PDA

View Full Version : Racism?


Pages : [1] 2 3

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:00 AM
A few posters on TF have been branded as racist. But the accusers haven't really given a definition of it.

So, what is racism? Does it require intent?

One thought (from http://racismschool.tumblr.com/post/32487876495/racism-is-not-in-your-intent-your-intent-is):

Racism is not in your intent. Your intent is immaterial in how racist your actions are. This isn’t about you BEING a racist. It’s about you DOING A THING that is racist. Your intent doesn’t change it. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn’t change it. It’s got nothing to do with you as a person and everything to do with the meaning of your action in the context of sociocultural history.

I disagree. I believe intent is the deciding factor for any possibly racist action.

Any thoughts? Personal experiences? Please share. :)

The Witch-king
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:20 AM
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Beyonce_fake_baby_bump.gif

This gone be good ...

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:20 AM
In my view, there are different types of racism(s). You have the vestiges of caste oppression in India, for example.

However, I argue that because of the global preeminence of Euro-American cultural, economic, and political hegemony, "white racism" best characterizes the way that racist oppression is experienced in the West. White racism is a system of white supremacy that sustains cultural, political and economic domination of whites over all other races, and justifies the diverting of material and symbolic resources towards whites to preserve this inequality. Being a structural force in an of itself, it has little to do with individual prejudices and intentionality. It is a system of oppression that is more than just the aggregate of individual agency and decision making of "intentionally racist" white people, although those micro-level actions are important to how white racism is sustained.

Mynarco
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:30 AM
How is intent not related to racism? Say, if a person makes a light hearted joke using the stereotype on people of a particular race. Is he a racist then?

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:38 AM
In my view, there are different types of racism(s). You have the vestiges of caste oppression in India, for example.

However, I argue that because of the global preeminence of Euro-American cultural, economic, and political hegemony, "white racism" best characterizes the way that racist oppression is experienced in the West. White racism is a system of white supremacy that sustains cultural, political and economic domination of whites over all other races, and justifies the diverting of material and symbolic resources towards whites to preserve this inequality. Being a structural force in an of itself, it has little to do with individual prejudices and intentionality. It is a system of oppression that is more than just the aggregate of individual agency and decision making of "intentionally racist" white people, although those micro-level actions are important to how white racism is sustained.

This seems to be an academic, technical definition of racism. What are your thoughts about layman definitions? Many think that racism is just simply hate or dislike of certain racial groups. Or that racism is just the view that certain races are superior or inferior. Or that racism is when you essentialize certain characteristics to members of a particular racial group. Most laymen believe that any race can be racist. Thoughts? :)

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:44 AM
How is intent not related to racism? Say, if a person makes a light hearted joke using the stereotype on people of a particular race. Is he a racist then?Yes. You have to look at the power of discourse, and how our words create our social reality. The reason why racist jokes are funny is that they reinforce base prejudices and reflect power differentials. Proof of this is the fact that there are very few racist jokes applicable to white people, but a multitude for every other group of people on Earth.

donellcarey
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:12 AM
How is intent not related to racism? Say, if a person makes a light hearted joke using the stereotype on people of a particular race. Is he a racist then?

Yes, I think so:o

I once made a couple of harmless(imo) jokes and Jujubean(LBV) caught it and got real mad.:scared:

I then stopped making jokes that I'm not sure of.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:18 AM
Yes. You have to look at the power of discourse, and how our words create our social reality. The reason why racist jokes are funny is that they reinforce base prejudices and reflect power differentials. Proof of this is the fact that there are very few racist jokes applicable to white people, but a multitude for every other group of people on Earth.

How do you explain jokes about Jewish people? Jews as a group are overrepresented in government, academia, elite universities, among the world's billionaires, etc.

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:19 AM
LBV made very good points, and I don't have much to add.

Basically I think how you phrased your question belies a certain bias in what you think racism is, i.e. you have already placed it within very strict bounds. As LBV mentioned, racism is a system of oppression which has the effect of preserving advantages, specifically for the majority race, which in most contexts is the white race due to the recent history of colonialism. (In Japan, for instance, the "Caucasoid" Ainu race is the one that was systematically discriminated against) When you ask whether "intent" is necessary, it shows that you are interested in blaming individuals who practice deliberate racist actions.

However:
1) Racism is bigger than that.
2) There are different degrees of racism. The unintentional racist is probably "less racist" than the intentional one, if that helps you psychologically in thinking about the issue. Most of us are racists to some degree or another. I read about some research recently that showed that even children as young as 6 months old are able to identify people who are like them, and discriminate against those who are not like them, based on criteria as arbitrary as the kind of cereal they choose in the experiment. So a very visual species like human beings would certainly do the same for something like skin colour.

When I entered college, I was sent this book, "Why Are Alll The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" as an orientation reading. The author distinguishes between racism and racial prejudice, and between active racism and passive racism. She compares the system of oppression that is racism as a moving conveyor belt; and even if a white person (who is the beneficiary of this system) does nothing, he will still be moving along on the belt. Anyway, I think that's a good place to start if you want to think more about these issues.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:28 AM
This seems to be an academic, technical definition of racism. What are your thoughts about layman definitions? Many think that racism is just simply hate or dislike of certain racial groups. Or that racism is just the view that certain races are superior or inferior. Or that racism is when you essentialize certain characteristics to members of a particular racial group. Most laymen believe that any race can be racist. Thoughts? :)In layman's terms, racism is a system of oppressive strategies employed by white people to preserve their cultural, political, and economic supremacy. Is that still too technical? :lol:

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:30 AM
In layman's terms, racism is a system of oppressive strategies employed by white people to preserve their cultural, political, and economic supremacy. Is that still too technical? :lol:

No, I mean that the common sense view of racism isn't at all like the technical one you provide.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:33 AM
How do you explain jokes about Jewish people? Jews as a group are overrepresented in government, academia, elite universities, among the world's billionaires, etc.Is that actually true, or is that just another racist/Anti-Semitic discourse that has permeated into our common sensical understandings of how the world works?

And while Jews are now considered white, they have not always been considered white. They faced much racism, discimination and oppression (they were lynched as well, alongside Blacks sometimes), and had to claw their way to their current social positioning through much of the 18-19-20th centuries in the United States before they "arrived" in whiteness.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:38 AM
LBV made very good points, and I don't have much to add.

Basically I think how you phrased your question belies a certain bias in what you think racism is, i.e. you have already placed it within very strict bounds. As LBV mentioned, racism is a system of oppression. When you ask whether "intent" is necessary, it shows that you are interested in blaming individuals who practice deliberate racist actions.

But:
1) Racism is bigger than that.
2) There are different degrees of racism. The unintentional racist is probably "less racist" than the intentional one, if that helps you psychologically in thinking about the issue. Most of us are racists to some degree or another. I read about some research recently that showed that even children as young as 6 months old are able to identify people who are like them, and discriminate against those who are not like them, based on criteria as arbitrary as the kind of cereal they choose in the experiment. So a very visual species like human beings would certainly do the same for something like skin colour.

When I entered college, I was sent this book, "Why Are Alll The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" as an orientation reading. The author distinguishes between racism and racial prejudice, and between active racism and passive racism. She compares the system of oppression that is racism as a moving conveyor belt; and even if a white person (who is the beneficiary of this system) does nothing, he will still be moving along on the belt.

When writing the OP, I wasn't thinking about racism as a system but racism by individuals.

Yes, I'm inclined to believe that a individual racist action must have intent (hatred of a racial group, belief in inferiority/superiority of that racial group, essentializing certain characteristics to certain racial groups).

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:39 AM
Is that actually true, or is that just another racist/Anti-Semitic discourse that has permeated into our common sensical understandings of how the world works?

And while Jews are now considered white, they have not always been considered white. They faced much racism, discimination and oppression (they were lynched as well, alongside Blacks sometimes), and had to claw their way to their current social positioning through much of the 18-19-20th centuries in the United States before they "arrived" in whiteness.

It's true. :lol:

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:40 AM
Another point: what do you mean by "intent"?

Because I doubt most overtly racist people think of themselves as bad people or even deliberately racist. They are mostly misguided people with old-fashioned views of race that they picked up somewhere or other. So ultimately, ignorance is the root of racism (and here, I speak of racism as "racial prejudice), and intent, or the lack of, is the result of that ignorance.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:41 AM
No, I mean that the common sense view of racism isn't at all like the technical one you provide.Because psychologically, many people seek to provide a common sense definition of racism that does not implicate them in the process of racial oppression.

"I am a good person, and I believe in equality for all people -- how can I possibly be racist? I just told a racist joke, but I have black/brown/yellow friends! I even have had sex with black/brown/yellow people before."

But if you contribute to any of the projects of white racism/supremacy, you are a racist. However, like Moby said, there is a spectrum of racist implication, so to speak.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:45 AM
It's true. :lol:But Jews are now "white." Being white, how are they overrepresented in anything? Why are you making that distinction between "white" and "Jew"? Would you say that people of Scottish descent are overrepresented in those same institutions? No. :lol:The fact that you are making that distinction between white and Jew is the result of racism and anti-Semitism.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:47 AM
Another point: what do you mean by "intent"?

Because I doubt most overtly racist people think of themselves as bad people or even deliberately racist. They are mostly misguided people with old-fashioned views of race that they picked up somewhere or other. So ultimately, ignorance is the root of racism (and here, I speak of racism as "racial prejudice), and intent, or the lack of, is the result of that ignorance.

By intent, I mean the state of one's mind when they are doing the action. Intent that I believe leads to a racist outcome is hatred of a racial group, belief in inferiority/superiority of that racial group, or essentializing certain characteristics to certain racial groups.

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:48 AM
By intent, I mean the state of one's mind when they are doing the action. Intent that I believe leads to a racist outcome is hatred of a racial group, belief in inferiority/superiority of that racial group, or essentializing certain characteristics to certain racial groups.
Can you give an example of a racist action that is done without intent, in the sense you have used that word?

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:51 AM
But Jews are now "white." Being white, how are they overrepresented in anything? Why are you making that invidious distinction between "white" and "Jew"? Would you say that people of Scottish descent are overrepresented in those same institutions? No. :lol:The fact that you are making that distinction between white and Jew is the result of racism and anti-Semitism.

I made no such distinction.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:54 AM
I made no such distinction.
If you aren't making that distinction then, saying Jews are overrepresented in those institutions = Whites are overrepresented in those institutions. White is a race, Jew is not.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:54 AM
Can you give an example of a racist action that is done without intent, in the sense you have used that word?

Well, I don't believe that any such racist actions exist.

But here is one many thought to be racist: A white person calling a black person a "gorilla" without disliking blacks, believing that they are inferior, or essentializing characteristics to them. Said white person claimed that there was no intent of the kind I mentioned.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:58 AM
If you aren't making that distinction then, saying Jews are overrepresented in those institutions = Whites are overrepresented in those institutions. White is a race, Jew is not.

Jews are a segment of the white population who are overrepresented in all of those institutions.

I'd say the same if Nigerian-Americans were overrepresented. That doesn't mean that I don't think they are black.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:10 AM
Jews are a segment of the white population who are overrepresented in all of those institutions.

I'd say the same if Nigerian-Americans were overrepresented. That doesn't mean that I don't think they are black.But there is not a historical set of racist discourses that would be invoked by a statement about Nigerian-American overrepresentation. That oppressive history exists behind the idea that Jews are overrepresented in government, academia, elite universities, and among the world's billionaires. What you just said could have come right out of Hitler's mouth in 1935. :lol:

Sam L
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:10 AM
A white person calling a black person a "gorilla" without disliking blacks,

I find that hard to believe. If I don't like a black person, I wouldn't call them a gorilla. If I think she's a really bitch, nasty person, I will call her just that.

You don't have to be racist to all people in that race to be a racist towards a particular person.

Some people may be fine with other races as long as they still in their place etc... There's different kinds of racism.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:12 AM
But there is not a historical set of racist discourses that would be invoked by a statement about Nigerian-American overrepresentation. That oppressive history exists behind the idea that Jews are overrepresented in government, academia, elite universities, and among the world's billionaires. What you just said could have come right out of Hitler's mouth in 1935. :lol:

And? Hitler thought that overrepresentation of Jews was a bad thing. I don't.

And because of that my statement isn't anti-Semitic but Hitler's would be. My statement is just fact about the world. And facts can't be anti-Semitic.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:17 AM
And? Hitler thought that overrepresentation of Jews was a bad thing. I don't.Why not? Jews are white people, and overrepresentation of whites at the top of those institutions ---> white supremacy.

Are you arguing that white supremacy isn't a bad thing?

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:23 AM
And because of that my statement isn't anti-Semitic but Hitler's would be. My statement is just fact about the world. And facts can't be anti-Semitic.Your statement isn't a fact about the world though, because ethnicity/race/"Jewishness" are socio-cultural categories, not natural ones. Jewishness is not grounded in discrete, scientific fact - its meaning is constantly in flux and contingent upon historical circumstances. So any statement linking Jewishness to overrepresentation in those institutions is not a fact, its necessarily interpretive.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:23 AM
Why not? Jews are white people, and overrepresentation of whites at the top of those institutions ---> white supremacy.

Are you arguing that white supremacy isn't a bad thing?

Jews are overrepresented but whites are not. Imagine there's a country with a 90% white population and 10% black population. 100 seats need to be filled. 90% of those seats are filled by whites and 10% are filled by blacks. So no overrepresentation of whites. But of those 90 seats filled by whites, 80% are Jewish (let's say that they are 5% of the white population). So there is overrepresentation of Jews but not of whites. White people can have more than one identity, right?

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:25 AM
Your statement isn't a fact about the world though, because ethnicity/race/"Jewishness" are socio-cultural categories, not natural ones. Jewishness is not grounded in discrete, scientific fact - its meaning is constantly in flux and contingent upon historical circumstances.

So? :confused: There is a socio-cultural category and those in that category are overrepresented.

Would you also disagree that blacks are not underrepresented because race is not a discrete, natural category?

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:32 AM
Jews are overrepresented but whites are not. Imagine there's a country with a 90% white population and 10% black population. 100 seats that need to be filled. 90% of those seats are filled by whites and 10% are filled by blacks. So no overrepresentation of whites. But of those 90 seats filled by whites, 80% are Jewish (let's say that they are 5% of the white population). So there is overrepresentation of Jews but not of whites. White people can have more than one identity, right?Yeah, whites can have more than one social identity, but they can only have one racial identity. The nature of whiteness is very prescriptive in most Western societies -- you can't be both "white" and "black" for example, you are either/or. So if Jews are white, 80% of the seats being filled by Jews is a meaningless distinction, until we imbue social meaning into what that overrepresentation means.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:35 AM
Yeah, whites can have more than one social identity, but they can only have one racial identity. The nature of whiteness is very prescriptive in most Western societies -- you can't be both "white" and "black" for example, you are either/or. So if Jews are white, 80% of the seats being filled by Jews is a meaningless distinction, until we imbue social meaning into what that overrepresentation means.

It's not meaningless. Many people identify as Jewish. By overrepresentation all I mean is that the percentage of Jews in the institution is higher than the percentage of Jews in the total population.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:39 AM
So? :confused: There is a socio-cultural category and those in that category are overrepresented.

Would you also disagree that blacks are not underrepresented because race is not a discrete, natural category?But a fact is an indisputable truth though, right? All socio-cultural categories are not "facts", they are historically contingent and very tenuous. Right now, Jewish religious authorities could decide to revise their cultural distinctions on what it means to be Jewish, and instantly that over-representation would be erased. But would that still change the fact that the same people who were in power before are still in power after this new classification? Nope.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:46 AM
But a fact is an indisputable truth though, right? All socio-cultural categories are not "facts", they are historically contingent and very tenuous. Right now, Jewish religious authorities could decide to revise their cultural distinctions on what it means to be Jewish, and instantly that over-representation would be erased. But would that still change the fact that the same people who were in power before are still in power after this new classification? Nope.

But there are ethnic Jews.

And I don't get your point. The cultural distinctions on what it means to be black could be erased too. And then blacks wouldn't be underrepresented. Or is race a natural category? I don't know what you're arguing for.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 09:00 AM
But there are ethnic Jews.

And I don't get your point. The cultural distinctions on what it means to be black could be erased too. And then blacks wouldn't be underrepresented. Or is race a natural category? I don't know what you're arguing for.But even ethnicity is a social category as well.

And yes, if we lived in a historical vacuum, the cultural distinction on what it means to be black could be erased too, and then blacks might not be underrepresented. But thats not the realpolitik of white racist society. Whiteness is not an indisputable scientific fact, but it is a powerful social circumstance. Whiteness is an exclusive form of property, in a sense - some people (like Jews) have it and can leverage it to varying degrees, but Blacks and other non-whites cannot access or leverage it at all. It is this exclusivity of "whiteness" that reinforces white supremacy, and makes sure that Black and brown people do not have equitable representation in those institutions, while simultaneously provides spaces for many Jews to enter those positions of power.

But why were we talking about Jews in the first place? :hysteric:

miffedmax
Nov 30th, 2012, 11:32 AM
Well, I don't believe that any such racist actions exist.

But here is one many thought to be racist: A white person calling a black person a "gorilla" without disliking blacks, believing that they are inferior, or essentializing characteristics to them. Said white person claimed that there was no intent of the kind I mentioned.

I find that hard to believe. If I don't like a black person, I wouldn't call them a gorilla. If I think she's a really bitch, nasty person, I will call her just that.

