> 
> I'm white so it's not really my position to tell people of colour how they should be referring to themselves. I'd much rather sit back and listen and correct myself when I make mistakes.




Both are terms that were typically used by genteel Caucasians, to describe non-Caucasians, and were frequently (though not always) meant as derogatory terms. They fall in the same class of expressions as things like "those people."


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This is true, but....
> 
> In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack.  It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.




This is a good way to phrase what I'm talking about.  

Barring the extremes, how a message is delivered is less important than the message.  This is more true for some people than others.  I am engineer type of person.  I always try to ignore the presentation of the message and find the facts and meat of the matter.  Bickering and arguing over the presentation are considered bad behavior in my culture because it detracts from solving actual problems and creates defensiveness.  If there is no intent to cause harm, then a crudely delivered message should be shrugged off and the point of the message attended to.


----------



## Janx (Jul 15, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Both are terms that were typically used by genteel Caucasians, to describe non-Caucasians, and were frequently (though not always) meant as derogatory terms. They fall in the same class of expressions as things like "those people."




yeah, it's basically the same meaning. Somebody fetch an English Major to correct us all, but adjectives go in front of the noun under common usage.  moving the Adjective to the back with an "of" connector still parses to the same meaning.

So "people of hairiness" is still functionally the same as "hairy people".  Putting the noun in front does not change the accentuation.  We're still talking about wookies.  If somebody doesn't want to be implied as being a wookie, it's still offensive, one is just wrapping bacon around a turd to try to make it seem dignified.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This is true, but....
> 
> In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack.  It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.




I think in most social context this is the case, its only when media -and these days twitter - gets involved that the big furor arises. 

But then I agree witj Morrus' point that this is the nature of social change.
Some of us are old enough to remember the debates about the use of the N word. Where you had some arguing that it was 'just' a spanish word for Black despite its history and derogatory use. Then you have Richard Pryor and subsequent comedians use of the word. I think today every reasonable person under the age of 65 has come to terms with the use of the N word even in light of its 'reclamation" by the likes of NWA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

Umbran said:


> This is true, but....
> 
> In the context of discussions between people, "You failed to use the right word," should not become the basis of an attack.  It should be the basis of a *question*, the start of a discussion, rather than a tirade.



This is true, but...

"Colored" has been a term of offense for 50+ years.  At least in this particular case- as well as for other well-known epithets- there shouldn't even be a question of appropriateness of usage, except in the case of foreigners.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 15, 2015)

Janx said:


> I don't think there's any word or phrasing that is safe to use to describe the descendants of native Africans in America.  Somebody's going to get tetchy over it no matter what.




Then there's situations like I recall Rumsfeld making a speech during the Iraq war and he used the word "niggardly" and caught hell for being a racist. Except the word "niggardly" sounds like a racial epithet, but its not. It might have been wiser to choose a different synonymous word like "cheap" or "miserly" on national TV, but the word is not racist, rather its sounds racist to an uneducated person. I thought all the hoopla was overblown, but that's because I know what the word means and what it doesn't mean (but I myself would never use that word, choosing something more common like "cheap").


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Then there's situations like I recall Rumsfeld making a speech during the Iraq war and he used the word "niggardly" and caught hell for being a racist. Except the word "niggardly" sounds like a racial epithet, but its not. It might have been wiser to choose a different synonymous word like "cheap" or "miserly" on national TV, but the word is not racist, rather its sounds racist to an uneducated person. I thought all the hoopla was overblown, but that's because I know what the word means and what it doesn't mean (but I myself would never use that word, choosing something more common like "cheap").




I remember something about that...and thinking he had just made a rhetorical "unforced error."

There have been several comedy skits that have covered that territory.  

My one quibble here is the use of the word "uneducated".  Commonly, that carries a negative connotation of being ignorant...because the word is too often used as a way to say that.  It is also a bit overbroad- someone can be quite well educated and never have encountered the term "in the wild" as it were.

It takes more words to say it, but I usually try to spell out that I mean someone simply doesn't know the meaning of a word (or whatever) rather than saying that person is "uneducated".


