Is it possible to be racist for the following?

I hate teenage Asian lads.

Teenage black lads I have no problem with but does it make me racist that my feelings are limited to Asians?

If I've no problems with Black lads does that make me not racist?

Would you care to explain why you hate teenage Asian lads?

I dont - its a HYPOTHETICAL question as per the title.

I'm just trying to gauge peoples thoughts. Is it possible to be a bit racist or is it a 100% thang!

Racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Yes, that situation would be classed as racist!

K x

Oh okay. I was being slow.

I suppose if you hate people based on their race or ethnicity then yes, that's racist. But if you hate Asian lads for something they do that annoys you then I wouldn't say that's racist, just generalising.

I think it would depend on if you hate all teenage asian lads, or just teenage asian lads who behave in an annoying manner to you. I know the ones you hypothetically mean.
And I wouldn't want to tar all lads of a certain grouping with the same brush, because I know some extremely polite and well behaved ones.

Well the UN defines racism as:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

By hating asian teenagers you are arguably impairing their social activities which would fall under the racist definition. Though it would probably be safer to say that you are racially prejudiced:

prejudice, unsubstantiated prejudgment of an individual or group, favorable or unfavorable in character, tending to action in a consonant direction. The hostility that prejudice can engender and the discrimination to which it may lead on the part of a dominant population toward an ethnic group, gender, religious or linguistic minority have caused great human suffering throughout history. Some researchers attribute prejudice to deep-rooted “fear of the stranger,” while others cite religious or nationalist chauvinism, and fear of economic competition. Most, however, agree that prejudice is learned and can be reduced when members of different communities work together toward the realization of a common goal or when groups intermarry. Since prejudice and discrimination each contribute to the origin and growth of the other, prejudice can be reduced by removing discrimination, and a change in discriminatory institutions usually leads to a change in attitudes.

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Is it possible to be racist for the following?

I hate teenage Asian lads.

Teenage black lads I have no problem with but does it make me racist that my feelings are limited to Asians?

If I've no problems with Black lads does that make me not racist?

It probably means the asian lads you know are the dicks that always act hard and try and cause trouble just so they can ring there cousins and uncles and show a force to be reckoned with, and the black lads you know realise that being friendly is a virtue and not a sign of weakness.

So to hate/not like etc one particular race is not technically racist but racially prejudiced?

But what if I was to say I hate Belgians? Is that racially prejudiced or something else?

Sounds racially prejudiced.

Like me, to a certain extent I hate Americans cos some of them are idiots so you could argue that I am racially prejudiced against Americans.

Originally posted by rooby_roo
So to hate/not like etc one particular race is not technically racist but racially prejudiced?

But what if I was to say I hate Belgians? Is that racially prejudiced or something else?

To hate some one and say there creed is deemed rascist, but to hate some one and say their deed is ok, to hate a person for there colour religion or country is rascist, but you are allowed to hate some one for a valid reason, there are chavs in every culture but to hate a whole race for the chavness of a portion of their whole is foolish, and people who want to make you look like a fool will say you are a rascist, it would be better to say you hate chavs, although many people think chavs are white, this is rascist, chavs are all colours.

And there is a chance that the asian chavs are the ones you dislike.

Assuming a chav is a rude person who wears trainers and acts like they own the manor.

I personally think the above is a crock of sh*t, and if you dont like asians its fine by me, alot of them act like they are retarded which to me seems to be an asian thing, although I have probably left myself open for the usual rascist fascist crap.

But I do realise not all asians are like this just many of the lairy young males.

Originally posted by Rich
Sounds racially prejudiced.

Like me, to a certain extent I hate Americans cos some of them are idiots so you could argue that I am racially prejudiced against Americans.

Aha!!! now we're getting somewhere.

Rich you are my saviour. I bet you don't get any middleclass tossers abusing you for those comments.

However, say anything about Blacks, Asians etc and the do-gooder brigade comes out in full force. Why is that? Does that not make them racist for not defending other races who just happen to be white?

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Is it possible to be racist for the following?

I hate teenage Asian lads.

Teenage black lads I have no problem with but does it make me racist that my feelings are limited to Asians?

If I've no problems with Black lads does that make me not racist?

Just because you like teenage black lads does not make you not racist if you hate another type of race.
Is It not better to say you dislike the sterotypical asian lad......don't most people 'hate' sterotypes?