You don't have to be racist to all people in that race to be a racist towards a particular person.

Some people may be fine with other races as long as they still in their place etc... There's different kinds of racism.

On a micro level, that's entirely possible. Calling large, clumsy people "apes" or "gorillas" is not uncommon. (You can find old films from the '30s and '40s where white "heavies" are called gorillas or big apes routinely). So it is possible a person could refer to a large, clumsy black person as a "big ape" without being aware of the history, esp. in the U.S., of cartoons and racist propaganda comparing blacks to apes, claiming that blacks are less evolved and literally more apelike than whites, etc.

In discourse on this forum, and maybe because of my background and position, I am always more prepared to ascribe perceived prejudice or racism regardless of whom it is targeted at as the product of ignorance and misunderstanding than of ill-intent. Sadly, I am sometimes proven wrong. But there have been times when I think I've been proven right as well.

On the macro level, I think LBV is doing a pretty good job of explaining it, although I would argue that in certain conditions racism can break down along other lines--certainly, the bias against Jews, or the bias against the Han under the Manchus, etc. are historic examples of ethnically based "racism" that closely parallel the situation he is describing.

WowWow
Nov 30th, 2012, 12:20 PM
On a micro level, that's entirely possible. Calling large, clumsy people "apes" or "gorillas" is not uncommon. (You can find old films from the '30s and '40s where white "heavies" are called gorillas or big apes routinely). So it is possible a person could refer to a large, clumsy black person as a "big ape" without being aware of the history, esp. in the U.S., of cartoons and racist propaganda comparing blacks to apes, claiming that blacks are less evolved and literally more apelike than whites, etc.

In discourse on this forum, and maybe because of my background and position, I am always more prepared to ascribe perceived prejudice or racism regardless of whom it is targeted at as the product of ignorance and misunderstanding than of ill-intent. Sadly, I am sometimes proven wrong. But there have been times when I think I've been proven right as well.

On the macro level, I think LBV is doing a pretty good job of explaining it, although I would argue that in certain conditions racism can break down along other lines--certainly, the bias against Jews, or the bias against the Han under the Manchus, etc. are historic examples of ethnically based "racism" that closely parallel the situation he is describing.

Some women use that term to describe a certain type of man (regardless of their race) in relation to their behavior, not physical characteristics.

wild.river
Nov 30th, 2012, 01:28 PM
In layman's terms, racism is a system of oppressive strategies employed by white people to preserve their cultural, political, and economic supremacy. Is that still too technical? :lol:

:unsure: is this satire?
do you think blacks, hispanics, indians, native americans, chinese, etc. aren't racist?

a (non-racist) definition:
racism is actions employed to assert cultural, political, and economic supremacy over persons of another race.

Stamp Paid
Nov 30th, 2012, 03:11 PM
:unsure: is this satire?
do you think blacks, hispanics, indians, native americans, chinese, etc. aren't racist?

a (non-racist) definition:
racism is actions employed to assert cultural, political, and economic supremacy over persons of another race.In a Euro-American context, no. Non-white people can be racially prejudiced and they can definitely be oppressive, but they can't be racist. You have to be able to back up your racial prejudice with institutional power to be a racist.

Now with the demographic changes occurring in the US, that may change in the future. But at the moment, no.

Expat
Nov 30th, 2012, 03:35 PM
LOL. Who says non whites within America can't be racist. In the Greater LA area where I live the most racism that occurs is black on Hispanic or hispanic on black. Whites are nowhere in the picture.

And racism will always occur. Its a survival technique given to us by mother nature. When food is plenty we can all sing kumbaya but when times are tough racism rises. Ever notice why anti-jewish sentiment always rises in times of economic turmoil.

PS: I'm not white.

delicatecutter
Nov 30th, 2012, 03:40 PM
I agree that non-whites can be racist. I see it all the time.

Nicolás89
Nov 30th, 2012, 03:42 PM
I don't have much to say I just knew this was going to become a white vs black issue. Shame.


In a Euro-American context, no. Non-white people can be racially prejudiced and they can definitely be oppressive, but they can't be racist. You have to be able to back up your racial prejudice with institutional power to be a racist.

Now with the demographic changes occurring in the US, that may change in the future. But at the moment, no.

Non sense. The most powerful and influential person in the world isn't even white and is an american, he wouldn't be called a racist if he fit the criteria?

Cajka
Nov 30th, 2012, 03:57 PM
White racism is a system of white supremacy that sustains cultural, political and economic domination of whites over all other races, and justifies the diverting of material and symbolic resources towards whites to preserve this inequality.

Yet you can read on this board that there's a rampant racism in Serbia. When someone says such an absurd thing, is it a prejudice too or something else?

dsanders06
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:00 PM
I find that hard to believe. If I don't like a black person, I wouldn't call them a gorilla. If I think she's a really bitch, nasty person, I will call her just that.

You don't have to be racist to all people in that race to be a racist towards a particular person.

Some people may be fine with other races as long as they still in their place etc... There's different kinds of racism.

But an important context to this is that poster wasn't just calling a black person a "gorilla" for the sake of it, he was saying she looked like a gorilla. And the poster said they had never heard black people being stereotyped as gorillas before. I have to admit that personally, even if I had never heard of that stereotype before, I would've thought it would be commonsense that it would be seen as offensive, but I can't see how the poster was anything more than insensitive, rather than racist.

Anyway, without wanting to start a war (genuinely), I do think a lot of posters here are guilty of applying Americanized standards to non-American posters when it comes to race. I'm not saying I don't understand why American black people would be way oversensitive to race matters given what happened in the USA's relatively recent history, but the fact is that most other Western countries just don't have that level of racism.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:09 PM
In a Euro-American context, no. Non-white people can be racially prejudiced and they can definitely be oppressive, but they can't be racist. You have to be able to back up your racial prejudice with institutional power to be a racist.

Now with the demographic changes occurring in the US, that may change in the future. But at the moment, no.

I don't think most people would agree with this. And if there's a definition that most people don't agree with, why should we accept it? Why is institutional power necessary to be a racist? Why can't we just call those people institutional racists?

Cajka
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:27 PM
I don't think most people would agree with this. And if there's a definition that most people don't agree with, why should we accept it? Why is institutional power necessary to be a racist? Why can't we just call those people institutional racists?

When you hear that someone is a sexist, do you think that it's a woman who thinks that men are inferior to women?

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:33 PM
When you hear that someone is a sexist, do you think that it's a woman who thinks that men are inferior to women?

I think women can be sexist towards men.

Cajka
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:45 PM
I think women can be sexist towards men.

They can hate men, discriminate them if they're in position to that, but it's not an established set of stereotypes that exists over centuries. There's a reason why it's a noun formed with suffix -ism, it suggest that it's basically a system, sexism and racism are both institutionalized.

Novichok
Nov 30th, 2012, 04:51 PM
They can hate men, discriminate them if they're in position to that, but it's not a set of stereotypes that exists over centuries. There's a reason why it's a noun formed with suffix -ism, it suggest that it's basically a system.

I don't see how the -ism suffix suggests that it's a system.

This is the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of sexism: Originally: the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare); (in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Cajka
Nov 30th, 2012, 05:09 PM
the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare)

This was an unmarked, too broad meaning, basically unnecessary. When you look at the most of the words formed with -ism, it's clear that most of them are related to movements, doctrines etc. It all has to be established. I'm not sure that there's an established racism towards white people.

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 05:20 PM
Anyway, without wanting to start a war (genuinely), I do think a lot of posters here are guilty of applying Americanized standards to non-American posters when it comes to race. I'm not saying I don't understand why American black people would be way oversensitive to race matters given what happened in the USA's relatively recent history, but the fact is that most other Western countries just don't have that level of racism.
This is very true. From my personal experience, America is the most race-conscious of any (Western) country. And it permeates every level society functions at. I was reading an interview by a straight British Asian male porn star yesterday who has been getting jobs in America - and he said that in Europe, he was just another guy, but in America, he was the Asian guy, and there is this fetishism going on.

Anyway, this also brings into the question of whether sexual racism is racism, and this is an issue that is very sensitive to a lot of people.

Nicolás89
Nov 30th, 2012, 05:56 PM
This is very true. From my personal experience, America is the most race-conscious of any (Western) country. And it permeates every level society functions at. I was reading an interview by a straight British Asian male porn star yesterday who has been getting jobs in America - and he said that in Europe, he was just another guy, but in America, he was the Asian guy, and there is this fetishism going on.

Anyway, this also brings into the question of whether sexual racism is racism, and this is an issue that is very sensitive to a lot of people.

:tears:

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:13 PM
:tears:

Do you want the link?

Nicolás89
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:14 PM
Do you want the link?

Link me his work. :p

moby
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:19 PM
Link me his work. :p

Just google "Keni Styles".

Nicolás89
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:22 PM
Just google "Keni Styles".

Damn. It seems appropiate for this thread topic to point out how well this guy kills the asian steriotype. :lol:

wild.river
Nov 30th, 2012, 06:26 PM
I don't see how the -ism suffix suggests that it's a system.

This is the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of sexism: Originally: the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare); (in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

excellent idea :p

racism
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or race.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
----

and that's the heart of it, imo. treating people based on your beliefs about all people specific to that race. negative or positive (like hiring an asian math tutor over a hispanic one).

economic and cultural opression are pretty far removed from ordinary people's every day motivations.

égalité
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:25 PM
Racism comes mostly from an ignorance of history. Bigotry is something different. I would say bigotry is a measure of how strongly you resist accepting facts that would make you less of a racist.

Start da Game
Nov 30th, 2012, 07:34 PM
time for an honest post.....racism's got everything to do with intent, cultural status and established beliefs.....

for example i could technically become a racist because i am from the "brahmin" race - noble educators of the world from 1000s of years, the top most class among hindu religion which is the first ever religion in the world......that belief is inherent in me and i can't do much about it......

now coming to practicality, i never behave as if i am the great one.....it is my intent which drives me......i can choose to be a racist but i just don't do so because i know the value of people from diverse backgrounds......what they add to the world......

i guess it also depends on how you see yourself in relation to others......i doubt i will ever take offense for a racist remark because i inherently believe that i am superior......

the only way to wipe out racism is through adopting "live and let live" and strive towards economic equality which would improvise systematic living and there by lessen the cultural gaps......

Sammo
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:21 PM
I still don't get why no one gives a flying fuck about black on white racism

dybbuk
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:21 PM
I'm don't even want in this discussion, because I mostly agree with LBV and don't need to add anything. But the argument going on is whether or not believing someone is racist just for a gorilla comment, and girl, there was way more going on before and after that comment that made people come to that conclusion.

However, this brings up something interesting. People are talking about American bias in issues of race, just yesterday it came out a woman of Romani descent accused Lindsay Lohan of calling her a "gypsy." To most Americans "gypsy" is not a slur, it's just a group of people who wear shawls and large jewelry. But to Eastern and Central Europeans it's apparently an explosive ethnic slur for a group who has been systematically abused for hundreds of years. Is Lindsay culpable in regards to European standards, even though she likely didn't know it was such a terrible slur?

My view of this is simply it's not the oppressed groups job to sit down over coffee with the person who used the slur or did the racist action and figure out if they are "intentionally racist" or not before they are allowed to be offended. In this case the Romani woman had every right to be highly offended and say it was a terrible ethnic slur, and from then Lindsay could either choose to step back and think about what she just said and to get educated, or to get automatically defensive and belittle the oppression of Romani people by trying to maintain it wasn't meant that way. In situations such as these, when the white person does something offensive to an oppressed group, it's THEIR job to realize they did something wrong and educate themselves. Not the oppressed group's job to mollycoddle them and not get offended so they don't offend the white person's delicate sensibilities. From experience I've almost always seen understanding and forgiveness when the white person admits they were wrong and attempts to educate themselves when they say something without understanding the full implications.

Cajka
Nov 30th, 2012, 08:39 PM
However, this brings up something interesting. People are talking about American bias in issues of race, just yesterday it came out a woman of Romani descent accused Lindsay Lohan of calling her a "gypsy." To most Americans "gypsy" is not a slur, it's just a group of people who wear shawls and large jewelry. But to Eastern and Central Europeans it's apparently an explosive ethnic slur for a group who has been systematically abused for hundreds of years. Is Lindsay culpable in regards to European standards, even though she likely didn't know it was such a terrible slur?

In Serbia, it's generally considered to be politically incorrect. Roma people call themselves "gypsies" inside their own community, but if a "white" person calls them "gypsies", it could be insulting. The word itself is not an issue, it's the connotation that makes it insulting. Serbian word for a gypsy can be used to insult anyone, not Roma people specifically. Telling someone "you're such a gypsy" is an insult... OTOH, a word "gypsy" has a positive connotation in some songs... There's even a football fan group called "Cigani" (Gypsies). It's complicated. :lol:

mykarma
Nov 30th, 2012, 09:20 PM
time for an honest post.....racism's got everything to do with intent, cultural status and established beliefs.....

for example i could technically become a racist because i am from the "brahmin" race - noble educators of the world from 1000s of years, the top most class among hindu religion which is the first ever religion in the world......that belief is inherent in me and i can't do much about it......

now coming to practicality, i never behave as if i am the great one.....it is my intent which drives me......i can choose to be a racist but i just don't do so because i know the value of people from diverse backgrounds......what they add to the world......

i guess it also depends on how you see yourself in relation to others......i doubt i will ever take offense for a racist remark because i inherently believe that i am superior......

the only way to wipe out racism is through adopting "live and let live" and strive towards economic equality which would improvise systematic living and there by lessen the cultural gaps......
Great analogy and great explanation of black on white racism.
I'm don't even want in this discussion, because I mostly agree with LBV and don't need to add anything. But the argument going on is whether or not believing someone is racist just for a gorilla comment, and girl, there was way more going on before and after that comment that made people come to that conclusion.

However, this brings up something interesting. People are talking about American bias in issues of race, just yesterday it came out a woman of Romani descent accused Lindsay Lohan of calling her a "gypsy." To most Americans "gypsy" is not a slur, it's just a group of people who wear shawls and large jewelry. But to Eastern and Central Europeans it's apparently an explosive ethnic slur for a group who has been systematically abused for hundreds of years. Is Lindsay culpable in regards to European standards, even though she likely didn't know it was such a terrible slur?

My view of this is simply it's not the oppressed groups job to sit down over coffee with the person who used the slur or did the racist action and figure out if they are "intentionally racist" or not before they are allowed to be offended. In this case the Romani woman had every right to be highly offended and say it was a terrible ethnic slur, and from then Lindsay could either choose to step back and think about what she just said and to get educated, or to get automatically defensive and belittle the oppression of Romani people by trying to maintain it wasn't meant that way. In situations such as these, when the white person does something offensive to an oppressed group, it's THEIR job to realize they did something wrong and educate themselves. Not the oppressed group's job to mollycoddle them and not get offended so they don't offend the white person's delicate sensibilities. From experience I've almost always seen understanding and forgiveness when the white person admits they were wrong and attempts to educate themselves when they say something without understanding the full implications.
Love your post but on TF from many the response is " there they go playing the race card again" and some had the nerve to add "every two seconds" a couple of days ago. It's sad that some people would rather remain ignorant than learn from their mistakes. Whether someone intends for a statement to be racist or not doesn't make it any less racist it's what the person does once they realize that fact.

Cajka
Dec 1st, 2012, 01:55 AM
Racism comes mostly from an ignorance of history. Bigotry is something different. I would say bigotry is a measure of how strongly you resist accepting facts that would make you less of a racist.

I agree with this. It all depends on your level of maturity and willingness to recognize your ignorance and prejudices. However, it's still beyond me how people can spend the entire life refusing to learn something about the world we've got lucky to live in only once. It's not like we've got 5 lives to live and correct our mistakes from previous lives.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 01:56 AM
LBV made very good points, and I don't have much to add.

Basically I think how you phrased your question belies a certain bias in what you think racism is, i.e. you have already placed it within very strict bounds. As LBV mentioned, racism is a system of oppression which has the effect of preserving advantages, specifically for the majority race, which in most contexts is the white race due to the recent history of colonialism. (In Japan, for instance, the "Caucasoid" Ainu race is the one that was systematically discriminated against) When you ask whether "intent" is necessary, it shows that you are interested in blaming individuals who practice deliberate racist actions.

However:
1) Racism is bigger than that.
2) There are different degrees of racism. The unintentional racist is probably "less racist" than the intentional one, if that helps you psychologically in thinking about the issue. Most of us are racists to some degree or another. I read about some research recently that showed that even children as young as 6 months old are able to identify people who are like them, and discriminate against those who are not like them, based on criteria as arbitrary as the kind of cereal they choose in the experiment. So a very visual species like human beings would certainly do the same for something like skin colour.

When I entered college, I was sent this book, "Why Are Alll The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" as an orientation reading. The author distinguishes between racism and racial prejudice, and between active racism and passive racism. She compares the system of oppression that is racism as a moving conveyor belt; and even if a white person (who is the beneficiary of this system) does nothing, he will still be moving along on the belt. Anyway, I think that's a good place to start if you want to think more about these issues.

The good rep I gave you on this says it all. :worship:

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 01:59 AM
I don't think racism is an exclusively white thing. Countries in Asia and Africa can have these people as well.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:02 AM
No, I mean that the common sense view of racism isn't at all like the technical one you provide.