----------



## Joker (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is true, but...
> 
> "Colored" has been a term of offense for 50+ years.  At least in this particular case- as well as for other well-known epithets- there shouldn't even be a question of appropriateness of usage, except in the case of foreigners.




I see the PC crowd has pressured you again.  Where we come from we say "offensive term" not "term of offense".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 15, 2015)

I'm a Mac guy, not PC!


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 15, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is true, but...
> 
> "Colored" has been a term of offense for 50+ years.  At least in this particular case- as well as for other well-known epithets- there shouldn't even be a question of appropriateness of usage, except in the case of foreigners.




Honestly when I was a kid (8 years old and younger), I lived in Seattle where black Americans were in my school and we used the term "colored" not meant to be derogatory, but its what we used in discussion - in retrospect that was definitely with a negative connotation, but as a child wasn't making any such judgment (I didn't know it was wrong at the time, but then I was only 8). It wasn't until I moved to Illinois (8+ years) that different terms were used. I think I picked up the word in school, rather than from my parents or anything.

As an aside, my mother, who is Japanese, was pregnant with me, on vacation with my grandmother visiting Florida in 1962 and was eating at a small restaurant, when my mom wanted to use the restroom, but the sign said "Whites only" and my mother didn't know what to do. So my grandmother asked a waitress who stated that my mom wasn't black, therefore qualified for "whites only". Since our family lived in the north, my mom never encountered that situation until that point, but then she'd only arrived in American in 1960.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 15, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Then there's situations like I recall Rumsfeld making a speech during the Iraq war and he used the word "niggardly" and caught hell for being a racist. Except the word "niggardly" sounds like a racial epithet, but its not. It might have been wiser to choose a different synonymous word like "cheap" or "miserly" on national TV, but the word is not racist, rather its sounds racist to an uneducated person. I thought all the hoopla was overblown, but that's because I know what the word means and what it doesn't mean (but I myself would never use that word, choosing something more common like "cheap").




I'm quite honestly surprised that, given the audience, no one has pulled out the "Princess Bride" quote yet.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Colored" has been a term of offense for 50+ years.  At least in this particular case- as well as for other well-known epithets- there shouldn't even be a question of appropriateness of usage, except in the case of foreigners.




I think you may underestimate how sheltered some people can be from the conversation that would inform someone of what is offensive, an what isn't.

I think you may also be overestimating how much self-editing people naturally do.  Even knowing that it is offensive is not proof that it doesn't slip out.  And we must allow for each other to be *human*.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

I know that humans are imperfect and make all kinds of slips.  That doesn't mean one shouldn't be challenged...  Unchallenged, they never learn.

As the joke goes, "What do you mean, 'You people'?"

See also Cavanaugh, the racist in _Porky's_ who kept calling Jews "kites".

I'll say that I bet most of the people who are 50 years behind on "colored" being a slur probably never got as far as using "colored" in a polite context.

Except those who aren't from the USA, of course.  Like I said, foreigners- even those who speak English natively- are not going to be up to speed on the course of American pejoratives.  

...just like Americans won't be up to speed on English or Australian (etc.) ones.


----------



## Joker (Jul 16, 2015)

[video=youtube;xPxs0Qh72kY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPxs0Qh72kY[/video]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

Exactly! (_Tropic Thunder_ was da BOMB!)

In another example, does anyone really believe this mayor is so clueless to think what he's saying isn't racist?  Or does he think that we're so gullible as to believe him?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-mayor-racist_55a71677e4b04740a3defd84


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In another example, does anyone really believe this mayor is so clueless to think what he's saying isn't racist?




Yep.  

Now, that lack of self-knowledge alone is enough for people to want him out of office, but it is a fairly common occurrence - a person having biases that he or she doesn't know they have.  He probably thought, "I don't like him, so I'll insult him,"  That, in and of itself, isn't racist.  Even comparing politicians to animals is not itself racist - how many political cartoons have depicted politicians as pigs, for example?  

But, it seems to me very likely that the exact form of insult came from a racial bias that he doesn't realize he has.

And, if he doesn't realize he has it, when confronted angrily on it, human nature makes it very, very likely that he'll dig in, and outright honestly believe that it wasn't racism that influenced his words.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

Is it possible?  Yes.