I dislike the idea of the sterotypical teen full stop but I've never met a sterotype that actually exist to hate and I work with them all day! They normally have one redeeming feature at least!

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Aha!!! now we're getting somewhere.

Rich you are my saviour. I bet you don't get any middleclass tossers abusing you for those comments.

However, say anything about Blacks, Asians etc and the do-gooder brigade comes out in full force. Why is that? Does that not make them racist for not defending other races who just happen to be white?

Well, there is a bit of a difference... after all, Americans can be both black or Asian... not a race you see.

Saying that you hate all Americans is equally irrational and uneducated as saying you hate all Asian teenage boys... which isn't seeming so hypothetical anymore... oh yeah, and you're classist as well. :)

Originally posted by rooby_roo
However, say anything about Blacks, Asians etc and the do-gooder brigade comes out in full force. Why is that?

I don't understand. Are you questioning why it is socially acceptable to hate Americans based on their race but why it is not socially acceptable to hate black people based on their race? If so thats a very good question.

I see it as a three stage process:

1) Notice some behaviour you find distasteful
2) Notice that, as a rule, only members of a certain race/sex do this
3) Assume that all members of that race/sex are like that

Only at point 3 is it racist. Point 2 may also be considered racist, but it largely depends. For instance, it is a documented fact that some of the gangland shootings in London are performed by black men in their 20s and 30s. However, that is merely an observation. Extending that to hating black men because they are involved in gangland shootings, or saying that all gangland shootings are committed by black men, is racist.

In other words, it's only racist when you discriminate on that basis. In your particular case, if you started treating Asian lads differently because of the hypothetical observation, then it would become racism.

Exactly Lucy, exactly.

I'm not racist in the slightest. I only get a grudge against people if they personally do something to me (thats for Snook) whether they be black white or yellow.

What I am offended at is do-gooders defending "coloured" people yet would they do the same for Americans, french etc? Probably not. Do they think "coloured" people aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves? Now that is whats widely known as being patronising.

BTW my grandfather was born in India and considered himself part Indian and was white so to say America is a mixture of colours and Asia is not is an uneducated comment, whoever said it.

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Aha!!! now we're getting somewhere.

Rich you are my saviour. I bet you don't get any middleclass tossers abusing you for those comments.

However, say anything about Blacks, Asians etc and the do-gooder brigade comes out in full force. Why is that? Does that not make them racist for not defending other races who just happen to be white?

If you hate any1 you are technically amoral - but now I hate you! So now i'm a hypocrite! Look what you've started you narrow minded bigot!!!

I'm off to my leftie do-gooder brigade meeting! We're killing racists tonight:clap:

Originally posted by rooby_roo
So to hate/not like etc one particular race is not technically racist but racially prejudiced?

But what if I was to say I hate Belgians? Is that racially prejudiced or something else?

My reading of the definition is that racism requires some sort of active discrimination against the racial group whereas racial prejudice is more a preconcieved idea about a racial group.

You can't be racially prejudiced against Belgians because they aren't a racial group - I suppose that would be national prejudice. Though of course the two can be closely tied to together in the minds (such as they are!) of some e.g. I dislike pakistanis -> all pakistanis are brown skinned -> therefore all brown skinned people are pakistanis ->therefore I dislike all brown skinned people. Spurious logic at best but it does happen!

Originally posted by miniminch
If you hate any1 you are technically amoral - but now I hate you! So now i'm a hypocrite! Look what you've started you narrow minded bigot!!!

I'm off to my leftie do-gooder brigade meeting! We're killing racists tonight:clap:

After the raffle and a game of bingo THAT IS! (no two fat ladies mind - too sexist)

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Exactly Lucy, exactly.

I'm not racist in the slightest. I only get a grudge against people if they personally do something to me (thats for Snook) whether they be black white or yellow.

What I am offended at is do-gooders defending "coloured" people yet would they do the same for Americans, french etc? Probably not. Do they think "coloured" people aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves? Now that is whats widely known as being patronising.

BTW my grandfather was born in India and considered himself part Indian and was white so to say America is a mixture of colours and Asia is not is an uneducated comment, whoever said it.

If you only have a grudge against people if they personally do something to you, then you would never have need to say that you hate all young Asian males.

As for the rest, I think you are confusing race with nationality, but I agree with you, it is equally as stupid of people to hate American or French as it is anyone else.

I think it's a good question and one that I am probably guilty of. I can't stand what I consider to be "racist" opinions of black, Asians etc and yet am quite happy to laugh with my friends about what a bunch of idiots Americans are.