Who's common sense view of racism, the one you presented that Moby alluded to? Open/clear your mind, first, then re-read what you responded to.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:14 AM
Well, I don't believe that any such racist actions exist.

But here is one many thought to be racist: A white person calling a black person a "gorilla" without disliking blacks, believing that they are inferior, or essentializing characteristics to them. Said white person claimed that there was no intent of the kind I mentioned.

From your OP I could tell that's what this thread was all about. A White person likened a Black person to a "gorilla" and then quickly edited his post removing the word "gorilla." Why do you think he bothered to do that? Did his conscious bother him, or what?

Cajka
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:19 AM
Who's common sense view of racism, the one you presented that Moby alluded to? Open/clear your mind, first, then re-read what you responded to.

Not to take anything from LBV's great contribution to this thread, but Moby made some great points, for sure the post you quoted is the best post in this thread. I'm not sure that people understand the term "racism" correctly, the problem is that most people imagine something extreme like a psycho who literally hates people because of their skin color. And, if you're sane, your first thought will be: "OMG, I'm not that kind of deranged freak." Moby made a great point about it:


2) There are different degrees of racism. The unintentional racist is probably "less racist" than the intentional one, if that helps you psychologically in thinking about the issue. Most of us are racists to some degree or another. I read about some research recently that showed that even children as young as 6 months old are able to identify people who are like them, and discriminate against those who are not like them, based on criteria as arbitrary as the kind of cereal they choose in the experiment. So a very visual species like human beings would certainly do the same for something like skin colour.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:23 AM
From your OP I could tell that's what this thread was all about. A White person likened a Black person to a "gorilla" and then quickly edited his post removing the word "gorilla." Why do you think he bothered to do that? Did his conscious bother him, or what?

Er - maybe he realised his joke went too far and retracted what he said?

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:24 AM
But why were we talking about Jews in the first place? :hysteric:

Word! That's what I wanted to ask, but I couldn't stop reading! :lol: There are Ethiopian Jews, as well as Jews of other non-white races. But I do understand where you're coming from in speaking of Jews on the US American standard.

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:31 AM
In Serbia, it's generally considered to be politically incorrect. Roma people call themselves "gypsies" inside their own community, but if a "white" person calls them "gypsies", it could be insulting. The word itself is not an issue, it's the connotation that makes it insulting. Serbian word for a gypsy can be used to insult anyone, not Roma people specifically. Telling someone "you're such a gypsy" is an insult... OTOH, a word "gypsy" has a positive connotation in some songs... There's even a football fan group called "Cigani" (Gypsies). It's complicated. :lol:

Yes. "Gypsy" in itself is not insulting really, the context is vital. Lindsay Lohan was obviously intending it to be an insult because she used the word in the context of an expletive-laden rant, and in a context where the person being a gypsy was irrelevant. Just in the same way, the word "black" on its own is not offensive, but bringing up a black person's skin colour when it's not relevant ("Get out of my way you black [person]"), even if they don't actually use a term that's in itself racist, would obviously be considered offensive. I'm not sure I see how the Lindsay Lohan incident correlates with the "gorilla" case.



My view of this is simply it's not the oppressed groups job to sit down over coffee with the person who used the slur or did the racist action and figure out if they are "intentionally racist" or not before they are allowed to be offended. In this case the Romani woman had every right to be highly offended and say it was a terrible ethnic slur, and from then Lindsay could either choose to step back and think about what she just said and to get educated, or to get automatically defensive and belittle the oppression of Romani people by trying to maintain it wasn't meant that way. In situations such as these, when the white person does something offensive to an oppressed group, it's THEIR job to realize they did something wrong and educate themselves. Not the oppressed group's job to mollycoddle them and not get offended so they don't offend the white person's delicate sensibilities. From experience I've almost always seen understanding and forgiveness when the white person admits they were wrong and attempts to educate themselves when they say something without understanding the full implications.

I don't even necessarily disagree that it's a person's responsibility to stop using a certain term once it's been pointed out that it's considered offensive. For example, after Serena's famous incident at the US Open a few years ago, I called Serena a "thug" (a word that doesn't have racial connotations in Britain and is used to describe certain white people just as much as black people); when some American posters said this is a racist term in the US, I actually stopped using it. I'm not saying someone should be "allowed" to carry on using racist terms even after being told that some would find it offensive - just as, if Dominic the poster in Novichok's hypothetical example had carried on calling Serena a gorilla after being told it's offensive, I would've had no doubt that he was being intentionally racist.

What I object to is when certain posters here label non-American people as racist forever more just because they used a term that's seen as racist in America (even if they stopped after being told).

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:32 AM
Non sense. The most powerful and influential person in the world isn't even white and is an american, he wouldn't be called a racist if he fit the criteria?

If you're referring to the American president, he has less influence than Nicki Minaj, and that refers to whomever the American president happens to be.

Cajka
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:33 AM
Er - maybe he realised his joke went too far and retracted what he said?

He said that somebody told him that it was a racist post, so he edited that. For me, it makes perfect sense. I mean, why would you make an outright racist post intentionally only to edit it in few minutes.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:37 AM
Thug is a racist term? Wtf?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:39 AM
Who's common sense view of racism, the one you presented that Moby alluded to? Open/clear your mind, first, then re-read what you responded to.

My mind is open. Can the same be said about yours?

From your OP I could tell that's what this thread was all about. A White person likened a Black person to a "gorilla" and then quickly edited his post removing the word "gorilla." Why do you think he bothered to do that? Did his conscious bother him, or what?

Someone told him that the "gorilla" comment could be seen as racist.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:48 AM
But an important context to this is that poster wasn't just calling a black person a "gorilla" for the sake of it, he was saying she looked like a gorilla. And the poster said they had never heard black people being stereotyped as gorillas before. I have to admit that personally, even if I had never heard of that stereotype before, I would've thought it would be commonsense that it would be seen as offensive, but I can't see how the poster was anything more than insensitive, rather than racist.

Anyway, without wanting to start a war (genuinely), I do think a lot of posters here are guilty of applying Americanized standards to non-American posters when it comes to race. I'm not saying I don't understand why American black people would be way oversensitive to race matters given what happened in the USA's relatively recent history, but the fact is that most other Western countries just don't have that level of racism.

http://ball71.com/images/serena-williams-06.jpg

http://rockingtheboatmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GorillaCommons.png

Please point out the resemblance. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/22.gif

The poster of which you speak is Canadian... not hardly immune to North Americanized standards of race. Again, why did he so quickly edit his post likening a Black person to a "gorilla", before even receiving a reply to it? Why is it so difficult for you to call a spade a spade? Why are you going beyond the call of duty to apologize for him?

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:57 AM
If you're referring to the American president, he has less influence than Nicki Minaj, and that refers to whomever the American president happens to be.

I live in a country really far from the US and people care a lot about what president Obama says, does or stops doing, that's influence, wouldn't be the same in the US?

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:01 AM
I don't think most people would agree with this. And if there's a definition that most people don't agree with, why should we accept it? Why is institutional power necessary to be a racist? Why can't we just call those people institutional racists?Racism has been critically studied sociologically and anthropologically, and there is a consensus on what racism is and how it is manifested. Laypeople holding steadfastly onto their "folk ideologies" of racism, denying academic consensus because it makes them uncomfortable, are the people who maintain the conditions for racial inequality moreso than the obvious bigots and virulent racists. I'm over it. :lol:
http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

If people want to learn more, they need to educate themselves and this website is a good place to start. http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:02 AM
This is very true. From my personal experience, America is the most race-conscious of any (Western) country. And it permeates every level society functions at. I was reading an interview by a straight British Asian male porn star yesterday who has been getting jobs in America - and he said that in Europe, he was just another guy, but in America, he was the Asian guy, and there is this fetishism going on.

Anyway, this also brings into the question of whether sexual racism is racism, and this is an issue that is very sensitive to a lot of people.

Do you think the 12.6% Black population of the USA, whose ancestors were brought here against their will to serve as slaves to White colonists, and who have been systematically discriminated against since day 1 of emancipation, might have something to do with that? :confused:

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:02 AM
http://ball71.com/images/serena-williams-06.jpg

http://rockingtheboatmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GorillaCommons.png

Please point out the resemblance. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/22.gif

The poster of which you speak is Canadian... not hardly immune to North Americanized standards of race. Again, why did he so quickly edit his post likening a Black person to a "gorilla", before even receiving a reply to it? Why is it so difficult for you to call a spade a spade? Why are you going beyond the call of duty to apologize for him?This visual juxtaposition has infuriated me, the responses to this post are going to make me cut up. Let me log out.

Tennisation
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:04 AM
http://starcasm.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Beyonce_fake_baby_bump.gif

This gone be good ...Bee, what a hot mess. I still think that pregnancy was fake :haha:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:05 AM
Racism comes mostly from an ignorance of history. Bigotry is something different. I would say bigotry is a measure of how strongly you resist accepting facts that would make you less of a racist.

Racism comes firstly from fear and then ignorance. Fear of the unknown, which is why it still permeates the youth.

moby
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:06 AM
Do you think the 12.6% Black population of the USA, whose ancestors were brought here against their will to serve as slaves to White colonists, and who have been systematically discriminated against since day 1 of emancipation, might have something to do with that? :confused:Of course. But surely there are other reasons too (slavery is not unique to the USA), and I'm not sure what those might be.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:11 AM
time for an honest post.....racism's got everything to do with intent, cultural status and established beliefs.....

for example i could technically become a racist because i am from the "brahmin" race - noble educators of the world from 1000s of years, the top most class among hindu religion which is the first ever religion in the world......that belief is inherent in me and i can't do much about it......

now coming to practicality, i never behave as if i am the great one.....it is my intent which drives me......i can choose to be a racist but i just don't do so because i know the value of people from diverse backgrounds......what they add to the world......

i guess it also depends on how you see yourself in relation to others......i doubt i will ever take offense for a racist remark because i inherently believe that i am superior......

the only way to wipe out racism is through adopting "live and let live" and strive towards economic equality which would improvise systematic living and there by lessen the cultural gaps......

All you're doing is not acting on your racist beliefs, yet still being racist. Big fuckin' deal. :rolleyes:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:16 AM
Racism has been critically studied sociologically and anthropologically, and there is a consensus on what racism is and how it is manifest. Lay people holding steadfastly onto their "folk ideologies" of racism, denying academic consensus because it makes them uncomfortable, are the people who maintain the conditions for racial inequality moreso than the obvious bigots and virulent racists. I'm over it. :lol:


So when a black person says that he hates white people and he's think that white people are inferior, he's not racist?

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of racism and most people's folk concept of racism is:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions.

How does having this definition of racism "maintain the conditions for racial inequality moreso than the obvious bigots and virulent racists"?

Why can't we say that any race can be racist? That view is not inconsistent with a view that racism can be a system.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:18 AM
Er - maybe he realised his joke went too far and retracted what he said?

For you to call it a "joke" says loads about you and why you're apologizing for him. The likes of you definitely stick together.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:24 AM
He said that somebody told him that it was a racist post, so he edited that. For me, it makes perfect sense. I mean, why would you make an outright racist post intentionally only to edit it in few minutes.
Because he was told he was going to be reported and people jumped all in his ass, that's way. Like someone else mentioned that wasn't the first time that this particular poster was called out.

TheDream
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:25 AM
Of course. But surely there are other reasons too (slavery is not unique to the USA), and I'm not sure what those might be.


Slavery has been around from the beginning of time but it wasn't until North American slavery that a racial component became prevalent, that dark skin automatically meant inferiority and became a status symbol to their enslavers.

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:26 AM
http://ball71.com/images/serena-williams-06.jpg

http://rockingtheboatmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GorillaCommons.png

Please point out the resemblance. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/22.gif

The poster of which you speak is Canadian... not hardly immune to North Americanized standards of race. Again, why did he so quickly edit his post likening a Black person to a "gorilla", before even receiving a reply to it? Why is it so difficult for you to call a spade a spade? Why are you going beyond the call of duty to apologize for him?

Oh look, setting up strawmen again. I never at any point said *I* believe Serena looked like a gorilla. But congratulations for your usual habit of derailing what was until now a relatively mature and thought-provoking debate (by TF's standards).

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:27 AM
Racism has been critically studied sociologically and anthropologically, and there is a consensus on what racism is and how it is manifested. Laypeople holding steadfastly onto their "folk ideologies" of racism, denying academic consensus because it makes them uncomfortable, are the people who maintain the conditions for racial inequality moreso than the obvious bigots and virulent racists. I'm over it. :lol:
http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

If people want to learn more, they need to educate themselves and this website is a good place to start. http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html

I think you might be guilty of that too. ;)

How can there be a concensus on what racism is when racism is experienced differently from person to person, community to community, country to country?

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:28 AM
He said that somebody told him that it was a racist post, so he edited that. For me, it makes perfect sense. I mean, why would you make an outright racist post intentionally only to edit it in few minutes.

I'll tell you why, because you were under the false impression that the majority would have your back and they didn't. To this day, that poster is posting about/bragging on the PMs and good reps he's received from that post, so he's anything but apologetic for it.

Also, take into account that many of us here have a deeper experience with this particular poster, so we're speaking from that standpoint and not just what you've randomly seen.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:30 AM
http://ball71.com/images/serena-williams-06.jpg

http://rockingtheboatmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GorillaCommons.png

Please point out the resemblance. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/22.gif

The poster of which you speak is Canadian... not hardly immune to North Americanized standards of race. Again, why did he so quickly edit his post likening a Black person to a "gorilla", before even receiving a reply to it? Why is it so difficult for you to call a spade a spade? Why are you going beyond the call of duty to apologize for him?
He did receive a reply because someone told him they were going to report him. Now it could have been the chicken and the egg thing. Anyhow, he's to be pitied not scorned. I think he'll say anything to get attention whether good or bad as long as it's attention. :sad:

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:30 AM
For you to call it a "joke" says loads about you and why you're apologizing for him. The likes of you definitely stick together.

No it doesn't say anything about him.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:32 AM
I'll tell you why, because you were under the false impression that the majority would have your back and they didn't. To this day, that poster is posting about/bragging on the PMs and good reps he's received from that post, so he's anything but apologetic for it.

Also, take into account that many of us here have a deeper experience with this particular poster, so we're speaking from that standpoint and not just what you've randomly seen.

Do you have any evidence of racism from Dominic besides the supposedly racist "gorilla" comment? There are people on TF who've interacted (deeply) with Dominic who don't believe he's racist.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:32 AM
For you to call it a "joke" says loads about you and why you're apologizing for him. The likes of you definitely stick together.

Er what?
At the end of the day he withdrew the word, not knowing that particular word can be that sensitive to a particular ethnic group of people. Case closed. Move forward.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:32 AM
I live in a country really far from the US and people care a lot about what president Obama says, does or stops doing, that's influence, wouldn't be the same in the US?

No. Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote, 3% less than half and he lost.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:35 AM
No. Mitt Romney got 47% of the vote, 3% less than half and he lost.

You cannot seriously believe that Nicki Minaj is more influential than Barack Obama. :help:

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:36 AM
So when a black person says that he hates white people and he's think that white people are inferior, he's not racist?
Is this a black person living in the United States? If so, he is a racially prejudiced bigot -- but he is not a racist.

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of racism and most people's folk concept of racism is:



How does having this definition of racism "maintain the conditions for racial inequality moreso than the obvious bigots and virulent racists"?

Why can't we say that any race can be racist? That view is not inconsistent with a view that racism can be a system.Look to a peer reviewed academic source for a more grounded and holistic definition of what racism is. The idea that 'any race can be racist' is a folk ideology that works to deny the specific reality of white supremacy that constitutes American racism, and it diminishes the culpability of American white people in preserving racism's material and social consequences.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:38 AM
Look to a peer reviewed academic source for a more grounded and holistic definition of what racism is. The idea that 'any race can be racist' is a folk ideology that works to deny the specific reality of white supremacy that constitutes American racism, and it diminishes the culpability of American white people in preserving racism's material and social consequences.

How does it do that? I'm skeptical. Convince me. :)

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:40 AM
Do you have any evidence of racism from Dominic besides the supposedly racist "gorilla" comment? There are people on TF who've interacted (deeply) with Dominic who don't believe he's racist.
Yeah so what and according to your post you're still trying to figure out what racism is.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:40 AM
I think you might be guilty of that too. ;)

How can there be a concensus on what racism is when racism is experienced differently from person to person, community to community, country to country?
I am not a layperson.
I not only rigorously study, but have also contributed to the production of knowledge about what race and racism are, from both biological and cultural perspectives.

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

As I said in my first post in this thread (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=22532248&postcount=3), there are multiple racisms. When I speak of racism (which I initially referred to as "white racism," I am speaking specifically of a Euro-American context.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:42 AM
Yeah so what and according to your post you're still trying to figure out what racism is.

I'm curious in knowing what other people think racism is. I have a rough view of what I think racism is. And no, I don't think Dominic is racist.

Cajka
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:43 AM
http://ball71.com/images/serena-williams-06.jpg

http://rockingtheboatmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GorillaCommons.png

Please point out the resemblance. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/22.gif


Of course, there's no resemblance, but that's not the point, IMO Serena is gorgeous, but it's not the point here really. I'll be honest, whenever my boyfriend says that Štepanek reminds him of monkeys, I feel bad for monkeys, they are not ugly creatures at all. The wrong thing is when someone tries to compare black people to primates, it's a way of suggesting that black people are subhumans (at least if we believe in Darwin's theory, which I hope we don't, but, yeah, we were speaking about an ignorance here).