It's it likely?  Given that- according to one newspaper in the area- he has a track record of past bigoted online posts that he has deleted or subsequently shifted to "private", I don't think so.  He is at least aware enough of the controversial nature of his "jokes" that he's covering his tracks from the general public.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jul 16, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Exactly! (_Tropic Thunder_ was da BOMB!)
> 
> In another example, does anyone really believe this mayor is so clueless to think what he's saying isn't racist?  Or does he think that we're so gullible as to believe him?
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washington-mayor-racist_55a71677e4b04740a3defd84




I'm pretty sure he believes people are gullible enough to believe him. I'm going to call his claim that he isn't a racist total BS. Considering how many times it has come up on the news that someone has called Obama a monkey, and it has been called out as racist, I'm not going to buy into the whole it's not racist because it's "playful back and forth banter that my friends and I do." Hell, I'm willing to bet that "playful back and forth banter" is the same kind that happens during KKK meetings. Furthermore, considering that this is not the first instance, and this guy has a history of racist posts, yeah this guy is a racist that got caught and is now trying to play it off as a joke.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jul 16, 2015)

Is this guy a racist? Yes. Should he arbitralily resign because of his comments? It depends. If his constuency are as clueless or racist as he, and not making a public outcry about it, then no, why should he resign? Undoubtably, many organizations and "political correctness" advocates are making outcries, but unless those organizations are making an impact on that mayor's constuency... if they don't care, I don't care. Now I wouldn't be eager to visit that town at any time, nor would recommend the community in a positive way for any reason. Personally I'm tired of political organizations throwing their weight around making demands, when they are not part of the direct constuency of a given political body. I'm speaking in local political terms only, if a national or state level politician is making bigotted remarks, then yes, such a person would and should be the target of such organizations, and should face repercussions. Should any form of bigotry lead to racially maligned laws or law enforcement practices, then yes, something needs to be done about it, but as long as the bias is verbal only, I'm not overly concerned. There are bigots out in the world, and there's no escaping that, and many are politicians. This is in America, so freedom of speech applies.


----------



## Janx (Jul 16, 2015)

gamerprinter said:


> Is this guy a racist? Yes. Should he arbitralily resign because of his comments? It depends. If his constuency are as clueless or racist as he, and not making a public outcry about it, then no, why should he resign? Undoubtably, many organizations and "political correctness" advocates are making outcries, but unless those organizations are making an impact on that mayor's constuency... if they don't care, I don't care. Now I wouldn't be eager to visit that town at any time, nor would recommend the community in a positive way for any reason. Personally I'm tired of political organizations throwing their weight around making demands, when they are not part of the direct constuency of a given political body. I'm speaking in local political terms only, if a national or state level politician is making bigotted remarks, then yes, such a person would and should be the target of such organizations, and should face repercussions. Should any form of bigotry lead to racially maligned laws or law enforcement practices, then yes, something needs to be done about it, but as long as the bias is verbal only, I'm not overly concerned. There are bigots out in the world, and there's no escaping that, and many are politicians. This is in America, so freedom of speech applies.




I'd say yes and no.

As you say, a bigot mayor in a town full of bigots is indeed representing the will of the people as a bigotted town.  If the topic wasn't about bigotry, I'd say he's doing his job representing the will of the people.

However, I would bet that BigotVille is not 100% bigots, that there is in fact a minority.

And that minority is probably hurt in some fashion due to the bigoted nature of the leadership.  If nothing else because BigotMayor is tacitly approving of bigoted behavior.

Bigotry is wrong basically.  I'm pretty sure that ought to be a universal truth.  Agreeing with hating black is quite a big different thing than having an opinion on deficit spending or welfare reform.

As such, when the people in power have "wrong" views, the minority has little recourse barring the Lee Harvey Oswald method.  Let's agree that's another Universal Wrong.

We have to rely on the people in power to not use it to enforce their ideals (especially the bad ones) on everybody.  Thus, since it is a person in power, it is a special situation that calls for either the A Team or a watchdog organization to come in and clean house.