Although I don't deep down consider this view to be true of ALL Americans, but why is it socially acceptable to laugh about Americans among friends when it would never be socially acceptable to laugh about black people in the same way?

EDIT: I suppose being black and being American is technically different as it has been noted "black" is considered a race whereas "American" is considered a nationality. Still interesting though

Originally posted by Snook
If you only have a grudge against people if they personally do something to you, then you would never have need to say that you hate all young Asian males.



Snook - I dont believe I did. I was asking a hypothetical question from a 1st person perspective in order to make it an easier question to read - there are some simpletons on here you know!!!

Originally posted by rooby_roo


What I am offended at is do-gooders defending "coloured" people yet would they do the same for Americans, french etc? Probably not. Do they think "coloured" people aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves? Now that is whats widely known as being patronising.

I think you'll find rather than 'sticking up' for those people, the so called 'do-gooders' are trying more to seperate themselves from people like you. . . . they are wanting to prove they are NOT all like you.


BTW my grandfather was born in India and considered himself part Indian [/QUOTE]

I love it when such purity is follwed by these sentiments - almost guaranteed everytime. . . I have a grandad from India or my uncles, sons wife twice removed half brother is from Mexico - so I'm not rascist.:P Brilliant!

Originally posted by miniminch
If you hate any1 you are technically amoral - but now I hate you! So now i'm a hypocrite! Look what you've started you narrow minded bigot!!!

I'm off to my leftie do-gooder brigade meeting! We're killing racists tonight:clap:

Hmmmm....... interesting

Originally posted by Lestat
I think you'll find rather than 'sticking up' for those people, the so called 'do-gooders' are trying more to seperate themselves from people like you. . . . they are wanting to prove they are NOT all like you.


BTW my grandfather was born in India and considered himself part Indian and was white so to say America is a mixture of colours and Asia is not is an uneducated comment, whoever said it.

I love it when such purrity is follwed by these sentiments - almost guaranteed everytime. . . I have a grandad from India or my uncles, sons wife twice removed half brother is from Mexico - so I'm not rascist.:P Brilliant! [/QUOTE]

Fool - I never said I was racist. Do you understand the word HYPOTHETICAL? What I'm trying to understand is why do people defend people with "coloured" skin yet not defend to the same degree white people who happen to be from another country who are mocked simply for where they come from?

Lestat, I've not made many posts on here but I do visit everyday. One thing I've noticed is that you and others, rather than make quality replies, tend to mock or abuse if you disagree. You ever tried grown up discussions?

Originally posted by jonsastar
Hmmmm....... interesting

sexist

Originally posted by rooby_roo
I love it when such purrity is follwed by these sentiments - You ever tried grown up discussions?

Like the one about hating Belgiums instead of pakis - what the f is your point?

Originally posted by miniminch
Like the one about hating Belgiums instead of pakis - what the f is your point?

Hey miniminge, nice choice of word there

I see the grown up discussion lasted a long time.

I will give you my view on the difference between people (hypothetically) hating Asians, or people hating Americans...

Personally, I think both cases of hatred are as bad as each other, but I understand why people will leap to the defense of people with a different colour skin. Although some people here may say that they hate Americans, or the French, I very much doubt that they would be overly upset if a white American moved in next door. I doubt that they would petrol bomb their house, or deny them a job, or shout abuse at them in the street. Although, having lived with an American partner in England, it is quite shameful at the level of abuse they get from the English.

That's my take on what the difference is, for what its worth.

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Lestat, I've not made many posts on here but I do visit everyday. One thing I've noticed is that you and others, rather than make quality replies, tend to mock or abuse if you disagree. You ever tried grown up discussions?

Yes I have tried grown up discussions but they are always gatecrashed by people like yourself or RoyJames or t020 and end up going down the pan. . . a little like this one.

BTW - Your 'hypothetical' question - if thats really what you meant it to be and not another stab at asians could have been asked in a number of different ways. When you put it so bluntly, expect to get some replies that you may not like . . after all thats what grown up debates are.

Originally posted by rooby_roo
I love it when such purrity is follwed by these sentiments - almost guaranteed everytime. . . I have a grandad from India or my uncles, sons wife twice removed half brother is from Mexico - so I'm not rascist.:P Brilliant!

Fool - I never said I was racist. Do you understand the word HYPOTHETICAL? What I'm trying to understand is why do people defend people with "coloured" skin yet not defend to the same degree white people who happen to be from another country who are mocked simply for where they come from?