I hope that Dominic never meant to suggest something like that. I honestly believe he didn't. That would be too retarded.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:45 AM
How does it do that? I'm skeptical. Convince me. :)
:spit: :bigwave:

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:45 AM
I am not a layperson.
I not only rigorously study, but have also contributed to the production of knowledge about what race and racism are, from both biological and cultural perspectives.

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

As I said in my first post in this thread (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=22532248&postcount=3), there are multiple racisms. When I speak of racism (which I initially referred to as "white racism," I am speaking specifically of a Euro-American context.

I bet there were a lot of interchange of ideas when you were studying did you use to roll your eyes at your peers opinions too!?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:46 AM
:spit: :bigwave:

What the hell is your problem? Grow up.

Cajka
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:53 AM
Well, at least this looked like it would become a civil discussion. But after few pages, the only question that remains is: "What did monkeys do to get compared to human kind?" (regardless of skin color) They're actually cute and harmless.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:57 AM
How does it do that? I'm skeptical. Convince me. :)
Because the idea that "everyone can be a racist" makes all forms of racial prejudices equivalent, and intentionally obscures the reality that white racism is backed by prodigious political, economic, cultural, and institutional power, and has created one of the most devastating systems of material and symbolic subjugation, degradation, and oppression that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:00 AM
I bet there were a lot of interchange of ideas when you were studying did you use to roll your eyes at your peers opinions too!?No, I usually do the academic equivalent of reading someone to within an inch of their life: write a scathing rebuttal. :lol:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:05 AM
Because the idea that "everyone can be a racist" makes all forms of racial prejudices equivalent, and intentionally obscures the reality that white racism is backed by prodigious political, economic, cultural, and institutional power, and has created one of the most devastating systems of material and symbolic subjugation, degradation, and oppression that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

Personally, I am inclined to believe that "everyone can be a racist" but I don't believe that all forms of racial prejudices are equivalent.

wild.river
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:06 AM
Because the idea that "everyone can be a racist" makes all forms of racial prejudices equivalent, and intentionally obscures the reality that white racism is backed by prodigious political, economic, cultural, and institutional power, and has created one of the most devastating systems of material and symbolic subjugation, degradation, and oppression that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

well academics should elevate the special vileness of white racism instead of making minority racism less than what it is..

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:08 AM
Personally, I am inclined to believe that "everyone can be a racist" but I don't believe that all forms of racial prejudices are equivalent.That's because you have an incomplete understanding of what racism is, how racism began, what racism's ideological projects are, and how racism works.

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:11 AM
No, I usually do the academic equivalent of reading someone to within an inch of their life: write a scathing rebuttal. :lol:

Well that attitude makes you look as an arrogant smartass and nobody likes an arrogant smartass. ;)

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:12 AM
That's because you have an incomplete understanding of what racism is, how racism began, what racism's ideological projects are, and how racism works.

I thought you were claiming that the "everyone can be racist" idea of racism makes people think that all forms of racism are equivalent. I was pointing out that I have that view but I don't believe that all forms of racism are equivalent.

How exactly does it make all forms of racism equivalent?

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:17 AM
Well that attitude makes you look as an arrogant smartass and nobody likes an arrogant smartass. ;)Thanks for the advice.

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:18 AM
The reason Dominic got all the good reps after the "gorilla" incident is because JN and mykarma are annoying as shit and despised by most of the board. So anyone who twists them up gets encouraged because most people are too big of pussies to call them out on their crap, but love to see someone else do it. Whenever I get into it with these turds, I get loads of good reps, too. If you want like 4-5 green dots, tell them off in a post, it's practically automatic and it's an assortment of posters.

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:18 AM
Thanks for the advice.

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/john-wall-rolling-his-eyes-wizards-suck.gif

Lol it wasn't an advice. :p

Stay mad all you like. :lol:

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:23 AM
Personally, I am inclined to believe that "everyone can be a racist" but I don't believe that all forms of racial prejudices are equivalent.

x2

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:26 AM
I thought you were claiming that the "everyone can be racist" idea of racism makes people think that all forms of racism are equivalent. I was pointing out that I have that view but I don't believe that all forms of racism are equivalent.

How exactly does it make all forms of racism equivalent?
Because the idea that 'everyone can be racist' was first propagated by groups and individuals with massive political and economic influence, whose goal was to reshape the public discourse concerning racism in the United States in an Affirmative Action era, in order to divert attention away from the very specific material and social consequences of white racism and preserve white privilege and supremacy.

And besides, even if you feel that way, you are black. Your personal views are irrelevant to the ideological projects of white racism.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:31 AM
Lol it wasn't an advice. :p

Stay mad all you like. :lol:You always calling somebody mad. Ain't nobody mad. :lol:

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:33 AM
You always calling somebody mad. Ain't nobody mad. :lol:

Great. :p

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:34 AM
Because the idea that 'everyone can be racist' was first propagated by groups and individuals with massive political and economic influence, whose goal was to reshape the public discourse concerning racism in the United States in an Affirmative Action era, in order to divert attention away from the very specific material and social consequences of white racism and preserve white privilege and supremacy.

And besides, even if you feel that way, you are black. Your personal views are irrelevant to the ideological projects of white racism.

Were those groups successful in making all forms of racial prejudice equivalent?

LeRoy.
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:39 AM
I find it weird how very few people like to talk about internalized racism. 99.9999% of people who are quick to call others a racist are racist themselves. Fight against and fix the problem within your community before you try it on others. :shrug:

Its easy to blame it all on the white people but I think the minorities need to reflect on their own behavior first before pointing fingers.

jameshazza
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:41 AM
I understand where Novichok is coming from. Common sense would have told me that 'ape' or 'gorilla' could be viewed as racist but it was only recently that I was made aware of the racist connotations of watermelon. I think intent has a lot to do with it. For instance, in the definition in the OP 'ignorance' is included which suggests a deliberate refusal to acknowledge or understand. This is itself creates a paradox. How can one unknowingly perform a racist action when they have deliberately decided to ignore the racist connotations of the said action? If a person is unaware of the racial associations of the said action then are they 'racist'. I put 'racist' in inverted commas because the action is not insulting in the mind of the perpetrator, the thought process which led to the action were not influenced by any racial factors, it is racist only in the minds of the victim or others aware of the racist implications of the said action.

I do also feel that Americans are guilty of expecting the rest of the world to recognise and be fully aware of the racial issues in their country. For instance the 'their responsibility' view is in itself a bias. I could research racial slurs for hours on end and still not come across half those used in the US. Is an individual really expected to be aware of every phrase or action another individual may find offensive? The world doesn't and will never work like that. Responsibility only comes into it after the person has been made aware of the racist nature of their action as dsanders alluded to. It is then their responsibility to accept how their action was racist and to not repeat the action.

However, I understand the view of racism as a system, ie. Western governments' unfair sharing of resources. However the average joe just goes about their day to day life with no influence into government actions. They are merely part of the racist system. They do not know in what way they contribute to the racist system just by living their lives. So is the individual racist then just by being part of the racist system?

Also, can racism truly be defined as such? What is racism? Doesn't the belief of racism promote racism? If there was true equality an action would have either equal or zero effect on a white or black person unless of course there was a deep personal experience connected to the action. The belief that someone of a different skin colour from you cannot perform a certain action on you because of your skin colour only highlights the difference in skin colour and grants it major significance.

I feel if racism is ever to be eradicated it will require the future generations of black people to individualize themselves and accept that the actions against previous generations were not done to them and were not done by their current generation of white people. It will also require white people to condemn the actions of their previous generations and understand that they will never be repeated. This will also go a major length to removing internalized racism which is in itself a major problem. This might seem impossible now given that, historically speaking, it hasn't been a nanoblink since the black civil rights movement in the US. But it can be done, see the protestant vs catholic conflict throughout Irish history for an example.


This is certainly an interesting thread with many aspects I've never though of before. It took me that long to type out my initial post that TF logged me out, so this was essentially from memory so sorry if some parts seem brash or underdeveloped.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:46 AM
Were those groups successful in making all forms of racial prejudice equivalent?
We will find out once the Supreme Court makes its final ruling on Fisher v. University of Texas.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:48 AM
I find it weird how very few people like to talk about internalized racism. 99.9999% of people who are quick to call others a racist are racist themselves. Fight against and fix the problem within your community before you try it on others. :shrug:

Its easy to blame it all on the white people but I think the minorities need to reflect on their own behavior first before pointing fingers.Why can't you do both at the same time?

delicatecutter
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:18 AM
Dominic isn't racist. He just doesn't like Serena.

I'm glad I don't feel held down by the white man. What an awful burden that must feel like. If anything, I've probably gotten advantages being a person of color because companies like having diversity and that gives me a leg up. :shrug:

Dominic
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:27 AM
I feel if racism is ever to be eradicated it will require the future generations of black people to individualize themselves and accept that the actions against previous generations were not done to them and were not done by their current generation of white people.

:worship::worship::worship: This cannot be said enough

Dominic
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:29 AM
Dominic isn't racist. He just doesn't like Serena.


This also cannot be said enough!

Dominic
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:36 AM
Here it is again

racism [ˈreɪsɪzəm], racialism [ˈreɪʃəˌlɪzəm]

1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

It is 100% about intent and belief and nothing else. If anyone here has another definition, well they are wrong/or talking about a concept other than racism

and did I really read that not all races can be racist? :help::help::help: It's not mentionned in the definition that it's only prejudice from white ppl that can be considered racist.

delicatecutter
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:42 AM
So sad that anything like that is race-based. There are plenty of lower-class white people whose ancestors weren't brought over here involuntarily.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:45 AM
Virginia's achievement standards by race

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/virginia-new-achievement-based-on-race_n_1826624.html

Virginia's new achievement standards have raised eyebrows.

Only 45 percent of black students are required to pass the math state test while 82 percent for Asian Americans, 68 percent for whites and 52 percent for Hispanics are required to pass. In reading, 92 percent of Asian students, 90 percent of white students, 80 percent of hispanic students, 76 percent of black students, and 59 percent of students with disabilities are required to pass the state exam.

The state says these percentages are based on previous pass rates for the various groups, but many school officials aren't satisfied, saying that if the state expects less performance from a particular group of students, they will lose the motivation to perform better.So flawed, despicable, psychologically damaging - and totally congruent with the projects and ambitions of white racism.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:02 AM
How could anyone get into any college, UVA or otherwise, without passing the state math test? Are colleges so PC now that you don't even have to pass some state math test?? Tomorrow's leaders, I guess. God help us all in education for this country.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:22 AM
Oh look, setting up strawmen again. I never at any point said *I* believe Serena looked like a gorilla. But congratulations for your usual habit of derailing what was until now a relatively mature and thought-provoking debate (by TF's standards).

But you did say, and I quote, "But an important context to this is that poster wasn't just calling a black person a "gorilla" for the sake of it, he was saying she looked like a gorilla." in your quest to apologize for the racist. So, you were saying??? :confused:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:26 AM
Do you have any evidence of racism from Dominic besides the supposedly racist "gorilla" comment? There are people on TF who've interacted (deeply) with Dominic who don't believe he's racist.

Yes. That's exactly what I said. And the fact that you even had to ask that proves that you started this thread with a preconceived notion rather than an open mind, as you tried to present it as.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:30 AM
Er what?
At the end of the day he withdrew the word, not knowing that particular word can be that sensitive to a particular ethnic group of people. Case closed. Move forward.

You say that because you took him at his word... I don't. Why? Because I've experienced his racist bullshit before that. Now what?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:33 AM
Yes. That's exactly what I said. And the fact that you even had to ask that proves that you started this thread with a preconceived notion rather than an open mind, as you tried to present it as.

Well if you have the evidence then present it.

And the fact that I asked that question doesn't prove what you claim it does. :tape:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:34 AM
You say that because you took him at his word... I don't. Why? Because I've experienced his racist bullshit before that. Now what?

Now what? Umm, show us the evidence of Dominic's racism.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:37 AM
You cannot seriously believe that Nicki Minaj is more influential than Barack Obama. :help:

Yes, I can. You probably don't see it because most of her fans can't vote... but in time, they will be able to. Adults aren't influenced by another adult just because s/he won an election, especially not the adults who voted against him or her.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:40 AM
Now what? Umm, show us the evidence of Dominic's racism.So I will send you a screenshot of the PMs and the despicable reps hes sent me in the past, so we can we kill this discussion on Dumbinic and have a get back to the broader discussion of what racism is. :lol:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:42 AM
So I will send you a screenshot of the PMs and the despicable reps hes sent me in the past, so we can we kill this discussion on Dumbinic and have a get back to the broader discussion of what racism is. :lol:

Okay.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:43 AM
I'm curious in knowing what other people think racism is. I have a rough view of what I think racism is. And no, I don't think Dominic is racist.

Then why does your "curiosity" lead you to challenging those other ideas, instead of trying to understand them?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:43 AM
Yes, I can. You probably don't see it because most of her fans can't vote... but in time, they will be able to. Adults aren't influenced by another adult just because s/he won an election, especially not the adults who voted against him or her.

:help:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:44 AM
Then why does your "curiosity" lead you to challenging those other ideas, instead of trying to understand them?

Challenging a view often leads to better understanding than just accepting it.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:45 AM
You say that because you took him at his word... I don't. Why? Because I've experienced his racist bullshit before that. Now what?

Receipts. Apart from the gorilla incident.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:47 AM
So I will send you a screenshot of the PMs and the despicable reps hes sent me in the past, so we can we kill this discussion on Dumbinic and have a get back to the broader discussion of what racism is. :lol:

Post it here then.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:47 AM
Of course, there's no resemblance, but that's not the point, IMO Serena is gorgeous, but it's not the point here really. I'll be honest, whenever my boyfriend says that Štepanek reminds him of monkeys, I feel bad for monkeys, they are not ugly creatures at all. The wrong thing is when someone tries to compare black people to primates, it's a way of suggesting that black people are subhumans (at least if we believe in Darwin's theory, which I hope we don't, but, yeah, we were speaking about an ignorance here).

I hope that Dominic never meant to suggest something like that. I honestly believe he didn't. That would be too retarded.

I posted those 2 images in direct response to dsanders saying, "But an important context to this is that poster wasn't just calling a black person a "gorilla" for the sake of it, he was saying she looked like a gorilla."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:50 AM
Post it here then.Why? If you know that Dominic is not a racist, then anything vile he has ever said to me shouldn't matter right?

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:52 AM
Why? If you know that Dominic is not a racist, then anything vile he has ever said to me shouldn't matter right?

So you're bluffing. I mean I cannot say he is based on one single incident like that.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:54 AM
Well that attitude makes you look as an arrogant smartass and nobody likes an arrogant smartass. ;)

As in arrogant smartasses like yourself who chastise posters for not labeling the pics they post with the subject's name(s)?

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:58 AM
So you're bluffing. I mean I cannot say he is based on one single incident like that.Would 1 more incident make a difference?

And no, what the fuck would I bluff for.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:58 AM
Because the idea that 'everyone can be racist' was first propagated by groups and individuals with massive political and economic influence, whose goal was to reshape the public discourse concerning racism in the United States in an Affirmative Action era, in order to divert attention away from the very specific material and social consequences of white racism and preserve white privilege and supremacy.

And besides, even if you feel that way, you are black. Your personal views are irrelevant to the ideological projects of white racism.

Thus bringing about the ludicrous terminology of, "reverse racism." :help: Notice it's only brought to the fore when Whites feel slighted.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:00 AM
Would 1 more incident make a difference?

And no, what the fuck would I bluff for.

At least it can substantiate your POV. Just like writing an argumentative essay in school.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:03 AM
I find it weird how very few people like to talk about internalized racism. 99.9999% of people who are quick to call others a racist are racist themselves. Fight against and fix the problem within your community before you try it on others. :shrug:

Its easy to blame it all on the white people but I think the minorities need to reflect on their own behavior first before pointing fingers.

One would hardly find racism within their own community, if their own community is made up up of one race, now wouldn't they? :help:

delicatecutter
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:05 AM
Why? If you know that Dominic is not a racist, then anything vile he has ever said to me shouldn't matter right?

And what about what you've said about him? It's two-way street.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:06 AM
Dominic isn't racist. He just doesn't like Serena.

I'm glad I don't feel held down by the white man. What an awful burden that must feel like. If anything, I've probably gotten advantages being a person of color because companies like having diversity and that gives me a leg up. :shrug:

Dominic is a racist and I've never been held down by a white man, no matter that they've tried. Burden, what? Being aware, doesn't make me a victim.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:08 AM
At least it can substantiate your POV. Just like writing an argumentative essay in school.Substantiate my POV to who, you? I don't give a damn about you, you will think what you want regardless of what I say.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not Dumbinic is a racist or not - I know what he has said to me, repeatedly calling me ghetto, ignorant, hoodrat, and his gorilla post was not even the first time he has likened Serena to an animal. I only care about Novichok, so he could end that part of the discussion and we can move on to articulate the larger topic (which I find much more compelling than debating whether TF's village idiot is a racist or not.)

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:11 AM
So flawed, despicable, psychologically damaging - and totally congruent with the projects and ambitions of white racism.

Williamsser makes a science of it. It's best to just scroll past when you see his name... same with Mr. Lawson, like I just did.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:15 AM
Well if you have the evidence then present it.