In my view, this is the same reason why employers cannot be allowed to interfere with their employees healthcare choices over religious reasons.  The guy in power already controls the pay check.  They must not be given further control over their employees lives.

If the guy in power is not fair, is not just, he must be ejected from power.  By whatever escalating means necessary.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2015)

> However, I would bet that BigotVille is not 100% bigots, that there is in fact a minority.




Depends on the BigotVille in particular.  I can't speak to THAT one, but sundown towns are still around, and they tend NOT to have significant minority populations, if any.

Take Vidor, Texas (PLEASE!): according to the US census, the racial makeup of the city was 97.33% White, 0.07% African American, 0.52% Native American, 0.19% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.66% from other races, and 1.21% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.49% of the population.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Is it possible?  Yes.
> 
> It's it likely?




Yep.  Still likely.  



> Given that- according to one newspaper in the area- he has a track record of past bigoted online posts that he has deleted or subsequently shifted to "private", I don't think so.




As I've already noted - the #1 defense in the face of angry confrontation is?  Denial!  

Or, to reuse the phrasing I used above - I think you underestimate the human capacity to self-delude


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2015)

Zaphod Beeblebrox's glasses wouldn't be powerful enough to work like blinders THAT good.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Zaphod Beeblebrox's glasses wouldn't be powerful enough to work like blinders THAT good.




Dude, I have had a discussion in which a person railed at me about, "the carcinogens _They_ put in vaccines," all the while punctuating his remarks with deep drags on a cigarette. 

The human ability to fail to use their grey matter can be astounding.


----------



## Janx (Jul 17, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Dude, I have had a discussion in which a person railed at me about, "the carcinogens _They_ put in vaccines," all the while punctuating his remarks with deep drags on a cigarette.
> 
> The human ability to fail to use their grey matter can be astounding.




yeah, humans are stupid.  And they suffer from that cognitive disassociation that lets them think "yes, cigarettes cause cancer, but not the one I'm smoking right now" while ranting about the cancer causing vaccines like a tinfoil hat person.

In the case of the Mayor of BigotVille, is it more effective or expedient to:
gently guide the mayor to Good thinking
put a bullet in his defective noggin
confront him directly about his racist ways
get him fired over a public outcry

If the list of choices is roughly the same, would you choose differently if it was your boss, your friend, a neighbor?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2015)

Janx said:


> In the case of the Mayor of BigotVille, is it more effective or expedient to:




That can depend a lot on exactly what result you want, and some other facts about the environment.

Is he a bigot in office because the populace is really not that bigoted, and he hid it during the campaign?  Are the electorate a bunch of bigots themselves?  Do you have non-bigots who want and can execute the job on hand?  Do you actually care if you go to jail for your solution?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 20, 2015)

Terms like Racism, Bigotry, Sexism, Hate Crime, etc. is being overly used, especially by the media.

Where before if something happened between a "victim" and a "criminal", it was just a crime.

Now it seems that everything is no longer just a crime but:
If it is between a male and a female, it is Sexism, regardless of what the event is.
If it is between two people of different ethnics, it is not only racism but a hate crime.
If one celebrates a festival from some other "race", then it is OK, but to celebrate your own, you are labeled racist.

So yes, I think the term is overly used.

It seems


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Now it seems that everything is no longer just a crime but:
> (edit)
> If it is between two people of different ethnics, it is not only racism but a hate crime.




If and only if the racism is the cause or aggravating factor in the crime.  It is not a hate crime for a white guy to kill a black guy for his wallet.  It IS a hate crime if the white guy kills a black guy because he is black, regardless of whether the wallet is stolen or not.



> If one celebrates a festival from some other "race", then it is OK, but to celebrate your own, you are labeled racist.




Too often, this is the case, but it isn't universal.  It depends on how it is done.  If you're celebrating Caucasian-ness at a St. Patrick's Day festival or a bunch of Nordic traditions at a Scandinavian festval without denigrating others, that's 100% cool.  And usually fun!

Once the stereotyping begins or the revisionist history tropes start getting celebrated, though...

