I would disagree, only if you portray your race as superiour to others it would be racist.
Well, according to 19th Century racial theory there were four - Australoid (Austronesian, Polynesian, etc.), Negroid (African), Caucasoid (European), and Mongoloid (Asian). But I’m pretty sure those categorizations have undergone substantial change in the past century-plus.
Basically, though, if you look at things from a purely genetic standpoint, although there is no more than about a 1.5% variation in DNA across the entire human species, there are genetic groupings that are noticable. [quote]For example, it is true that the so-called “Negroid” race contains more in-group variation than the other major races. Great differences in height, for instance, can be found within a small geographical area (the “pygmies” are the shortest people in the world on average, while their neighbors, formerly known as “the Watusi”, are the tallest). These two “negroid” subgroups vary more from each other in height than either does with the averages for height in the other two major races. However, if total genetic cohorts are used rather than limited sets of traits like height and blood type in an effort to find true overall relatedness, it is seen that any two “negroids” will share a much higher net genetic affinity with one another than either will with any individual of the other two major races. The same is true for any two caucasoids and any two sinoids (see conclusions of the Human Population Genetics Laboratory headed by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza at hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/A … 01-408.pdf ).[/quote]
No there is no American “race” nor a “Chinese” nor a "Japanese…these are all terms that are the product of nationalism.
Someone just sent me this link
The UN definition of racism is thus:
“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
So under the UN definition of racism, whether you believe Americans to be a race or not, you can still be racist towards them.
If a Saudi Arabian called a white American citizen an “American White Fucker” then surely this would be racism, especially under the terms of the UN definition of racism.
In a predominantly Pakistani area in Britain, if I am refused service on the grounds that I am white and British, this too is racism.
I myself wouldn’t class Americans as a race the same as I wouldn’t class British as a race. They are both nations made up of a mixture of people from different races and nationalities. But it is true that you can behave in a racist way towards citizens belonging to a certain nation.
If a white American calls a black American a “Black wanker” is it racism? They are both Americans, but the white guy is making reference to a particular colour or racial origin; the same would be true if the scenario was reversed.
Under UK law:
“Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person.”
So if I call a white American visiting the UK an “American fuckwit,” if that American believes that I have been racist towards him or her, then I have been racist. However, in essence we both be long to the same race. This is regardless of whether I believe Americans are a race or not.
So to answer your question: Yes.
Tetsuo’s and Dangermouse’s most recent posts have been the most useful so far.
There is no such thing as race
There has been scientific consensus for quite a long time now that the concept of ‘races’ as applied to humans is (in scientific terms) a load of shite. There are no ‘races’ like Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid etc.
That said race of course still exists as a concept. People still believe that there are differences which they ascribe to the concept ‘race’, depite the fact that this concept has been proven to be essetially groundless.
So if race doesn’t exist, how can racism exist. Well that’s where Dangermouse’s UN definition is useful as it includes definition based on such things as ethnicity and nationality. I’d say that a good working definition of race would be ‘discrimination based on perceptions of race, ethnicity, or nationality’.
So in my view, yes of course it is possible to be racist against Americans.
However there was one theorisation of racism which defined it in terms of ‘predjudice with power’ - essentially, racism could only be directed towards minorities.
Brian
well done brian you’ve hit the nail on the head there…the more common usage of “racism” is to talk about prejudice and discrimination against minorities. that’s why it would seem strange to talk of racism against americans as such since they are not a minority.
although i guess there would be americans in places such as korea who could validly claim to be victims of racism in terms of treatment by the locals (the point being in korea americans are a distinct minority not greatly liked by the locals, similar to say turkish immigrants in germany, s. asians in the UK [feel free to dispute this statement if you think i’m off base])
btw good work on this people; some good stuff coming out. and the reason i’ve started this here is to try and keep it as an argument on usage of the language and not the mud-slinging type of fracas over in IP
:bravo:
[quote=“Tetsuo”]OK, I think the issue here is not of definitions according to the dictionary, but of the applicable definition in a given case. Not all definitions of a given word fit in all contexts.
Here, I would personally side with bear in that “racism” by definition concerns itself more with the genetic aspect of race than the “shared community” aspect. “Racism” is essentially the belief that different races possess different genetic predispositions.