And the fact that I asked that question doesn't prove what you claim it does. :tape:

I don't need to prove anything to you to be convinced of what I believe. Maybe that's your problem, feeling I do.

delicatecutter
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:16 AM
Dominic is a racist and I've never been held down by a white man, no matter that they've tried. Burden, what? Being aware, doesn't make me a victim.

Racists usually want nothing to do with black people, let alone wanting to be friends with them. Next.

I do applaud you for not being a victim. And I hope you don't see every white face as an oppressor and the collective enemy as some people of color do.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:21 AM
Substantiate my POV to who, you? I don't give a damn about you, you will think what you want regardless of what I say.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not Dumbinic is a racist or not - I know what he has said to me, repeatedly calling me ghetto, ignorant, hoodrat, and his gorilla post was not even the first time he has likened Serena to an animal. I only care about Novichok, so he could end that part of the discussion and we can move on to articulate the larger topic (which I find much more compelling than debating whether TF's village idiot is a racist or not.)

Yeah, let's just drop that conversation. Now back to our earlier conversation, you said that racism was created in order to justify slavery. By racism, you mean the view that whites are inherently superior to blacks? When did it become systematized?

What are some problems with saying that there's racism (as defined by the OED) and systematic racism (as defined by academic anthropologists)?

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:22 AM
Now what? Umm, show us the evidence of Dominic's racism.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/gorilla.png

How many more times will I be asked to present this? :confused:

SN: Mods, I was asked to post this, so please don't delete it again.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:23 AM
I don't need to prove anything to you to be convinced of what I believe. Maybe that's your problem, feeling I do.

Okay.

Sam L
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:24 AM
I'm just going to throw this out there. The hate for Serena could have to do with the fact that she's a very successful African American woman. Some racists may not have any problems with an unknown African American woman working a regular job or even a mildly successful African American tennis playing woman who doesn't threaten the white elites of this sport. But once she becomes successful and the best at what she does, despite her competition, people may dislike and it could have more things to do with than her personality.

I still think that someone calling Serena a gorilla reaks of "how dare this black woman be the best and be beating all the other white women". That is my opinion. Whether they are racists to other black people in real life or not, I don't know. And it doesn't matter because racism comes in different forms. Just because they say that, it doesn't mean they are a Neo-nazi and going to kill black people.

It's OK to dislike a tennis player. I can't stand Graf, Stosur, Clijsters for example. But there's no need to call them a racist name.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:25 AM
:help:

Care to explain or is that all you've got?

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:29 AM
Challenging a view often leads to better understanding than just accepting it.

Well, seeing as how you started this out with a preconceived notion that's definitely been challenged, has your stance changed?

Start da Game
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:29 AM
Great analogy and great explanation of black on white racism.



thanks but i don't see myself or most other indians don't see themselves as black or white or red or brown......the whole concept of colour is heavily flawed......india has almost all races on earth......the most diverse nation on earth......so it is only natural that western categorization of race doesn't work with india......

i look far more fairer than the average greek, average brazilian, egyptians and even some spanish and other european nations......i don't care what that makes me, i am an indian and i don't like being branded black or white or brown or yellow or red......there are hundreds of thousands in india who are fairer than me and millions who are darker in comparison to me......

we just find it hilarious that world standards on race is based on some european classification of the world in the 17th century when such thing happened 1000s of years ago in the indian subcontinent and is still continuing to this date......it's probably got to do with the fact that india never invaded any country in her history of 20,000 years and never forced her concept over others......

i am not supporting indian or european classification but just pointing out how stupid classifications based on colour or DNA can be......

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:33 AM
Receipts. Apart from the gorilla incident.

Why apart from the gorilla incident? :confused: As far as I'm concerned, that's all the receipts needed? You have a problem with that? You don't get to write that off, just because. :lol:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:39 AM
So you're bluffing. I mean I cannot say he is based on one single incident like that.

And? Who cares what you can or cannot say? I'm convinced as I'm sure LBV is. Your cosignment is not required. :shrug:

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:40 AM
Care to explain or is that all you've got?

President Obama has more power to effect change than Nicki Minaj. That is evident considering he's the leader of the world's most powerful country. There are more people who voted for President Obama than there are fans of Nicki Minaj in the United States. Worldwide President Obama is much more well known and liked than Nicki Minaj. The claim that Nicki Minaj is more influential than Obama is laughable. I can't believe any adult would seriously believe that.

Well, seeing as how you started this out with a preconceived notion that's definitely been challenged, has your stance changed?

No, not yet. I have a preconceived notion that 2+2=4, I'm not gonna change it just to show someone that I'm open to ideas. When LBV or other proponents of the definition that he has provided have presented an argument that I find to be compelling, then I will change my stance.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:43 AM
Yeah, let's just drop that conversation. Now back to our earlier conversation, you said that racism was created in order to justify slavery. By racism, you mean the view that whites are inherently superior to blacks? When did it become systematized?

What are some problems with saying that there's racism (as defined by the OED) and systematic racism (as defined by academic anthropologists)?The whole idea that human beings are naturally divided into separate, distinct "races" did not even become systematized until early European exploration and the dawn of capitalism. Diverse humans have been moving, migrating, intermarrying and interacting with each other since humanity began, and humans likely developed prejudices about people who looked different from them. But it wasn't until the last 500 years, under European global hegemony, that human groups began to be seen as being intrinsically associated with behavioral and cultural traits based on immutable, "racial" categories. The point of Europeans classifying other humans in this way was not just to make sense of human differences - humans have been dealing with difference for 100K years. The point of the idea of "race" was to create a system of oppression that would justify the exploitation and forced labor of Africans, Asians, and Indigenous peoples by European imperialists.

In re: your last question, any valid definiton of the concept must reckon with the material and ideological bases of racism. By saying that racism = people intentionally not liking other people because of their "race" naturalizes the false idea that "races" exist naturally in the world. "Race" itself is not a natural way to group human beings - "race" was created in order to justify European exploitation of the world's people. That must be recognized in any definition of racism for it to be valid and have any explanatory power.

Mynarco
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:43 AM
And? Who cares what you can or cannot say? I'm convinced as I'm sure LBV is. Your consignment is not required. :shrug:

Then don't complain when you think why there are not any more TFers (apart from you trio) understanding he is a racist.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:51 AM
In re: your last question, any valid definiton of the concept must reckon with the material and ideological bases of racism. By saying that racism = people intentionally not liking other people because of their "race" naturalizes the false idea that "races" exist naturally in the world. "Race" itself is not a natural way to group human beings - "race" was created in order to justify European exploitation of the world's people. That must be recognized in any definition of racism for it to be valid and have any explanatory power.

material and ideological bases? :confused:

Also, even if races don't exist as a natural kind, can't we say that they exist as a cultural one? There is a cultural classification or "black, white, Asian, etc."

I just don't see how "by saying that racism = people intentionally not liking other people because of their "race" naturalizes the false idea that "races" exist naturally in the world."

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:55 AM
President Obama has more power to effect change than Nicki Minaj. That is evident considering he's the leader of the world's most powerful country. There are more people who voted for President Obama than there are fans of Nicki Minaj in the United States. Worldwide President Obama is much more well known and liked than Nicki Minaj. The claim that Nicki Minaj is more influential than Obama is laughable. I can't believe any adult would seriously believe that.

What exactly does President Obama influence people to do that you can point a finger at, on a national or world-wide level? Now answer the same of Nicki Minaj.

The people who did or did not vote for Obama have not changed their minds after his re-election.

What even is it that he does that could be influential? Pay his taxes? Raise his children? Love his wife? What???

You're letting your mind run away from you, and aren't really thinking about what you're saying. :help:

No, not yet. I have a preconceived notion that 2+2=4, I'm not gonna change it just to show someone that I'm open to ideas. When LBV or other proponents of the definition that he has provided have presented an argument that I find to be compelling, then I will change my stance.

2+2 equaling 4 has nothing to do with Dominic being the racist he is, but again, your agreement isn't necessary.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:01 AM
What exactly does President Obama influence people to do that you can point a finger at, on a national or world-wide level? Now answer the same of Nicki Minaj.

The people who did or did not vote for Obama have not changed their minds after his re-election.

What even is it that he does that could be influential? Pay his taxes? Raise his children? Love his wife? What???

You're letting your mind run away from you, and aren't really thinking about what you're saying. :help:


Fallacy of equivocation.

2+2 equaling 4 has nothing to do with Dominic being the racist he is, but again, your agreement isn't necessary.

You've completely missed the point. I'm done.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:04 AM
material and ideological bases? :confused:

Also, even if races don't exist as a natural kind, can't we say that they exist as a cultural one? There is a cultural classification or "black, white, Asian, etc."

I just don't see how "by saying that racism = people intentionally not liking other people because of their "race" naturalizes the false idea that "races" exist naturally in the world."What I mean is that essentially, race and racism both developed in tandem with the end of serfdom and mercantilism in Europe, and the rise of capitalism. The need to find new ways to extract labor from people in order to accumulate capital is what facilitated the drive to divide humans into hierarchical categories that would justify their subjugation.

Consider this example. Prior to European imperialism, you have 3 men - one living in Southern Africa, one in West Africa, the other in Central Africa. These people are radically different, culturally, linguistically, and phenotypically. Do you think they saw themselves as all being in the same cultural group of "black" people? No, they didn't. They would have all considered themselves as 3 distinct "races". It was not until Europeans came in and dehumanized them all based on the need to extract labor from them, that they came to group themselves together as "black".

Expat
Dec 1st, 2012, 11:03 AM
What I mean is that essentially, race and racism both developed in tandem with the end of serfdom and mercantilism in Europe, and the rise of capitalism. The need to find new ways to extract labor from people in order to accumulate capital is what facilitated the drive to divide humans into hierarchical categories that would justify their subjugation.

Consider this example. Prior to European imperialism, you have 3 men - one living in Southern Africa, one in West Africa, the other in Central Africa. These people are radically different, culturally, linguistically, and phenotypically. Do you think they saw themselves as all being in the same cultural group of "black" people? No, they didn't. They would have all considered themselves as 3 distinct "races". It was not until Europeans came in and dehumanized them all based on the need to extract labor from them, that they came to group themselves together as "black".

What? Even prior to "the rise of capitalism in Europe" there was still trading in slaves in Africa and there is slavery to this present day.
And societies always had categories of people (race, religion ) that they should enslave while leaving others. Arabs didn't take Muslims as slaves while trading non Muslims as slaves, Egyptians took Jews as slaves (assuming what the Bible says is true). Blacks were being traded by other blacks as slaves. Prior to Livingstone Africa was known as the dark continent because no westerner set foot on it yet there was a thriving slave trade prior to whites entering the market. Blacks were being captured by other blacks who traded them like cattle to foreigners first Arabs and then whites.
Perhaps you should read this article by Henry Louis Gates (African American studies professor at Harvard and Obama's friend) in the liberal NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1354363200-90QXUo0tfcS5Rrbmvk+fjQ

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 01:17 PM
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/gorilla.png

How many more times will I be asked to present this? :confused:

SN: Mods, I was asked to post this, so please don't delete it again.

Too bad I didn't have the "good sense" to do the same to all your anti-gay, gay-bashing posts you made about me after I wound you up earlier in the year that were deleted. Those were multiple posts, not just one like Dominic, and Dominic quickly deleted it. Mods had to delete yours.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:32 PM
What? Even prior to "the rise of capitalism in Europe" there was still trading in slaves in Africa and there is slavery to this present day.
And societies always had categories of people (race, religion ) that they should enslave while leaving others. Arabs didn't take Muslims as slaves while trading non Muslims as slaves, Egyptians took Jews as slaves (assuming what the Bible says is true). Blacks were being traded by other blacks as slaves. Prior to Livingstone Africa was known as the dark continent because no westerner set foot on it yet there was a thriving slave trade prior to whites entering the market. Blacks were being captured by other blacks who traded them like cattle to foreigners first Arabs and then whites.
Perhaps you should read this article by Henry Louis Gates (African American studies professor at Harvard and Obama's friend) in the liberal NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/opinion/23gates.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1354363200-90QXUo0tfcS5Rrbmvk+fjQI've read that article by Gates, and have actually done research on African Historiography that was framed around a critical discussion of Gates' argument on this topic, and how they stand up against historiography done by actual historians of Africa. Skip Gates is not a historian #1, and his area of expertise is not even West Africa - Skip Gates' scholarship on this issue (and many other issues) are seen as a joke within history. There are actual historians who have expertise in West/Central African slaving societies and their existence prior to European exploration, and the consensus is that the peonage and servitude that occurred in these places happened only in the context of war, when people were captured and forced into servitude, but they were eventually married into and allowed to assimilate into the group, and their children were not bonded as slaves. Most of those African societies had economies based on what historians have termed a "kinship mode of production", where kinship ties were essential to economic production and social cohesion, and slaves were often captured as a way to expand one's family, not for the sole extraction of their labor and dehumanization for the accumulation of capital, like European slavery. So no, people weren't traded like commodities in Africa until after being forcibly exposed to European capitalist markets. This social history of course became usurped once the Portuguese reached West Africa, and capitalism began to spread into Africa's interior. The allure of European commodities like guns, rum, etc. disrupted the way peonage and servitude traditionally worked in Africa.

The reason why Gates' work has become so popular in the public consciousness despite being crackpot scholarship, is that it fits within a white racist framework that makes all forms of racial discrimination morally equivalent, which drives the arguments behind not only not giving out reparations, but also argues for the dismantling of affirmtive action because it 'discriminates against whites.' I find Gates' view on this issue to be hilarious and disengenous, since basically every major fellowship Gates has gotten in his scholarly career (including his Ford Foundation and Mellon fellowship) has self-admittedly been due to Affirmative Action! :lol: Plus, I have met and talked to Skip Gates, and he doesn't even believe most of the shit he peddles (including this and his fallacious genetic/racial ancestry madness that he promotes on PBS.) If you look at his scholarly work prior to 2000 you will see his actual stances on race, racism, and white supremacy. But he told me himself that he makes these arguments and TV specials now "because they make him rich." :help:

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:41 PM
But you did say, and I quote, "But an important context to this is that poster wasn't just calling a black person a "gorilla" for the sake of it, he was saying she looked like a gorilla." in your quest to apologize for the racist. So, you were saying??? :confused:

Um, it's possible to not agree with something but think that someone might not have been motivated by racism to say it. :confused: I've seen people say Nadal looks like a monkey before, which I don't agree with, but I wouldn't automatically assume someone who said it is xenophobic / anti-Spanish.

With regards to the "gorilla" thing, again context is vital. If Dominic had referred to Serena as a gorilla in a context where looks weren't the topic of conversation -- for instance, if in one of her results threads, he'd posted "I can't believe this Gorilla keeps winning these matches" or words to that effect -- then there would be no doubt to me that he was being intentionally racist. But, because the context was a discussion ENTIRELY about the attractiveness of players, then it's totally conceivable that what he said doesn't indicate that he considers black people to be some sub-human species and inferior to white people, in the way that calling her a gorilla in other contexts WOULD have indicated that. And you're not going to convince me otherwise until you put up the proof of him being racist at other times.

I'm just going to throw this out there. The hate for Serena could have to do with the fact that she's a very successful African American woman. Some racists may not have any problems with an unknown African American woman working a regular job or even a mildly successful African American tennis playing woman who doesn't threaten the white elites of this sport. But once she becomes successful and the best at what she does, despite her competition, people may dislike and it could have more things to do with than her personality.

This doesn't really correlate with the fact that black people who dominate in other sports or fields of entertainment are much more popular than Serena.

Look to a peer reviewed academic source for a more grounded and holistic definition of what racism is. The idea that 'any race can be racist' is a folk ideology that works to deny the specific reality of white supremacy that constitutes American racism, and it diminishes the culpability of American white people in preserving racism's material and social consequences.

Um, the English language by its very nature is fluid. I would say that the very fact that most people understand the word "racist" to simply mean someone who has bigoted or ignorant views about another race, in itself makes that the definition of the word in the real world, rather than your definition.

Because the idea that "everyone can be a racist" makes all forms of racial prejudices equivalent, and intentionally obscures the reality that white racism is backed by prodigious political, economic, cultural, and institutional power, and has created one of the most devastating systems of material and symbolic subjugation, degradation, and oppression that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

All you have done here is prove that white racism as a whole is more powerful and has more of an impact on the world than racism from minority groups; that doesn't mean that an individual from a minority group who has bigoted views about another race, is any less "racist" (in the sense that most people understand the word "racist") than a white individual who has bigoted views.

I don't need to prove anything to you to be convinced of what I believe. Maybe that's your problem, feeling I do.

Substantiate my POV to who, you? I don't give a damn about you, you will think what you want regardless of what I say.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not Dumbinic is a racist or not - I know what he has said to me, repeatedly calling me ghetto, ignorant, hoodrat, and his gorilla post was not even the first time he has likened Serena to an animal. I only care about Novichok, so he could end that part of the discussion and we can move on to articulate the larger topic (which I find much more compelling than debating whether TF's village idiot is a racist or not.)

Then neither of you have the credibility on the Dominic issue to castigate people for "apologising for racism" if you're not willing to provide the proof that he is racist.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:55 PM
Um, the English language by its very nature is fluid. I would say that the very fact that most people understand the word "racist" to simply mean someone who has bigoted or ignorant views about another race, in itself makes that the definition of the word in the real world, rather than your definition.

All you have done here is prove that white racism as a whole is more powerful and has more of an impact than on the world than racism from minority groups; that doesn't mean that an individual from a minority group who has bigoted views about another race, is any less "racist" (in the sense that most people understand the word "racist") than a white individual who has bigoted views.