Still, too often, firebrands of ALL races in positions of leadership or the media spotlight try to stir things up by deliberately or ignorantly mischaracterizing the true nature of things.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 20, 2015)

My issue at this time is how they are saying Hispanic is a race.  I think a lot of what is being called race is cultural.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> My issue at this time is how they are saying Hispanic is a race.  I think a lot of what is being called race is cultural.




Po-tay-toh.  Po-tah-toh.  A lot of what are called racial differences are not cultural differences, but are outright B.S. and lies.  

Fact of the matter is that, in the US, if you have non-caucasian skin tones or facial features, you are apt to run into difficulties and pre-judgements you don't deserve.  That makes it racism, as the basic determiner of whether you get the short end of the stick is your race.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Hand of Evil said:


> My issue at this time is how they are saying Hispanic is a race.  I think a lot of what is being called race is cultural.




Racism includes both racial and ethnic discrimination.  In fact, the UN defines it as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, 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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...ion#Definition_of_.22racial_discrimination.22

It includes a variety of things.  The thing it specifically excludes is citizenship (for example, you can't discriminate against someone for having French origins, but you can for being a French citizen).

Of course, the biggest and most problematic areas of racism are those involving skin colour.  I'm pretty sure "being of French origin" isn't a systemic problem in terms of racism.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Of course, the biggest and most problematic areas of racism are those involving skin colour.  I'm pretty sure "being of French origin" isn't a systemic problem in terms of racism.




Right now.

I think, back in the time of the Norman Conquest, many Brits thought differently, no?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Right now.
> 
> I think, back in the time of the Norman Conquest, many Brits thought differently, no?




Oh, there's still no love lost between us and the French. But I don't think either party is particularly suffering from discrimination; there's no significant power or population differential.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh, there's still no love lost between us and the French.



True.
[video=youtube;D8hrFQKAL-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8hrFQKAL-Y&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> True.




"This video is blocked in your country on copyright grounds."  Sounds great! I'm being discriminated against on geographical grounds!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> "This video is blocked in your country on copyright grounds."  Sounds great! I'm being discriminated against on geographical grounds!




Hilarious!

FWIW, it's a clip from the "England Expects" episode of _Chef!_- early on, where he has to find an English wine to take to a cooking competition...in France.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Oh, there's still no love lost between us and the French. But I don't think either party is particularly suffering from discrimination; there's no significant power or population differential.




Right now.  There's been a thousand years or so since then.

But, it sure looks like Robin Hood (the modern remnant of tales of earlier men) is a vestige of a rather different situation between the Saxons and Normans, no?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Right now.  There's been a thousand years or so since then.
> 
> But, it sure looks like Robin Hood (the modern remnant of tales of earlier men) is a vestige of a rather different situation between the Saxons and Normans, no?




Sure.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 29, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> These are things that I don't see how they can be called racism. A verbal mistake, an embarrassing error, sure. But *racism*? That's like calling eating a burger, "murder." When you apply a serious word to a minor gaff, you weaken the serious word. You make it silly.



Well, I've definitely heard of several overzealous vegans calling meat-cosuming persons murderers; for example Morissey (popular singer, of former 'The Smiths' fame).

And I agree, it really seems quite silly, making it hard for me to take them seriously. Actually, I feel they're doing themselves and their cause a disservice. (Note, that I'm a vegetarian, myself, but I don't mind anyone eating meat - to each their own.)


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 29, 2015)

Bullgrit said:


> Are some folks trying to make racism seem more prevalent by identifying so much little stuff as racist.



I'm quite sure that's the case.

It reminds me about a documentary I watched a few years ago: Defamation; Anti-Semitism - The Movie.
It prominently features an organisation called 'Anti Defamation League' and demonstrates quite excellently how they artificially blow up the number of anti-semitic incidents to advertize their organisation and collect more donations. It also adressed the important difference between Judaism and Zionism.

Being a German, this is still quite a sensitive issue for me. It's a good thing the director of the documentary is an Israeli himself...


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm quite sure that's the case.




I think it is far more complicated than that.  Yes, there are going to be some who attempt to personally gain from the situation, but that is not an argument that the problem is not real and important.