Lestat, I've not made many posts on here but I do visit everyday. One thing I've noticed is that you and others, rather than make quality replies, tend to mock or abuse if you disagree. You ever tried grown up discussions? [/B]

Fool - you keep ignoring the fact that American or French is a nationality not a race. So you can't be racists by hating Americans, and no one has coined a good phrase to describe it. Nationalist, maybe but it doesn't sound very good.

Seriously, stereotyping any nationality is just as bad as stereotyping based on skin colour. But one of them is relevant to this country in a very real way, the other doesn't have much effect, afterall, how many Americans or French or Dutch did you see walking down the street yesterday?

Racist people are probably the same ones that bullied at school (bear with me here). They like to single out anyone who's different and generally make life difficult for them. Maybe this is because by making life difficult for someone else, they feel that their own life somehow has more value.

Thanks people...it makes it a lot clearer.

I would agree with the others therefore and say the reason why it is less socially acceptable to be racist towards black people is because historically black people as a group have faced a lot more prejudice, hatred and violence than any nationality.

Also...could we please stop calling each other "fool"...we are beginning to sound like Mr T

Well if people read before they posted...........

I also think it may be something to do with the fact that we have a much more mobile population these days and nationality has lost alot of it's importance as it becomes as much a matter of choice as birth where as race is somthing you carry with you?

Originally posted by rooby_roo
Hey miniminge, nice choice of word there


Cubist!

evildrneil- I think that's spot on. I did a research project on racial inequality last year and the term "race" is now a very outdated term. It's rarely used in research...instead the academics prefer ethnicity which doesn't just describe the colour of you skin but other factors such as culture, religion etc

Fool

(sorry I couldn't resist)

Originally posted by Cyclone
Fool - you keep ignoring the fact that American or French is a nationality not a race. So you can't be racists by hating Americans, and no one has coined a good phrase to describe it. Nationalist, maybe but it doesn't sound very good.

Seriously, stereotyping any nationality is just as bad as stereotyping based on skin colour. But one of them is relevant to this country in a very real way, the other doesn't have much effect, afterall, how many Americans or French or Dutch did you see walking down the street yesterday?

Racist people are probably the same ones that bullied at school (bear with me here). They like to single out anyone who's different and generally make life difficult for them. Maybe this is because by making life difficult for someone else, they feel that their own life somehow has more value.

I do agree with your argument although it is a little pedantic... but surely even though people are being 'nationalist' rather than racist for hating (just for example) the french or the americans, surely the reason for the hatered stems, not from just different nationality, but from the cultural and minor ethnic differences between them. To argue that this is not racist is just getting one over on people with a limitied vocabulary, using a general term to convey a more specific meaning... i find the level of accepted prejudice against people like the french or germans to be wholly unacceptable in this country, precisely because people don't see this as being wrong and would jump on the back of someone saying the same thing about a person with a different skin colour.

sorry for the rant... ps. the bullied at school theory is probably a lot colser to the mark than i'd care to think... i really belive some people never leave the school yard.

Hate is a very strong word, why do you hate Americans or anyone else for that matter.I personally dislike Americans but not hate.My wife is Malay (race, not from Malaysia) and she thinks the forms you sometimes have to fill in are racist.The ones that ask what is your ethnic background then give a list of choices.The problem is she does not come under any of those categories except other (nondescript?).She thinks every category should be listed (impossible) or just ask what is your ethnic background, or better still don't bother with the question.
She does not answer.

Ruby - roo accept it, you are racist. It's nothing to be ashamed about. Lots of people are. Accept and embrace it and them you will be able to move on.

I have listened to your arguement many times before. Us whites have the power (most of the time). We can choose to discriminate. Them poor colourds just have to put up with it or get labelled as having a chip on their shoulder.

The mind boggles.We now live in a mulitcultural society.And i love it.So many new things to learn and explore in so many different ways.
Colour,Creed or Nationality should'nt make any difference.You will allways come across bad people,its the way of the world.
Everyone should be judged on their own merit and nothing more.Racism is a terrible thing,it can produce real hatred.The scary thing is you will always get the "bully boy" brigade joining in on things like this.Half the time they aren't really racist,they just get a buzz from the trouble they manage to stir up.
I've met many good people in my life and quite a few b******s as well along the way.But i can honestly say i have never judged anyone on their colour or nationality.