Then neither of you have the credibility on the Dominic issue to castigate people for "apologising for racism" if you're not willing to provide the proof that he is racist.:lol::lol: You are right, in that popular perception can become reality. But the point of inquiry and intellectualism is to move beyond common sense notions/folk ideologies of the world, and uncover the true structures that condition our existence. The majority of Europeans thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the Earth was the center of the universe prior to Copernicus, but that didn't make it true. But you are not an intellectual, so I won't go further with you on those issues.

In re: Dominic, I'm not interested in convincing anyone but the OP so that we can shift back into more compelling discussions.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 02:56 PM
LBV is right about Gates.

Expat
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:05 PM
I've read that article by Gates, and have actually done research on African Historiography that was framed around a critical discussion of Gates' argument on this topic, and how they stand up against historiography done by actual historians of Africa. Skip Gates is not a historian #1, and his area of expertise is not even West Africa - Skip Gates' scholarship on this issue (and many other issues) are seen as a joke within history. There are actual historians who have expertise in West/Central African slaving societies and their existence prior to European exploration, and the consensus is that the peonage and servitude that occurred in these places happened only in the context of war, when people were captured and forced into servitude, but they were eventually married into and allowed to assimilate into the group, and their children were not bonded as slaves. Most of those African societies had economies based on what historians have termed a "kinship mode of production", where kinship ties were essential to economic production and social cohesion, and slaves were often captured as a way to expand one's family, not for the sole extraction of their labor and dehumanization for the accumulation of capital, like European slavery. So no, people weren't traded like commodities in Africa until after being forcibly exposed to European capitalist markets. This social history of course became usurped once the Portuguese reached West Africa, and capitalism began to spread into Africa's interior. The allure of European commodities like guns, rum, etc. disrupted the way peonage and servitude traditionally worked in Africa.

The reason why Gates' work has become so popular in the public consciousness despite being crackpot scholarship, is that it fits within a white racist framework that makes all forms of racial discrimination morally equivalent, which drives the arguments behind not only not giving out reparations, but also argues for the dismantling of affirmtive action because it 'discriminates against whites.' I find Gates' view on this issue to be hilarious and disengenous, since basically every major fellowship Gates has gotten in his scholarly career (including his Ford Foundation and Mellon fellowship) has self-admittedly been due to Affirmative Action! :lol: Plus, I have met and talked to Skip Gates, and he doesn't even believe most of the shit he peddles (including this and his fallacious genetic/racial ancestry madness that he promotes on PBS.) If you look at his scholarly work prior to 2000 you will see his actual stances on race, racism, and white supremacy. But he told me himself that he makes these arguments and TV specials now "because they make him rich." :help:

I can understand if you negate Mr Gates but to claim that African slavery did not encounter the Arab slave trade is rather weird. They were exporting slaves for "capitalism" way earlier than whites landing in Africa. Or are you only referring to coastal West Africa rather than interior West Africa and North Africa which was under Arab influence?

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:07 PM
As in arrogant smartasses like yourself who chastise posters for not labeling the pics they post with the subject's name(s)?

Ouch so undeserved. Unlike you I don't feel like fighting with everyone contributes anything to the discussion so I will just let this slide. ;)

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:11 PM
:lol::lol: You are right, in that popular perception can become reality. But the point of inquiry and intellectualism is to move beyond common sense notions/folk ideologies of the world, and uncover the true structures that condition our existence. The majority of Europeans thought that the sun revolved around the earth and that the Earth was the center of the universe prior to Copernicus, but that didn't make it true.

This comparison doesn't really stand up. As I said, language is by its very nature dictated by how people use it; physics (not 100% sure that's the right field) is not dictated by people in the same way.

But you are not an intellectual, so I won't go further with you on those issues.

:tape: In other words, I raised legitimate points that go against your viewpoint and so you don't want to think about it.

In re: Dominic, I'm not interested in convincing anyone but the OP so that we can shift back into more compelling discussions.

Then consider my point on Dominic more addressed to JN, who has been aggressively taking on anyone who says Dominic is not necessarily racist, even though he is unwilling/unable to prove that he is racist.

jameshazza
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:18 PM
There really is no point in continuing the Dominic discussion. The OP is NOT about Dominic, it is a hypothetical. Dominic's actions provided the scenario taking place in the hypothetical but that does not make this thread about him. Proving whether or not he is racist does not discredit or validate the OP so it's only stalling an interesting conversation.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:21 PM
Then don't complain when you think why there are not any more TFers (apart from you trio) understanding he is a racist.

Where do you see me complaining? :confused:
I don't remember anyone saying you were the only bigot, racist, and/or racial apologist on TF, so what's your point? :confused:

SN: LMAO @ your childish herd mentality. :lol: If no one on TF agreed with me that you're a racist, which is obviously not the case, you'd still be one!

:shrug:

HippityHop
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:21 PM
Yes, I can. You probably don't see it because most of her fans can't vote... but in time, they will be able to. Adults aren't influenced by another adult just because s/he won an election, especially not the adults who voted against him or her.

This assumes that her fans won't mature in their thinking as they grow older. On the other hand that may be a reasonable assumption.

Then again what does influence mean? Because someone likes Minaj's "product" does that mean that they will take anything that she has to say seriously enough to act on it?

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:21 PM
The reason Dominic got all the good reps after the "gorilla" incident is because JN and mykarma are annoying as shit and despised by most of the board. So anyone who twists them up gets encouraged because most people are too big of pussies to call them out on their crap, but love to see someone else do it. Whenever I get into it with these turds, I get loads of good reps, too. If you want like 4-5 green dots, tell them off in a post, it's practically automatic and it's an assortment of posters.
That makes about as much sense as a four year old. Dominic calling Serena a gorilla had nothing to do with me or JN and if green dots turn you on I'll send you one right now. Along with your green dots was a warning so stern you had to go into exile to save face.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:23 PM
Fallacy of equivocation.



You've completely missed the point. I'm done.

You could have at least answered the question before you were done, but I get it. ;)

azdaja
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:30 PM
I do also feel that Americans are guilty of expecting the rest of the world to recognise and be fully aware of the racial issues in their country. For instance the 'their responsibility' view is in itself a bias. I could research racial slurs for hours on end and still not come across half those used in the US. Is an individual really expected to be aware of every phrase or action another individual may find offensive? The world doesn't and will never work like that. Responsibility only comes into it after the person has been made aware of the racist nature of their action as dsanders alluded to. It is then their responsibility to accept how their action was racist and to not repeat the action.
i noticed that about african americans on this board and i agree that they should accept that people need to be made aware of what their actions or words mean to them before being labeled "racist". i understand that racist people in the us frequently hide behind political correctness but that's not the case everywhere.

the un has a specific definition of "racist discrimination" which is far more inclusive than what lbv is saying here (which i would call "white supremacism"). i do not see how are other forms of racism less damaging. just looking at the ww2, extermination of jews as well as plans by the nazis to settle in lands populated by slavic people and use them as slaves looks pretty bad. when black people in africa kill other black people in africa because they are of other ethnicity that's also pretty bad. and so are attacks on immigrants in both europe in africa and neither are to be put in the context of white supremacism.

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:30 PM
This comparison doesn't really stand up. As I said, language is by its very nature dictated by how people use it; physics (not 100% sure that's the right field) is not dictated by people in the same way.



:tape: In other words, I raised legitimate points that go against your viewpoint and so you don't want to think about it.



Then consider my point on Dominic more addressed to JN, who has been aggressively taking on anyone who says Dominic is not necessarily racist, even though he is unwilling/unable to prove that he is racist.

You've done no such thing. :lol:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:31 PM
Then neither of you have the credibility on the Dominic issue to castigate people for "apologising for racism" if you're not willing to provide the proof that he is racist.

He's provided all the proof I need, there's nothing I could possibly say to make it more evident. :shrug:

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:39 PM
Everyone makes mistakes.

If you steal one candy bar are you a thief?
If you tell one lie are you a liar?
If you say something homophobic are you an homophobic?

It all depends, because there's always context behind, why do they lie? why do they steal? etc.

I don't give a damn about Dominic I just don't think it's right to label anyone as a racist for one comment made on a message forum. :help:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:48 PM
Ouch so undeserved. Unlike you I don't feel like fighting with everyone contributes anything to the discussion so I will just let this slide. ;)

I mistook you for a different poster, Manitou. Please disregard.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:53 PM
Um, the English language by its very nature is fluid. I would say that the very fact that most people understand the word "racist" to simply mean someone who has bigoted or ignorant views about another race, in itself makes that the definition of the word in the real world, rather than your definition.


This is basically why I have trouble accepting LBV's definition. The way that words are commonly used determines their meanings since there is no inherent meaning in string of symbols (written words) or acoustic signals (spoken words).

The example of the pre-Copernican worldview wasn't dealing with definitional/categorical issues. So I don't see the relevance.

A more apt example would be the recent consensus to not consider Pluto a planet. Even if 99% of the population were to consider Pluto a planet, it still wouldn't be. But even before that consensus was made, there was a consensus on what constitutes being a planet.

@LBV, In academia it's common for academics to create specialized terminology where one word differs in meaning depending on whether it is used within or outside of a certain academic field. In academic philosophy of mind, the word "intentional" means something different than outside of it. But philosophers can't claim that most people are using the word incorrectly because there's two meanings. Sort of like if someone said that "baseball isn't played with a bat because bats are animals," they'd be incorrect. I believe that the "everyone can be racist" view might to lead to certain undesirable outcomes when inculcated by the majority of the population, but that isn't sufficient in showing that the "everyone can be racist" view isn't correct.

Also, do you know much about the Hindu caste system? That seems to be a form of religious based racism that precedes the Atlantic slave trade.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 03:56 PM
Everyone makes mistakes.

If you steal one candy bar are you a thief?
If you tell one lie are you a liar?
If you say something homophobic are you an homophobic?

It all depends, because there's always context behind, why do they lie? why do they steal? etc.

I don't give a damn about Dominic I just don't think it's right to label anyone as a racist for one comment made on a message forum. :help:

That "one comment" was only the latest of many that finally got him banned. But y'all just keep protecting him, maybe your genuine show of humanity will help him change his ways.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:00 PM
i noticed that about african americans on this board and i agree that they should accept that people need to be made aware of what their actions or words mean to them before being labeled "racist". i understand that racist people in the us frequently hide behind political correctness but that's not the case everywhere.

the un has a specific definition of "racist discrimination" which is far more inclusive than what lbv is saying here (which i would call "white supremacism"). i do not see how are other forms of racism less damaging. just looking at the ww2, extermination of jews as well as plans by the nazis to settle in lands populated by slavic people and use them as slaves looks pretty bad. when black people in africa kill other black people in africa because they are of other ethnicity that's also pretty bad. and so are attacks on immigrants in both europe in africa and neither are to be put in the context of white supremacism.
Early in this thread I mentioned that intent was most important but it doesn't change the fact that what someone said was racist. We've all said things at some point in our life that we shouldn't have said but learning from it and not repeating it is what's most important. What I find annoying is that many people on this board refuse to admit or want to change their views.

azdaja
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:21 PM
Early in this thread I mentioned that intent was most important but it doesn't change the fact that what someone said was racist. We've all said things at some point in our life that we shouldn't have said but learning from it and not repeating it is what's most important. What I find annoying is that many people on this board refuse to admit or want to change their views.
well, the thing is that people can say something racist without being racist themselves. people around the world, including white people, can't have the knowledge of the american culture and language to be able to tell in advance what is considered racist, so a bit of patience is needed. if we take into account ignorance of toher cultures found in so many americans, do you really think americans, including african americans, never say offensive stuff about other people? it's the same situation for many people who say stuff that offends african americans (i'm not talking about dominic here, i don't know that poster well enough).

of course, once you are aware something is offending to a whole group of people you should stop doing it, so repeat offenders can be considered racist.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:22 PM
Too bad I didn't have the "good sense" to do the same to all your anti-gay, gay-bashing posts you made about me after I wound you up earlier in the year that were deleted. Those were multiple posts, not just one like Dominic, and Dominic quickly deleted it. Mods had to delete yours.

And here I remain never banned/never warned. :scratch: How is that? Helen drops by The Million Man March.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/mmmarch.jpg

See if you can find him promoting African American unity and family values.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:26 PM
That makes about as much sense as a four year old. Dominic calling Serena a gorilla had nothing to do with me or JN and if green dots turn you on I'll send you one right now. Along with your green dots was a warning so stern you had to go into exile to save face.

About the fat joke at your expense that you reported because JR told you to? No, the fact that you run around here calling everyone a bigot and a racist and I get a warning over a fat joke for "insulting other posters" was the last straw in the shit you get away with on this board because you use the race card as a sword to get away with deplorable behaviour.

You said Dominic got good reps as a result of that post, reflecting rampant racism on the board. My suggestion is the good reps were for annoying you and JN, who are much despised.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:30 PM
And here I remain never banned/never warned. :scratch: How is that?

Bullshit.

Why don't you post what you said about gays??

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:32 PM
Everyone makes mistakes.

If you steal one candy bar are you a thief?
If you tell one lie are you a liar?
If you say something homophobic are you an homophobic?

It all depends, because there's always context behind, why do they lie? why do they steal? etc.

I don't give a damn about Dominic I just don't think it's right to label anyone as a racist for one comment made on a message forum. :help:

He's called Serena a gorilla. He literally stalks every Serena thread to hate on her (every. single. one). He has called black posters here ghetto, hoodrat, etc. He vehemently defended black face as not racist and offensive. Yes. It was just one comment that made people think that, what were we thinking.

But I am for this discussion being dropped. The only reason it was brought up was because I had qualms with Novichok's obviously referring to Dominic, but using his case in a way that didn't paint the whole picture.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:36 PM
Bullshit.

Why don't you post what you said about gays??

I've seen him write posts that basically mean "No homo!" If I were in the business of trying to always portray someone in the worst possible light (like he is), then I could argue that he's homophobic.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:40 PM
Bullshit.

Why don't you post what you said about gays??

Can't post what I know nothing about. Why don't you, since you claim it exists? :confused:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:42 PM
I've seen him write posts that basically mean "No homo!" If I were in the business of trying to always portray someone in the worst possible light (like he is), then I could argue that he's homophobic.

Because I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea in TF of all places makes me homophobic? :confused: I laugh in your general direction.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:45 PM
Because I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea in TF of all places makes me homophobic? :confused: I laugh in your general direction.

Many gay people find "no homo" to be offensive regardless of intent. Many black people find being called a "gorilla" offensive regardless of intent. Do you see where I'm headed? :)

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:45 PM
One post is all it takes according to you, and I saw it, and so did lots of other people. And no, I'm not a psychotic stalker who screen shoots and saves posts to copy and paste them over and over.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 04:59 PM
Many gay people find "no homo" to be offensive regardless of intent. Many black people find being called a "gorilla" offensive regardless of intent. Do you see where I'm headed? :)

Nope. So you can stop patting yourself on the back.


One post is all it takes according to you, and I saw it, and so did lots of other people. And no, I'm not a psychotic stalker who screen shoots and saves posts to copy and paste them over and over.

You need to try a different tactic, cuz you wore this one out years ago.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:02 PM
Nope. So you can stop patting yourself on the back.

:lol:

You are really dense.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:06 PM
:lol:

You are really dense.

And you, sir, are a simpleton. Thinking you can compare 400+ years of ingrained racist imagery with an internet meme that some find offensive. Give me a fuckin' break.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:12 PM
Nope. So you can stop patting yourself on the back.




You need to try a different tactic, cuz you wore this one out years ago.

Like the one where you were too scared to start a thread about Trayvon Martin because of me? Hon, if that's not being owned by the man, then nothing is. Glad you're apparently liberated now.

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:16 PM
He's called Serena a gorilla. He literally stalks every Serena thread to hate on her (every. single. one). He has called black posters here ghetto, hoodrat, etc. He vehemently defended black face as not racist and offensive. Yes. It was just one comment that made people think that, what were we thinking.

But I am for this discussion being dropped. The only reason it was brought up was because I had qualms with Novichok's obviously referring to Dominic, but using his case in a way that didn't paint the whole picture.

First of all hating Serena is not indicative of racism.
Second, how would he know which posters here are black? Because I don't. :lol:
Third, calling someone ghetto, when many posters here like to express thenselves in a english form associated with ghetto behaviour, while it is not justified it is not incorrect either.

Besides look at yourself for a minute you have insulted many posters here, acted with arrogance and a douchy behaviour, yet nobody calls you a douchebag even though there's plenty evidence for it.

Anyway I agree this discussion is going nowhere, I'm not even here to defend Dominic I don't care about him. :yawn:

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:16 PM
Like the one where you were too scared to start a thread about Trayvon Martin because of me? Hon, if that's not being owned by the man, then nothing is. Glad you're apparently liberated now.

Could you please find some new material? You've been recycling the same tired non-points for months, now. What's next, the Phylicia Rashad is a loud Black woman argument? :rolleyes:

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:21 PM
Could you please find some new material? You've been recycling the same tired non-points for months, now. What's next, the Phylicia Rashad is a loud Black woman argument? :rolleyes:

Material as good at this never get old! Apparently, you think the same on Dominic's gorilla post or you wouldn't haul it out every other day.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:22 PM
And you, sir, are a simpleton. Thinking you can compare 400+ years of ingrained racist imagery with an internet meme that some find offensive. Give me a fuckin' break.