I will have to use what to some has become an unfortunate word: privilege.  The people who need to know about racism are privileged to not experience it.  So, they are largely unaware of it.  They don't live with it day to day. They tend to discount or overlook reports, and when something notable does happen, they quickly forget, and take no useful action.  When you ask such people how prevalent racism is, they will tend to vastly underestimate it, even though people have been telling them about it for years.

The obvious counter to this is to put more effort into making racism obvious to such people, in the hopes of making it clear to them that there is a problem, and their silence is not good.  The result is that you may see some attempts to over-report or over-state the issues.  This would not be necessary if the rest of us were not so darned thick-headed about it.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 29, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I think it is far more complicated than that.  Yes, there are going to be some who attempt to personally gain from the situation, but that is not an argument that the problem is not real and important.
> 
> I will have to use what to some has become an unfortunate word: privilege.  The people who need to know about racism are privileged to not experience it.  So, they are largely unaware of it.  They don't live with it day to day. They tend to discount or overlook reports, and when something notable does happen, they quickly forget, and take no useful action.  When you ask such people how prevalent racism is, they will tend to vastly underestimate it, even though people have been telling them about it for years.
> 
> The obvious counter to this is to put more effort into making racism obvious to such people, in the hopes of making it clear to them that there is a problem, and their silence is not good.  The result is that you may see some attempts to over-report or over-state the issues.  This would not be necessary if the rest of us were not so darned thick-headed about it.




As a middle-aged white male it is definitely difficult for me to relate to racism on any real personal level. The closest that I can come is when I was subjected to a tirade by a gentleman of East Indian origins, while working at the airport, because I pointed out to him that as an able bodied person he was not permitted to park in the designated handicapped parking spaces. Dealing with his racist comments (some of which had to do with him accusing me of being racist, like every other white person, because I wouldn't let him break the law) is far from the same as dealing with systemic racism almost every day of your life.

There are some things that are, however obviously wrong to anyone. For example I had a rather long and heated debate with someone who spouted claims based on his "Scottish race." This was during a long, very racist tirade against immigrants to Canada from a certain region. He was so thick that I ultimately declared that a former girlfriend of mine, whose parents were from Pakistan but was herself born in Glasgow, was more "Scottish" than he was.

On the other hand you have the over reaching demands. In the Toronto area there have been two shootings by police, of black individuals. The group "Black Lives Matter" recently closed a major connecting highway with a couple of hundred protesters, for two hours, demanding the names of the involved officers and that they be charged. 

Investigation in the first case, that occurred a few miles from my house, recently closed. It was found that the individual who was shot, while approaching police with a knife, was under the influence of a number of controlled substances (methamphetamine, Ecstacy, and marijuana). That he was waving a large kitchen knife and approaching police, who repeatedly warned him to drop it, was supported by a number of independent witnesses, including the driver of the car he in which he was riding. The driver indicated that he knew that his friend was going to get shot, so he slid down below window level in the car. The person in question was the subject of a warrant in another jurisdiction, had a previous criminal record, and notes remarked that he had attempted to disarm an officer during a previous interaction. The one negative finding by the SIU (Special Investigations Unit), who investigate officer-involved incidents, was that the knife should not have been treated like evidence in any other case (tagged, bagged, and secured), but should instead have been left on scene for SIU investigators.

The second case is currently being investigated, by the SIU, and there have as yet been no findings released.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Investigation in the first case, that occurred a few miles from my house, recently closed. It was found that the individual who was shot, while approaching police with a knife, was under the influence of a number of controlled substances (methamphetamine, Ecstacy, and marijuana). That he was waving a large kitchen knife and approaching police, who repeatedly warned him to drop it, was supported by a number of independent witnesses, including the driver of the car he in which he was riding. The driver indicated that he knew that his friend was going to get shot, so he slid down below window level in the car. The person in question was the subject of a warrant in another jurisdiction, had a previous criminal record, and notes remarked that he had attempted to disarm an officer during a previous interaction. The one negative finding by the SIU (Special Investigations Unit), who investigate officer-involved incidents, was that the knife should not have been treated like evidence in any other case (tagged, bagged, and secured), but should instead have been left on scene for SIU investigators.