And Rooby... can I ask what colour are "coloureds"?

And in my humble opinion, your hypothetical question isn't hypothetical at all, you're cowardly hiding behind the word and are afraid to air your true opinions.

So, Rooby. Do you hate teenage asian males? Be honest now.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
evildrneil- I think that's spot on. I did a research project on racial inequality last year and the term "race" is now a very outdated term. It's rarely used in research...instead the academics prefer ethnicity which doesn't just describe the colour of you skin but other factors such as culture, religion etc

Fool

(sorry I couldn't resist)

ermm -surely ethnicity, or ethnic background is specifically about the 'racial stock' that come from.

Ethnically I am a caucasian. This does not describe my religion nor my nationality, only the fact that I am white. Americans may also be Caucasians, as may many people from Europe and from throughout the rest of the world.
Oriental, Asian, Black (with various sub sections), these are ethnic groups, religion and nationality has nothing to do with it.

Theoadore - does that make me vocabularist?

Seriously though, stereotyping a nationality is morally as wrong as racism, but the effects in this country will be limited. So it becomes merely funny to dislike the French, afterall most people with such a silly view will probably never meet a French person, whereas disliking asians is far more of a social problem since you probably meet some every day.

There is also a distinction between disliking a country and disliking it's people. For example. i'm not too fond of America due to it's foreign policies, but of the few Americans I know I like or dislike them for themselves, not for US foreign policy.

its hardly going to cause world war 3 is it ?i mean,you dont intend to start a political party or burn down the houses of parliament do you? if its your own opinion then so be it,hate who you like,cant see as i can tell you what to think, i suppose at some time every one hates /loves something more than another. so i wouldnt call you a racist as you are still, up to now ,entitled to your own thoughts and opinions.

Originally posted by depoix
its hardly going to cause world war 3 is it ?i mean,you dont intend to start a political party or burn down the houses of parliament do you? if its your own opinion then so be it,hate who you like,cant see as i can tell you what to think, i suppose at some time every one hates /loves something more than another. so i wouldnt call you a racist as you are still, up to now ,entitled to your own thoughts and opinions.

being entitled to think or feel something, doesn't stop that something as being labeled as racism if that's what it is.

The fashionable, left/liberal definition of racism states that anyone who believes in innate differences in intelligence levels and personality types between different 'races' is a racist. I believe this to be far too narrow a definition. There is some evidence [based upon IQ scores, and yes I am aware of the methodological deficits inherent in that form of measurement] in the work of Richard Lynn, an evolutionary psychologist, which suggests that there are significant geographical variations in human intelligence.

Lynn has been labelled a 'racist'. His answer goes along the following line. If asked, he would answer "yes" to the question of innate differences existing. That would make him a 'scientific racist' in the eyes of mainstream social scientists. However, Lynn's own definition of 'racist' appears to be much more sensible and realistic. In the scholar's view, a 'racist' is someone who wishes to 'lump together' all people belonging to an ethnic group or racial stock typologically, in order to mistreat them in some way. He acknowledges 'overlap' in IQ tests [i.e, just because the average black african IQ is lower than the average white, it does not mean that there are no africans with IQs of 140 plus]. Additionally, Lynn has no desire to mistreat anybody.

I think that Lynn's definition- the idea of someone typologically categorising an ethnic group or 'race', without acknowledging 'overlaps', in order to mistreat them is a good definition. It is certainly better than the absolutist, currently fashionable idea that anyone who dares to suggest there may be any variations in terms of average intelligence or personality type amongst humans is automatically 'racist'.

I think you're off down a blind alley there timo.

Racism is generally the dislike / hatred of others for reasons of skin colour or origin, though origin usually comes back to skin colour frankly.

There is nothing leftie or liberal or do-gooding about disliking that outlook.

I met someone from Nottingham a few years ago who said he was voting BNP because he hated all Asians in this country, when I probed him further it turned out he didn’t hate all Asians at all but he did an evening class at college and their was a gang of Asian rude boys who used to stand on the steps smoking and this really intimidated him.

So this hypothetical position is not that uncommon.

Personally I don’t think this opinion would make you racist as it’s not a prejudice based on racism but upon a fear or distrust of gangs of young men, in my experience people find gangs they have no connection or identity with intimidating whatever their colour.