You missed the point. I didn't claim that they were comparable. But if someone can be racist without intending to be so (as you claim) then someone can also be homophobic without intending to be so.

And I like how you claimed that "no homo" is just an internet meme. It's just one part of many sayings/actions that portray or imply that being gay is deficient. Are you aware that these saying and actions have lead to many gay kids committing suicide? Don't diminish homophobia because it doesn't affect you.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:29 PM
well, the thing is that people can say something racist without being racist themselves. people around the world, including white people, can't have the knowledge of the american culture and language to be able to tell in advance what is considered racist, so a bit of patience is needed. if we take into account ignorance of toher cultures found in so many americans, do you really think americans, including african americans, never say offensive stuff about other people? it's the same situation for many people who say stuff that offends african americans (i'm not talking about dominic here, i don't know that poster well enough).

of course, once you are aware something is offending to a whole group of people you should stop doing it, so repeat offenders can be considered racist.
Who said or implied that wasn't a fact?

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:35 PM
You missed the point. I didn't claim that they were comparable. But if someone can be racist without intending to be so (as you claim) then someone can also be homophobic without intending to be so.

And I like how you claimed that "no homo" is just an internet meme. It's just one part of many sayings/actions that portray or imply that being gay is deficient. Are you aware that these saying and actions have lead to many gay kids committing suicide? Don't diminish homophobia because it doesn't affect you.

Point to where I said he didn't intend to be. I'll wait... http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/65.gif

Who's diminishing homosexuality? I'm simply heading off any possibility of confusion. Same as when I was required to state my gender when people here thought my Chanda Rubin avatar was me... guess that made me anti-woman, huh?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:39 PM
Point to where I said he didn't intend to be. I'll wait... http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/65.gif

Who's diminishing homosexuality? I'm simply heading off any possibility of confusion. Same as when I was required to state my gender when people here thought my Chanda Rubin avatar was me... guess that made me anti-woman, huh?

This isn't about Dominic. Someone can say something that is considered offensive and racist to a certain population without intending it. Does that make the person racist? If so, then you're homophobic. Your "no homo" comments are offensive to some gay people without you intending them to be.

If you went around constantly saying "oh please don't think I'm a woman" then I would think you were somewhat anti-woman. Also, I find it funny that you chide me for ignoring history. You shouldn't ignore the history in the US of the stigmatization of gay people.

And I never said that you were diminishing homosexuality. I said that you were diminishing homophobia by claiming that "no homo" was just an internet meme.

azdaja
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:41 PM
Who said or implied that wasn't a fact?
not in this thread perhaps but in other threads some people behaved as if some people saying or doing things because of ignorance is a big deal.

JN
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:45 PM
This isn't about Dominic. Someone can say something that is considered offensive and racist to a certain population without intending it. Does that make the person racist? If so, then you're homophobic. Your "no homo" comments are offensive to some gay people without you intending them to be.

You can attempt to deny the Dominic connection all you want, but were it not for him this thread would not exist. No, a White person cannot refer to a Black person as a gorilla w/o the intent of it being a racist statement, thus making them a racist. Period.

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:51 PM
You can attempt to deny the Dominic connection all you want, but were it not for him this thread would not exist. No, a White person cannot refer to a Black person as a gorilla w/o the intent of it being a racist statement, thus making them a racist. Period.

Were it not for my mother and father having sex in 1990, this thread would not exist. But this thread is not about my mother or father.

Why can't a white person call a black person a gorilla without intending it to be a racist statement? That's not obvious at all.

What if I were to say "A straight person cannot say 'no homo' or any of its variants without the intent of it being a homophobic statement, thus making them homophobic"?

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 05:55 PM
First of all hating Serena is not indicative of racism.
Second, how would he know which posters here are black? Because I don't. :lol:
Third, calling someone ghetto, when many posters here like to express thenselves in a english form associated with ghetto behaviour, while it is not justified it is not incorrect either.

Besides look at yourself for a minute you have insulted many posters here, acted with arrogance and a douchy behaviour, yet nobody calls you a douchebag even though there's plenty evidence for it.

Anyway I agree this discussion is going nowhere, I'm not even here to defend Dominic I don't care about him. :yawn:

No. But along with everything else it has significance.

He's called LBV them and anyone who has a history with LBV (as Dominic does) knows he's black, he's posted many times in threads such as these about his personal experiences as a black man. So Dominic knew, don't play dumb for him, he does it well enough himself.

The word ghetto itself has very unfortunate implications, and is consciously or unconsciously related with minorities in most people's heads. I don't use it and am against people just throwing that word around to describe things they don't like. These implications however are a whole different conversation. However in this case, calling a black person "ghetto" or a "hoodrat" is extremely offensive and people know it. It's not some obscure term people wouldn't know the meaning of.

And thank you for the ad hominem and your refusal to touch the defending of black face as not-racist. One of these things may not have been enough to think this about him. You may even say two aren't. But four? And then his refusal to admit he was wrong? At some point goodwill runs out, my friend.

But this is my last post on the matter.

Now to azdaja, I agree wholeheartedly that these discussions are often US-centric. This is seen just in many of the people excusing Lindsay saying "gypsy" because it's not a slur in the US, while holding people from other cultures responsible to our standards. But this has already been addressed by myself and others in this thread. If someone from a completely different culture used a word they didn't understand one, I would not immediately assume they were racists. I would however tell them it was wrong and ask them to refrain from using it in the future. As other people have said, it's what people do after this that really shows their prejudices or lack thereof.

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:00 PM
Related to what I just said, I have a question for LBV (or any other black poster). How would you react to someone from completely different culture (an Asian country, for instance) singing along with rap songs that use the n-word? Or using it in their everyday life? I ask because I've seen this discussion before (in this case specifically in an East Asian context) and it gets very heated on both sides. One side says it's the Asian person's job to educate themselves, especially in developed countries such as Japan or South Korea where access to computers and knowledge is easily obtained, thus they are culpable for their actions if they choose to not find out the meaning of words they pick up from songs. While the other side says using the word cannot be racist by default since they are not from a very heterogeneous that has a long history of racial conflict, and in this case they have next to no experience with black people.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:10 PM
About the fat joke at your expense that you reported because JR told you to? No, the fact that you run around here calling everyone a bigot and a racist and I get a warning over a fat joke for "insulting other posters" was the last straw in the shit you get away with on this board because you use the race card as a sword to get away with deplorable behaviour.

You said Dominic got good reps as a result of that post, reflecting rampant racism on the board. My suggestion is the good reps were for annoying you and JN, who are much despised.
Who was the joke to because I'd had you on ignore for months. You knew I had you on ignore and wouldn't see your post so you lied about me in a despicable way and got called out for it. It was so gross that it was to much for your then friend *JR* who told me about it so I could get it deleted which says a lot about you. It's not funny to people that have real disabilities when you lie about me having one if that's what you were trying to doing. You know and I know you weren't joking and that you're just a liar.

The reason I had you on ignore is because it drove you crazy and you were posting any and everything to get me to respond but all you got was pwned.

Just a reminder, you made a concerted effort to come after JN and I and promised to run us off of this board like you had some power but all you got was a warning. Give it up,let it go and stop trolling. It bothers you more than it bothers me because you're insignificant in my life.

You're the one that brought the topic of good reps not I because I could care less about some stupid reps and I get many. If someone says something racist or homophobic for that matter, I'm responding which is my right. After all, some people are interested in trying to understand other cultures.

In closing, you're on ignore again. Bye now, you're not worth my time.

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:13 PM
No. But along with everything else it has significance.

He's called LBV them and anyone who has a history with LBV (as Dominic does) knows he's black, he's posted many times in threads such as these about his personal experiences as a black man. So Dominic knew, don't play dumb for him, he does it well enough himself.

The word ghetto itself has very unfortunate implications, and is consciously or unconsciously related with minorities in most people's heads. I don't use it and am against people just throwing that word around to describe things they don't like. These implications however are a whole different conversation. However in this case, calling a black person "ghetto" or a "hoodrat" is extremely offensive and people know it. It's not some obscure term people wouldn't know the meaning of.

And thank you for the ad hominem and your refusal to touch the defending of black face as not-racist. One of these things may not have been enough to think this about him. You may even say two aren't. But four? And then his refusal to admit he was wrong? At some point goodwill runs out, my friend.

But this is my last post on the matter.

Now to azdaja, I agree wholeheartedly that these discussions are often US-centric. This is seen just in many of the people excusing Lindsay saying "gypsy" because it's not a slur in the US, while holding people from other cultures responsible to our standards. But this has already been addressed by myself and others in this thread. If someone from a completely different culture used a word they didn't understand one, I would not immediately assume they were racists. I would however tell them it was wrong and ask them to refrain from using it in the future. As other people have said, it's what people do after this that really shows their prejudices or lack thereof.

Again, this is from an American standpoint. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Britain, someone being "ghetto" only means they're lacking class ("class" as in social etiquette), it isn't used only for racial minorities atall (Though I don't think I've ever heard "hoodrat" outside of American culture, so I can't comment on that.)

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:19 PM
Related to what I just said, I have a question for LBV (or any other black poster). How would you react to someone from completely different culture (an Asian country, for instance) singing along with rap songs that use the n-word? Or using it in their everyday life? I ask because I've seen this discussion before (in this case specifically in an East Asian context) and it gets very heated on both sides. One side says it's the Asian person's job to educate themselves, especially in developed countries such as Japan or South Korea where access to computers and knowledge is easily obtained, thus they are culpable for their actions if they choose to not find out the meaning of words they pick up from songs. While the other side says using the word cannot be racist by default since they are not from a very heterogeneous that has a long history of racial conflict, and in this case they have next to no experience with black people.

Actually, this is one of the first issues I thought of when I started posting in this thread, I remembered LBV, JN et al being outraged when Chris Martin(I think) tweeted "Niggas in Paris". And it's a good example of how the USA is so much more sensitive when it comes to these things. "Niggas in Paris" is played "uncensored" on British radio, because even though actually calling a black person a n***er is (obviously) socially unacceptable, NO-ONE here would get offended at someone saying the word in a context where it's obvious no offence is intended (for instance, noone would bat an eyelid at a teacher telling a class that "'n***er' is a racist word, or if an actor playing the part of a racist in a film used the word, whereas apparently, even saying the word in those contexts is a no-no in America, illogically in my view).

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:20 PM
Again, this is from an American standpoint. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Britain, someone being "ghetto" only means they're lacking class ("class" as in social etiquette), it isn't used only for racial minorities atall (Though I don't think I've ever heard "hoodrat" outside of American culture, so I can't comment on that.)

I'm sorry, but this is a shortsighted way to view it. It may hold that idea, but where did that word come from? Ghettos were places where the majority (in this case white Christians) allocated for minority groups (blacks, Jews, etc) to live and the line between the ghetto and the non-ghetto was strictly enforced by one way or another. This is NOT just an American phenomena, it happened in Europe as well. So why do people use the word "ghetto" for something poor, lesser, or things they just don't like? Because it comes from this historical occurrence and systematic oppression (the idea that ghettos were dangerous, poor, ugly, dirty, etc), and at some point it became freely thrown about by people for things they don't like. Whether or not it's intentional the word still carries this historical baggage, and that is why I do not like its usage. I feel the same for the use of "retard" as an offhanded insult or (in this case it's an American usage, I know) the use of "fag" or even "gay" as an insult.

Words have context and historical baggage and people need to realize that, and need to realize where these words come from and what they mean. I don't jump up in arms and scream racist at someone who uses it, but I don't like it and I have asked people not to use it in the past.

Helen Lawson
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:27 PM
Who was the joke to because I'd had you on ignore for months. You knew I had you on ignore and wouldn't see your post so you lied about me in a despicable way and got called out for it. It was so gross that it was to much for your then friend *JR* who told me about it so I could get it deleted which says a lot. The reason I had you on ignore is because it drove you crazy and you were posting any and everything to get me to respond but all you got was pwned.

Just a reminder, you made a concerted effort to come after JN and I and promised to run us off of this board like you had some power but all you got was a warning. Give it up,let it go and stop trolling. It bothers you more than it bothers me because you're insignificant in my life.

You're the one that brought the topic of good reps not I because I could care less about some stupid reps and I get many. If someone says something racist or homophobic for that matter, I'm responding which is my right. After all, some people are interested in trying to understand other cultures.

In closing, you're on ignore again. Bye now, you're not worth my time.

Hmm, I guess I'm on ignore until the next fat joke. Do you think one more fat joke and I'm banned? I guess calling anyone I like here a bigot and a racist on a daily basis is no problem, but a fat joke is a warn-worthy insulting event!

Anyway, she needed to be taken down a notch. Glad she was.

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:32 PM
I'm sorry, but this is a shortsighted way to view it. It may hold that idea, but where did that word come from? Ghettos were places where the majority (in this case white Christians) allocated for minority groups (blacks, Jews, etc) to live and the line between the ghetto and the non-ghetto was strictly enforced by one way or another.

This might be how the word first came about (incidentally, I'm pretty sure historically it's mainly used to refer to the Nazis segregating Jews in Eastern Europe, not anything to with segretating blacks in America), but again, language is fluid and the word doesn't have connotations to Jews anymore.

his is NOT just an American phenomena, it happened in Europe as well. So why do people use the word "ghetto" for something poor, lesser, or things they just don't like? Because it comes from this historical occurrence and systematic oppression (the idea that ghettos were dangerous, poor, ugly, dirty, etc), and at some point it became freely thrown about by people for things they don't like. Whether or not it's intentional the word still carries this historical baggage, and that is why I do not like its usage. I feel the same for the use of "retard" as an offhanded insult or (in this case it's an American usage, I know) the use of "fag" or even "gay" as an insult.

I didn't say I liked the word "ghetto" - here it's largely associated with lower social classes (class incidentally being a MUCH bigger dividing line and issue in British society than race is) and is used interchangeably with "chav", another word used to describe (poor/working-class) white people just as much as (poor/working-class) black people. That doesn't change the fact that it's not in any way a racist term in Britain.

Start da Game
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:42 PM
so people visiting america and britain need to buy a racism dictionary and be familiar with all kinds of shitty names and know what to use and what not to, also know what to ignore and what to take offense for.....nice......

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:49 PM
This might be how the word first came about (incidentally, I'm pretty sure historically it's mainly used to refer to the Nazis segregating Jews in Eastern Europe, not anything to with segretating blacks in America), but again, language is fluid and the word doesn't have connotations to Jews anymore.



I didn't say I liked the word "ghetto" - here it's largely associated with lower social classes (class incidentally being a MUCH bigger dividing line and issue in British society than race is) and is used interchangeably with "chav", another word used to describe (poor/working-class) white people just as much as (poor/working-class) black people. That doesn't change the fact that it's not in any way a racist term in Britain.

It was used before that in Italy, but in that case for Jews too. And then later on began to be used for any part of a city for minority groups. So my point still stands about the historical baggage. Whether or not there are ghettos used just for Jews is irrelevant, as the idea of what a ghetto today is still similar to the historical usage of the word. Dirty, dangerous, poor, ugly, and for minorities.

And notice, I never said anywhere ghetto was only associated with black people. I've said minorities from the beginning, thus I never said it was specifically a term for black people. It often does carry a specific idea as related to black people, but not always. Either way it still carries the unfortunate implications I first spoke of.

Language is fluid, but words have context and baggage whether or not someone chooses to willfully ignore them or not. For instance, do you have a problem with someone saying retard or fag or gay? If you ask those people they will likely say that's not how they meant it, it's just an insult for them, carrying no context. Does that make it ok? There's a divide between people on this, but my answer is no. You cannot just take a loaded word, remove it from its context, then use it in a negative way and say it's a new word. And notice of course these words that get used this way or always originally words for racial minorities, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and women. You don't see any widespread offhanded insults coming from insults for white straight Christian men.

hablo
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:50 PM
so people visiting america and britain need to buy a racism dictionary and be familiar with all kinds of shitty names and know what to use and what not to, also know what to ignore and what to take offense for.....nice......

Don't be silly. People should strive to be be kind wherever they go. No need to be ignorant of other people's cultures and feelings. I don't think that's hard to do.

So no need for dictionary. How about just plain human decency?

Novichok
Dec 1st, 2012, 06:53 PM
Related to what I just said, I have a question for LBV (or any other black poster). How would you react to someone from completely different culture (an Asian country, for instance) singing along with rap songs that use the n-word? Or using it in their everyday life? I ask because I've seen this discussion before (in this case specifically in an East Asian context) and it gets very heated on both sides. One side says it's the Asian person's job to educate themselves, especially in developed countries such as Japan or South Korea where access to computers and knowledge is easily obtained, thus they are culpable for their actions if they choose to not find out the meaning of words they pick up from songs. While the other side says using the word cannot be racist by default since they are not from a very heterogeneous that has a long history of racial conflict, and in this case they have next to no experience with black people.

If they were singing along in a song, I wouldn't find it offensive. But if they were using it in their everyday life to refer to black people, I would. I think it's the responsibility of the offended person to explain that it's offensive to them and why and it's the responsibility of the user to listen and not use the word in that way.

@dsanders...It was Gwenyth Paltrow who tweeted that. And she was using "niggas" to refer to black people (Kanye and Jay Z). That's why I was offended.