That’s not to say that Americans can’t be considered a race - clearly that is a valid term - but racism by definition would not apply to this definition of race, simply because this definition is concerned with community rather than genetics. “Racism” against Americans would more accurately be described as prejudice or discrimination, not racism.[/quote]
Excellent post.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]There is no such thing as race
There has been scientific consensus for quite a long time now that the concept of ‘races’ as applied to humans is (in scientific terms) a load of shite. There are no ‘races’ like Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid etc.[/quote]
No, there is not “scientific consensus”. There are still two schools of thought that sit one on either side. There is consensus, though, that race as traditionally and colloquially defined is nowhere near as substantial as was previously thought, and that it has no connection to psychological or behavioural aspects. There’re also conflicting definitions of race across the various sciences - biologically, there have been studies that show three major genetic groupngs that happen to fit with the three traditional groupings, although the differences between groupings was very minimal. That study was conducted in 1996, not way back in the dawn of society or anything. I quoted from that before. Then, sociologically, there’s the “race as social construct” definition, in which case there is no way to say race doesn’t exist, because as long as humans have a prediliction to categorization, there will be races.
Essentially, “race” as a determinant of any difference beyond very minimal genetic factors and skin color is bollocks, but race as a categorization strategy definitely exists, and race as a genetic differentiator is still up in the air.
Looking at Dangermouse’s and Brians posts, would calling (all) people of French nationality ‘the filthy French’ by a non-French national be considered racist or not?
Kindly clarify (Brian or Dangermouse preferrably).
[quote=“Rascal”]Looking at Dangermouse’s and Brians posts, would calling (all) people of French nationality ‘the filthy French’ by a non-French national be considered racist or not?
Kindly clarify (Brian or Dangermouse preferrably).[/quote]
racism perhaps like beauty is in the eye of the beholder…this is of course the crux of the current argument over in IP; if the French are not actually a race and certainly not a minority is it possible to make racist comments against them…in my view these are offensive comments against a nationality not a race but i’m open to persuasion. i endured 6 months of sheepshagger jokes when i worked in london but i never felt there was any racist element to this; but then i guess since i’m from the same gene pool as southern english then it’s not surprising…
[quote]Rascal wrote:
Looking at Dangermouse’s and Brians posts, would calling (all) people of French nationality ‘the filthy French’ by a non-French national be considered racist or not?
Kindly clarify (Brian or Dangermouse preferrably[/quote]).
The French are fithy and they should accept this fact. - From a Brit.
I think the term “Racism” is now used out of context and is not reffering to predudice against a particular race or minority.
The term “racism” has been twisted by politically correct left wing do-gooders and yoghurt knitters and by governments and national minority/ethnic groups to make “racism” refer to their particular ideas of the meaning.
Indeed, it is possible for a minority population to be racist against the majority as happens in the UK on a regular basis.
As for your question about calling the French “filthy.” I think it depends on whose doing the calling. If it was a Brit, it probably wouldn’t be considered racist because of the cross channel banter thats been going on for centuries. If it was an Indian, it could be a different matter.
If you call a Pakistani a “Pakki” in the UK, then it is considered racist. However, if an Australian cricket commentator refers to the Pakistanis as “Pakkis” as they often do, it’s not. Remember the outcry when Bush reffered to Pakistanis as “Pakkis?” His intentions weren’t racist, but it was perceived by some to be a racist comment.
I think the idea of racism is not an idea that is all squared away. It is up for interpretation from whoever can be bothered to interpret it; and all too often the interpretations are not the same, especially across the boundaries of cultures.
Racism is therefore a perceived idea, whether the persons intentions as perceived by the recipent are actually racist or not.
do aussie commentators really call pakistani’s paki’s? i’ve never heard it. mind you i wouldn’t be surprised since aussies lead the world in racist banter (whoops was that a racist comment against aussies?)
Yeah, they do - Richie Benaud and co do, at least.
My god are there any other Anthropology graduates who want to comment on the incredible amount of ignorance posted in this one? ?
It does not matter if you are a sociologist, biologist anthropologist, pre or post modern theorist; there is on universally accepted definition of the word race.
race only one, human; ethnic subgroups: people who share a common culture or cultural history.
I know this is off the original topic, but the number of expert opinions spewing misinformed ignorant smeg was too much to handle.