The difficulty with these situations and the Black Lives Matter campaign is that the police really are rarely held accountable for questionable or even criminal incidents they perpetrate. There are endless ways to rationalize why the police acted as they did. Would other cops find these actions reasonable? If so, they skate by. This happens so often, even when it shouldn't, that the immediate reaction is to distrust the police and any internal investigations into their conduct. And the number of well-publicized incidents of questionable behavior recently, one virtually coming on top of another, has gotten everyone extra-sensitized to them.

Where I live, we now have investigations into police shootings handled outside of the department. I don't know yet if it will make a difference in holding the police accountable or in building community trust for the impartiality of the process. But it's a step.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 29, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> On the other hand you have the over reaching demands. In the Toronto area there have been two shootings by police, of black individuals. The group "Black Lives Matter" recently closed a major connecting highway with a couple of hundred protesters, for two hours, demanding the names of the involved officers and that they be charged.




I can't speak to certain aspects of the issue in Canada.  But the over-reaching demands can be seen as a direct result of under-performance in the justice system.  You say that they make over-reaching demands, but they have people *dying* as a result of police over-reach.  

It has been demonstrated to many people's satisfaction that internal investigations have a tendency of working out as the mouse being in charge of the cheese - very much, "Who watches the watchmen?"  The Prosecutors that would normally charge the police with wrongdoing often collaborate with and are dependent on the same police for cooperation on day-to-day cases, so they have a pretty clear conflict of interest.

However, by making a big stink about it, those concerned can draw media attention to the case, which drives everyone involved to play more, "by the book," and open to public scrutiny.  If internal investigations worked properly, they'd not need to make outrageous demands to get something approaching justice.  It will take some time of the system working well before folks will have trust in it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 29, 2015)

White priviledge _is_ a thing.  Check out crimingwhilewhite for some self-reporting.  Crime stats in Ferguson showed a massive disparity in drug use (Caucasians>Blacks) and traffic stop searches for drugs (Blacks>Caucasians).

It's not just the US, either- the UK has similar issues:

http://www.release.org.uk/publicati...rities-policing-and-prosecution-drug-offences

Also, an abbreviated overview:
[video=youtube;fTcSVQJ2h8g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTcSVQJ2h8g&sns=em[/video]


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 29, 2015)

billd91 said:


> The difficulty with these situations and the Black Lives Matter campaign is that the police really are rarely held accountable for questionable or even criminal incidents they perpetrate. There are endless ways to rationalize why the police acted as they did. Would other cops find these actions reasonable? If so, they skate by. This happens so often, even when it shouldn't, that the immediate reaction is to distrust the police and any internal investigations into their conduct. And the number of well-publicized incidents of questionable behavior recently, one virtually coming on top of another, has gotten everyone extra-sensitized to them.
> 
> Where I live, we now have investigations into police shootings handled outside of the department. I don't know yet if it will make a difference in holding the police accountable or in building community trust for the impartiality of the process. But it's a step.






Umbran said:


> I can't speak to certain aspects of the issue in Canada.  But the over-reaching demands can be seen as a direct result of under-performance in the justice system.  You say that they make over-reaching demands, but they have people *dying* as a result of police over-reach.
> 
> It has been demonstrated to many people's satisfaction that internal investigations have a tendency of working out as the mouse being in charge of the cheese - very much, "Who watches the watchmen?"  The Prosecutors that would normally charge the police with wrongdoing often collaborate with and are dependent on the same police for cooperation on day-to-day cases, so they have a pretty clear conflict of interest.
> 
> However, by making a big stink about it, those concerned can draw media attention to the case, which drives everyone involved to play more, "by the book," and open to public scrutiny.  If internal investigations worked properly, they'd not need to make outrageous demands to get something approaching justice.  It will take some time of the system working well before folks will have trust in it.




The SIU is not internal to the police but is rather a stand-alone organization under the auspices of the Provincial Government, empowered to independently investigate incidents involving police under specific circumstances. The police don't like them. The public thinks that they sweep everything under the rug. My gut tells me that if both sides don't like them, then they're quite likely doing a reasonable job. I would say, though, that the SIU needs more power.


----------