I think Abdul made an excellent point on another post which was along the lines of please don’t make the mistake of associating the entire Muslim population of Britain with ‘Asian Chav’s’

(Of course as Timo’s nemesis i feel duty bound to point out that in grouping individuals upon your perception of race you would by the true definition be racist. But unless you discriminate based upon race you aren’t a ‘racist’ in the sense most people identify with.)

Tony,
No, I disagree there. This is not a blind alley; there is more to racism that a dislike of someone else's phenotypal characteristics, i.e, skin colour. Intertwined with dislike of different 'colours' are negative beliefs about the people themselves as a group.

I refer to the left/liberal consensus which currently dominates thinking in social science. It revolves around the idea that, even to question the 'equality of the races' in terms of average intelligence levels is to be 'racist'. This is very important, because the idea has become widely disseminated throughout society. It has put the brakes on some very interesting research in the field of ethnology, and encouraged paranoia about 'race' in society generally. It acts to stop freedom of thought on 'race'. I am aware that some individuals and groups seize upon any evidence of geographical variations in intelligence and personality type between 'races' with glee. They can use this as ammunition with which to persecute others. However, I believe in the freedom to disinterestedly investigate any subject. The liberal/left consensus has made studies of 'racial' differences taboo...

Originally posted by timo
Tony,
No, I disagree there. This is not a blind alley; there is more to racism that a dislike of someone else's phenotypal characteristics, i.e, skin colour. Intertwined with dislike of different 'colours' are negative beliefs about the people themselves as a group.

I refer to the left/liberal consensus which currently dominates thinking in social science. It revolves around the idea that, even to question the 'equality of the races' in terms of average intelligence levels is to be 'racist'. This is very important, because the idea has become widely disseminated throughout society. It has put the brakes on some very interesting research in the field of ethnology, and encouraged paranoia about 'race' in society generally. It acts to stop freedom of thought on 'race'. I am aware that some individuals and groups seize upon any evidence of geographical variations in intelligence and personality type between 'races' with glee. They can use this as ammunition with which to persecute others. However, I believe in the freedom to disinterestedly investigate any subject. The liberal/left consensus has made studies of 'racial' differences taboo...

Let’s stop wasting our time with this forum and go and have a wrestle over the top of a waterfall.

Any sane person would have to realise that there are differentiations of intelligence in various places for all sorts of reasons... genetic, nurture, education, wealth, health, nutrition, etc, etc.

I don't really understand where you are going with this though timo. What point are you trying to make?

You seem to be making a political point rather than any other. :confused:

Tony,
Of course politics comes into this debate, because social science, the humanites and arts tend to be dominated by those of left/liberal opinion. The sciences too have their 'marxist' types like Richard Lewontin. Your point that 'any sane person would realise' that there are variations etc is not reflected in mainstream social science, especially sociology. There it is a question of denial. The idea is that there are no 'races', which hundreds of physical anthropologists, biologists etc would dispute.

Disco cat,
You aren't anybody's nemesis, least of all mine. Re the wrestling on a waterfall idea- why don't we meet at Rivelin lido when I'm next in Sheffield. Hey, and no waterwings either...!

I would have to (partialy) agree with Timo here. Yes there are genotypic and phenotypic differences between races. However there are equally geneotypic and phenotypic variations within a race. Race is (as far as I see it) simply a set of arbitary divisions along the continuum of humanity for the sake of cataloguing and have no more real meaning than, for example, someones name.

Claiming there are no differences between races denies the fact that races are composed of individuals, which may be what political correctness strives for but I say vive la difference!!!

I don't think acknoledging or even celebrating our differences is racist. It's discrimation, dislike, hatred, unfair assumptions about individuals based solely on their race which is racist.

Saying that acknoledging a difference is racist would be the equivalent of saying (for example) that the government are sexist when they report that girls have done better than boys in this years GCSE results.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
EDIT: I suppose being black and being American is technically different as it has been noted "black" is considered a race whereas "American" is considered a nationality. Still interesting though


Where to begin?

1) "American" is not a nationality. It is like "European"; it describes the continent you are on. However, as the US have hijacked the term American to ONLY mean the US, I don't think that there is a name for someone from the US except American. It's an odd situation.

2) Since when is 'Black' a race? Last I looked it was a colour, or in the case of humans a description of the shade of the skin (everyone is basically beige, some darker than others).

Racist seems to have been forced into being a catch all term, seeing as in the modern world the concept of race is essentially lost. People move around too much. Is it your ethnic background (i.e. parents?)? Is it the country you're born in, the country you're raised in, or the colour of your skin?