Slutiana
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:05 PM
Again, this is from an American standpoint. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Britain, someone being "ghetto" only means they're lacking class ("class" as in social etiquette), it isn't used only for racial minorities atall (Though I don't think I've ever heard "hoodrat" outside of American culture, so I can't comment on that.)
:lol: Ghetto doesn't have the same implications in the UK?

Start da Game
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:07 PM
Don't be silly. People should strive to be be kind wherever they go. No need to be ignorant of other people's cultures and feelings. I don't think that's hard to do.

So no need for dictionary. How about just plain human decency?

yeah, recommended from both sides.....

jameshazza
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:16 PM
:lol: Ghetto doesn't have the same implications in the UK?

I think it can but sometimes it doesn't as well. For instance 'Ghetto Aisleyne' from BB7. This is an example were a 'chav' and 'ghetto' were associated in the social sense exclusively, as dsanders pointed out can occur, considering she's a white female.

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:23 PM
It was used before that in Italy, but in that case for Jews too. And then later on began to be used for any part of a city for minority groups. So my point still stands about the historical baggage. Whether or not there are ghettos used just for Jews is irrelevant, as the idea of what a ghetto today is still similar to the historical usage of the word. Dirty, dangerous, poor, ugly, and for minorities.

And notice, I never said anywhere ghetto was only associated with black people. I've said minorities from the beginning, thus I never said it was specifically a term for black people. It often does carry a specific idea as related to black people, but not always. Either way it still carries the unfortunate implications I first spoke of.

Language is fluid, but words have context and baggage whether or not someone chooses to willfully ignore them or not. For instance, do you have a problem with someone saying retard or fag or gay? If you ask those people they will likely say that's not how they meant it, it's just an insult for them, carrying no context. Does that make it ok? There's a divide between people on this, but my answer is no. You cannot just take a loaded word, remove it from its context, then use it in a negative way and say it's a new word. And notice of course these words that get used this way or always originally words for racial minorities, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and women. You don't see any widespread offhanded insults coming from insults for white straight Christian men.

Then I don't understand why you would assume someone calling a black guy "ghetto" was racist :shrug:

If they were singing along in a song, I wouldn't find it offensive. But if they were using it in their everyday life to refer to black people, I would. I think it's the responsibility of the offended person to explain that it's offensive to them and why and it's the responsibility of the user to listen and not use the word in that way.

Agree.

And, tying that into Dybukk's point about "fag(got)" -- the song "Fairytale of New York" is played on British radio every Christmas, which uses the word "fag*ot", and is never censored (infact, when one overly-PC radio station tried to do it, there was a huge backlash until they backed down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150693.stm)). Even though I would be very offended if a straight person actually called me a "fag*got", I would never be upset at someone saying the word when singing that song, or otherwise quoting someone. I genuinely don't understand why someone would be scared of a word on its own, when it's not actually being used as a weapon to hurt someone.

:lol: Ghetto doesn't have the same implications in the UK?

Nope.

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:24 PM
No. But along with everything else it has significance.

He's called LBV them and anyone who has a history with LBV (as Dominic does) knows he's black, he's posted many times in threads such as these about his personal experiences as a black man. So Dominic knew, don't play dumb for him, he does it well enough himself.

The word ghetto itself has very unfortunate implications, and is consciously or unconsciously related with minorities in most people's heads. I don't use it and am against people just throwing that word around to describe things they don't like. These implications however are a whole different conversation. However in this case, calling a black person "ghetto" or a "hoodrat" is extremely offensive and people know it. It's not some obscure term people wouldn't know the meaning of.

And thank you for the ad hominem and your refusal to touch the defending of black face as not-racist. One of these things may not have been enough to think this about him. You may even say two aren't. But four? And then his refusal to admit he was wrong? At some point goodwill runs out, my friend.

But this is my last post on the matter.

:spit: This is too much.

It was just an example where a person is something but it is not called or shouldn't be called out that for many reasons, one of them because we don't know the full context of this person behaviour, same with Dominic.

Not in the mood to pick fights, I wasn't even addressing you in this thread even though I could have. :lol: :hug:

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:30 PM
Related to what I just said, I have a question for LBV (or any other black poster). How would you react to someone from completely different culture (an Asian country, for instance) singing along with rap songs that use the n-word? Or using it in their everyday life? I ask because I've seen this discussion before (in this case specifically in an East Asian context) and it gets very heated on both sides. One side says it's the Asian person's job to educate themselves, especially in developed countries such as Japan or South Korea where access to computers and knowledge is easily obtained, thus they are culpable for their actions if they choose to not find out the meaning of words they pick up from songs. While the other side says using the word cannot be racist by default since they are not from a very heterogeneous that has a long history of racial conflict, and in this case they have next to no experience with black people.I am not an unreasonable guy, and I try to be pragmatic about this stuff in everyday practice. :lol:

It would be jarring and offensive, but I understand that they come from a different culture, and they may not know the social implications of that word. I'd just explain it to them openly and honestly, and from my experience, every Asian person I have had a discussion like that with has been open, empathetic and understanding (I recently had an experience with an Asian woman in one of my classes who made a very homophobic statement about gay men, but I could tell that she didn't know the full implications of what she was saying in an American social context.) Hell, even with White people, I am open to giving them the benefit of the doubt, by just explaining to them why its offensive without castigating them.

I only get annoyed by the white people who know better and still use those words just because they are assholes that don't care if they are offensive, or the white people who are mind-numbingly resistant to even understanding my point of view, and unwilling to show the respect that I deserve as a human being.

dybbuk
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:38 PM
Then I don't understand why you would assume someone calling a black guy "ghetto" was racist :shrug:



Agree.

And, tying that into Dybukk's point about "fag(got)" -- the song "Fairytale of New York" is played on British radio every Christmas, which uses the word "fag*ot", and is never censored (infact, when one overly-PC radio station tried to do it, there was a huge backlash until they backed down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150693.stm)). Even though I would be very offended if a straight person actually called me a "fag*got", I would never be upset at someone saying the word when singing that song, or otherwise quoting someone. I genuinely don't understand why someone would be scared of a word on its own, when it's not actually being used as a weapon to hurt someone.



Nope.

Because context matters, dsanders. In AT LEAST US and Canadian cultures, a white person calling a black person ghetto carries racist implications that are not obscure and most everyone knows it. Does this SPECIFIC usage of ghetto carry over into UK culture? I don't know. Slutiana, who is black and from the UK, says yes. And in this instance, no offense to you, I will listen to the black British person over a non-black British person. But whether or not it even carries this specificity towards black people in all European cultures is irrelevant, because it still carries negativity towards minorities in general in at least Western European cultures.

That is the historical baggage of the word that simply cannot be argued. And whether or not it sometimes gets uses for white people nowadays is also irrelevant, because it doesn't change where the word comes from and what it means. White people have been called n*ggers before, it doesn't mean the word doesn't mean what it used to anymore. It's not as if "Ghetto" is some archaic term that nowadays is only slang for things someone doesn't like, the word even nowadays in Western culture is used for urban areas with high concentrations of minorities. It is not asking too much for someone to make the connection between the words and realize what it means.

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:39 PM
Then I don't understand why you would assume someone calling a black guy "ghetto" was racist :shrug:



Agree.

And, tying that into Dybukk's point about "fag(got)" -- the song "Fairytale of New York" is played on British radio every Christmas, which uses the word "fag*ot", and is never censored (infact, when one overly-PC radio station tried to do it, there was a huge backlash until they backed down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7150693.stm)). Even though I would be very offended if a straight person actually called me a "fag*got", I would never be upset at someone saying the word when singing that song, or otherwise quoting someone. I genuinely don't understand why someone would be scared of a word on its own, when it's not actually being used as a weapon to hurt someone.



Nope.
I would not be comfortable calling anyone a fag(got) in general conversation or in a song. One of my lesbian friends is always calling masculine women butches and I'm always rolling my eyes or telling her to shut up. All she does is laugh at me, as a matter of fact I think she does it because she knows it makes me uncomfortable. The same goes for using the nigga in songs, I don't like it no matter who uses it in public. Now, I've used it around black folks but not around my white friends because it's been my experience that they don't have a filter and will say things anywhere and in front of anyone.:lol:

BuTtErFrEnA
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:45 PM
how can people here say that "gorilla" is only american???

almost alllll leagues in european football have been marred by racial issues especially when fans do ape chants towards black people...as recently as the game between serbia v england u21 this has been seen or are you going to tell me all these european fans are ignorant of what calling a black person a gorilla means??? or are the players making up this stuff??? let's not kid ourselves :happy: but then again i have to remember apologists will try to find any reason to stand up for their own


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-u21s-in-mass-brawl-on-pitch-1382182

http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/euro-2012/120616/uefa-take-action-against-croatia-over-balotelli-racist-chants-174535

Stamp Paid
Dec 1st, 2012, 07:46 PM
Don't be silly. People should strive to be be kind wherever they go. No need to be ignorant of other people's cultures and feelings. I don't think that's hard to do.

So no need for dictionary. How about just plain human decency?Okay! So many lack it. :facepalm:

This is basically why I have trouble accepting LBV's definition. The way that words are commonly used determines their meanings since there is no inherent meaning in string of symbols (written words) or acoustic signals (spoken words).

The example of the pre-Copernican worldview wasn't dealing with definitional/categorical issues. So I don't see the relevance.

A more apt example would be the recent consensus to not consider Pluto a planet. Even if 99% of the population were to consider Pluto a planet, it still wouldn't be. But even before that consensus was made, there was a consensus on what constitutes being a planet.

@LBV, In academia it's common for academics to create specialized terminology where one word differs in meaning depending on whether it is used within or outside of a certain academic field. In academic philosophy of mind, the word "intentional" means something different than outside of it. But philosophers can't claim that most people are using the word incorrectly because there's two meanings. Sort of like if someone said that "baseball isn't played with a bat because bats are animals," they'd be incorrect. I believe that the "everyone can be racist" view might to lead to certain undesirable outcomes when inculcated by the majority of the population, but that isn't sufficient in showing that the "everyone can be racist" view isn't correct.

Also, do you know much about the Hindu caste system? That seems to be a form of religious based racism that precedes the Atlantic slave trade.Yes, I am familiar with Hindu caste system. Like I said, there are multiple forms of racism. But when I speak of racism, I am referring to white racism, what goes on in a Euro-American context - not other forms of racism that occur globally, which I believe the United Nations has an excellent framework for in their International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In an American context (of which I speak of specifically) Racism is a powerful, politically charged notion, and I prefer not to wield it in a hackneyed fashion. When I speak of white racism, I am speaking of a specific set of systematic oppressions, not a moral discourse surrounding the quotidian prejudices of individuals within a society.

Olórin
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:18 PM
:lol: Ghetto doesn't have the same implications in the UK?


Nope.

Hmm, can't let this dlsandersism slide.

Obviously the intent does matter sometimes. However, we essentially understand that socially underprivileged people, often minorities, have at times been to all intents and purposes segregated from the rest of society in what can be described as ghettos. Even if we can't point to stark, specific circumstances in the history of the British Isles (I use the geographical designation because we have certainly done worse than segregate during the imperial days) when certain minorities have been segregated - the cultural and linguistic infiltration of American culture is such in Britain that that is how the word would be perceived.

Further, in a country such as Britain where a disproportionate amount of black and other minorities are socially and economically worse off, and as we have seen are disproportionately targeted by "law enforcers", the word will connote a racist tinge unless the context completely disarms the word (the Christmas song you mentioned was actually a good example of disarming a potentially offensive word). Importantly, that is very unusual.

Only an ignoramus would deny the potential connotations; you are being wilfully ignorant and disingenuous, as usual, to suggest that such implications don't exist in your own country.

how can people here say that "gorilla" is only american???

almost alllll leagues in european football have been marred by racial issues especially when fans do ape chants towards black people...as recently as the game between serbia v england u21 this has been seen or are you going to tell me all these european fans are ignorant of what calling a black person a gorilla means??? or are the players making up this stuff??? let's not kid ourselves :happy: but then again i have to remember apologists will try to find any reason to stand up for their own


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-u21s-in-mass-brawl-on-pitch-1382182

http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/euro-2012/120616/uefa-take-action-against-croatia-over-balotelli-racist-chants-174535

Yep. Let's not pretend that the racist connotations of "gorilla", "monkey", "ape" etc. aren't widely known. They are. Let's not pretend we're all stupider than we are. No fully grown adult who has lived and developed in modern western society could be ignorant of the connotations of using that word. Does using that word once make you a racist? No. But there is no definitive formula for identifying racists.

*JR*
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:32 PM
I'm not wading into this debate for now, and will just say that some good points have been made ITT. Regarding the use of satirical lines in music, that doesn't bother me if I like a song. I love Fairytale of "Nooo Yawk" (RIP Kirsty :kiss:) and posted it in a Christmas thread (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=18889168&postcount=39) 2 years ago:

fLb213lak5s

And Gypsy doesn't just mean the Roma ppl of Europe, as the great Stevie Nicks :worship: reminds us:

6WZ3na8NGjY

Oh, she mentions The Velvet Underground in the opening line. A group whose frontman Lou Reed :bowdown: later had a solo smash hit that used a lot of stereotypes, but clearly not in a hateful way:

0KaWSOlASWc

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:39 PM
Yep. Let's not pretend that the racist connotations of "gorilla", "monkey", "ape" etc. aren't widely known. They are. Let's not pretend we're all stupider than we are. No fully grown adult who has lived and developed in modern western society could be ignorant of the connotations of using that word. Does using that word once make you a racist? No. But there is no definitive formula for identifying racists.

Exactly. Why is that so obvious for some and so difficult to understand for other?

dsanders06
Dec 1st, 2012, 08:51 PM
Because context matters, dsanders. In AT LEAST US and Canadian cultures, a white person calling a black person ghetto carries racist implications that are not obscure and most everyone knows it. Does this SPECIFIC usage of ghetto carry over into UK culture? I don't know. Slutiana, who is black and from the UK, says yes. And in this instance, no offense to you, I will listen to the black British person over a non-black British person. But whether or not it even carries this specificity towards black people in all European cultures is irrelevant, because it still carries negativity towards minorities in general in at least Western European cultures.

I'm genuinely confused now. A few posts ago, you said "And notice, I never said anywhere ghetto was only associated with black people". That directly contradicts what you now say, "a white person calling a black person ghetto carries racist implications that are not obscure and most everyone knows it". :confused:

EDIT: You preface your argument on the mistaken assumption that "the word even nowadays in Western culture is used for urban areas with high concentrations of minorities" --- again, THIS IS NOT always true outside of America. "Ghetto" is used to frequently used to describe areas/people in Liverpool, a city with a population which is 90%+ white and which has one of the highest levels of deprivation in Britain. In British culture, the word is used entirely with regards to class/social status.

how can people here say that "gorilla" is only american???

almost alllll leagues in european football have been marred by racial issues especially when fans do ape chants towards black people...as recently as the game between serbia v england u21 this has been seen or are you going to tell me all these european fans are ignorant of what calling a black person a gorilla means??? or are the players making up this stuff??? let's not kid ourselves :happy: but then again i have to remember apologists will try to find any reason to stand up for their own


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-u21s-in-mass-brawl-on-pitch-1382182

http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/euro-2012/120616/uefa-take-action-against-croatia-over-balotelli-racist-chants-174535

As far as I can see, no-one in this thread (certainly not me) said stereotyping black people as gorillas isn't well-known in Britain. Please go back and read the thread in full.

Hmm, can't let this dlsandersism slide.

Obviously the intent does matter sometimes. However, we essentially understand that socially underprivileged people, often minorities, have at times been to all intents and purposes segregated from the rest of society in what can be described as ghettos. Even if we can't point to stark, specific circumstances in the history of the British Isles (I use the geographical designation because we have certainly done worse than segregate during the imperial days) when certain minorities have been segregated - the cultural and linguistic infiltration of American culture is such in Britain that that is how the word would be perceived.

This is simply wrong. I can list you countless examples of non-black people being called "ghetto" or "chav" (do you accept that these words are used interchangeably? and if so, you surely can't think "chav" has any racial connotations).

The only part of your post that is correct is when you say ghetto/chav are used for socially underprivileged people in Britain. Are you really claiming it's racist just because there happens to be a lot of black people who are underprivileged and thus have been called "ghetto"? That's as logical as saying someone who says "TennisForum posters are idiots" is homophobic just because there happens to be a high number of gay people here.

Further, in a country such as Britain where a disproportionate amount of black and other minorities are socially and economically worse off, and as we have seen are disproportionately targeted by "law enforcers", the word will connote a racist tinge unless the context completely disarms the word (the Christmas song you mentioned was actually a good example of disarming a potentially offensive word). Importantly, that is very unusual

How does it disarm the offensiveness of "fag*ot" any more than "Niggas in Paris" disarms the offensiveness of "ni*ger"?

mykarma
Dec 1st, 2012, 09:11 PM
how can people here say that "gorilla" is only american???

almost alllll leagues in european football have been marred by racial issues especially when fans do ape chants towards black people...as recently as the game between serbia v england u21 this has been seen or are you going to tell me all these european fans are ignorant of what calling a black person a gorilla means??? or are the players making up this stuff??? let's not kid ourselves :happy: but then again i have to remember apologists will try to find any reason to stand up for their own


http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-u21s-in-mass-brawl-on-pitch-1382182

http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/euro-2012/120616/uefa-take-action-against-croatia-over-balotelli-racist-chants-174535
They'd rather play ignorant and claim that it's all in fun and that it's not racist.