As far as I can tell, racism is a manifestation of xenophobia. That's about it.

xenophobia [zenfbi:]
A noun
an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers

timo, you are a one.

'Intelligence' is not an absolute, so the whole discourse on which race is better at sums is an utter waste of time.

In addition, without being unkind, I don't think the likes of the BNP are au fait with the work of Richard Lynn, or indeed evolutionary psychology in general. Their racism comes from gut instinct, a hatred and fear of the 'other' rather than convoluted and seemingly flawed scientific reason.

Incidentally (and I realise this is completely off-topic, but it's well worth it!), here's another example of a flawed scientific theory (http://www.flat-earth.org). Australia doesn't exist, you know!

Debates about the differences between races have not been purely academic!! They influenced and justified slavery, apartheid, the holocaust, racial segregation all over the western world. ( I know what you're thinking, 'blah blah leftie blah', but quite honestly, its true, and a little reading would confirm it to anyone who doubts me)

This is what has led to almost a backlash in the social sciences of insistence that there is no inherently superior race.

Also timo when you say this "There is some evidence [based upon IQ scores, and yes I am aware of the methodological deficits inherent in that form of measurement]" you are effectively rubbishing your own arguement.

Kathy,
No, the argument is Richard Lynns! The argument against IQ tests is along the lines [usually] of cultural bias. Personally, I can acknowledge a degree of cultural bias in language-based intelligence tests, but not in tests of visio-spatial intelligence. These tests, often digit-forward, digit-back [I give you a series of numbers, and you repeat them backwards etc] are mathematically-based, and I cannot see how cultural bias comes into play here.

Greenback,
Yes, I AM a bit of a card at times, but I am such a good man at heart. What do you mean, you don't believe me?! Re intelligence, yes old bean, I know that there are different kinds of intelligence [the previously mentioned visio-spatial and linguistic varieties being two of them]. Is that what you mean by not 'absolute'? Or, do you mean, relative to other things like environment, nutrition, education etc?

I suppose, at the end of the day [to coin a cliche], if Chris Stringer's 'Out of Africa' thesis is correct, we are all evolved African apes of the same ultimate stock. If so, then 'racism' seems pointless. However, there are other theories like Wolpert's Multiregional model, which posits that 'races' evolved separately, and at different rates. Does it alter the price of tomatoes? Not a jot. I've had far too much to think today.

Originally posted by timo
Greenback,
Yes, I AM a bit of a card at times, but I am such a good man at heart. What do you mean, you don't believe me?! Re intelligence, yes old bean, I know that there are different kinds of intelligence [the previously mentioned visio-spatial and linguistic varieties being two of them]. Is that what you mean by not 'absolute'? Or, do you mean, relative to other things like environment, nutrition, education etc?

It's just that I don't think a concept as complex as intelligence can be narrowed down to any sort of strict definition, no matter what semantic games academics will play (and from my experience - and please don't take this as a dig at you - there's nothing academics love more than piling inpenetrable language on top of simplistic ideas).

'Intelligence' is all the things you mention and much, much more. IQ tests are not a useful barometer - you may just as well come up with a scale measuring other abstract concepts, like 'justice', 'love' or 'nice-tasting rice pudding'.

how about if we consider something simpler. The ability to box, the ability to run, the ability to not burn in the sun.

Would you argue that there is no difference in the ability to perform well at those things between white people and black people (statistically speaking, obviously generalisations are pointless when dealing with individuals).

The fact is that there are differences, but accepting that is not racist.

Greenback,
There is nothing unreasonable in what you say there. I think you are actually right re the academic overuse of 'jargon'. Sometimes academics engage in the most patronising platitudes, telling the public what they know already, in pseudo-scientific terms. A bit like calling a cup of tea a hot infusion of indian leaves. Maybe intelligence is more complex than any test devised suggests.

Kathythebean,
I acknowledge what you say re the use of 'racial science', grand narratives about white 'superiority' etc to legitimise slavery, colonialism etc. Far from being "blah lefty blah", it is very much the case. Do not forget, however, that non-whites too have made use of theories to legitimate fearful atrocities. For example, the Japanese belief in themselves as the 'Devine Yamato Race' was used by military to justify the behaviour of the so-called, Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere of WW2.

Originally posted by Cyclone
being entitled to think or feel something, doesn't stop that something as being labeled as racism if that's what it is. then if you think it, and its a private thought, how would you punish yourself,?

It is no more racist to hate Asians or Blacks than it is to hate Whites. There are elements of the Muslim community (I know this is a religion not a race) who hate the whole Western world (ie, White world).

There are all kinds of racism. I'm also not sure that racism as such is necessarily the worst thing in the world - but rather its seriousness depends upon what form it takes. It can be anything from name calling to genocide and all else in-between. Racism is a broad term.

In answer to the origional question you could be seen as racist, ageist and sexist. It all depends on how seriously you take isms.

Originally posted by depoix
then if you think it, and its a private thought, how would you punish yourself,?

I wouldn't. If I had such a thought then obviously I would believe it was acceptable, otherwise i'd not be having it.

Only by expressing and having the error of my ways explained would I become aware that I was in fact being unfair and racist.
And at that point, i'd discuss the issue to death (it's what i do) then change my mind if I was convinced that the opposites arguments were stronger than mine.

Of course, I don't think racist thoughts anyway, so it's not something I need to worry about.

That is absolutely true, timo, and I think many people often forget that racism is rife among most communities (in asia there is lots of racism between different ethnic groups towards each other).

In response to cyclone, no its not racist to say that some do not burn in the sun as easily. However where racism comes into play is when racial differences are used to dictate policy or distribution of wealth. Using your example, that would become racist if you used it to say that black people should stand in the sun while white people get to sit in the shade because black people burn less easily and are stronger (its a silly example but I'm sure you get my point).

The facts are that the modern world does not require any of us in Britain to hunt animals or even have high levels of intelligence, so scientific racial differences should not dictate a persons oppurtunities or social standing.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
There are elements of the Muslim community (I know this is a religion not a race) who hate the whole Western world (ie, White world).


You contradict yourself. Islam is a religion that does not recognise race, certain radical Muslims may hate the western world and it's values or religious beliefs, but this isn't based upon skin colour.

Originally posted by kathythebean
That is absolutely true, timo, and I think many people often forget that racism is rife among most communities (in asia there is lots of racism between different ethnic groups towards each other).

In response to cyclone, no its not racist to say that some do not burn in the sun as easily. However where racism comes into play is when racial differences are used to dictate policy or distribution of wealth. Using your example, that would become racist if you used it to say that black people should stand in the sun while white people get to sit in the shade because black people burn less easily and are stronger (its a silly example but I'm sure you get my point).

The facts are that the modern world does not require any of us in Britain to hunt animals or even have high levels of intelligence, so scientific racial differences should not dictate a persons oppurtunities or social standing.

exactly the point i was trying to get at. But it shouldn't be taken too far and people insist that we are all equal when in fact it's clearly evident that there are differences.

Disco Cat,
You are absolutely correct to say that Islam does not recognise races. Few seem to know this, and I am glad that someone has made the point. However, this does not mean for one minute that muslims themselves cannot hold racist opinions. The Urdu phrase, "Gory" is often used by British Asians [many being of muslim faith] as a derogatory name for whites in general. I believe it refers to pigs, although I may be incorrect here. It is an insulting, racist term nevertheless on par with '******', 'wog' and 'paki'.

Kathy,
You seem to acknowledge the evolutionary origins of some 'racial' traits. Perhaps the culture of the modern world does not "require" [to use your phrase] us to hunt etc, but I would argue that certain groups might be at an advantage in the modern world due to specific inherited traits.

I'll give an example. Without being unnnecessarily 'academic' and naming lots of sources, there has been much work done on the intelligence levels of the Japanese. The Japanese, and Mongoloids in general, are said by various scientific authors to possess extremely good visio-spatial skills, which tend to outstrip those of other groups. Conversely, whites tend to outstrip other groups in linguistic intelligence tests. The theory is, according to several evolutionary psychologists, that the Japanese evolved in conditions of extreme coldness [Siberia], where food was not abundant. The advanced visio-spatial dexterity is a legacy of what was required back then, in the Paleolithic. The ancestors of the Japanese, and other Mongoloids, developed these evolutionary visio-spatial skills in order to hunt and kill [scarce] large animals, in extremely harsh conditions. The face of a Mongoloid , including the 'slitted', epicanthic fold of the eye, works as a mask against extreme cold.

Nowadays, Mongoloids, particularly the Japanese demonstrate astonishing levels of visio-spatial ability, which translates often as being incredibly adept at mathematically-based problem solving. This can surely be an advantage in the modern world. So, we may not be "required" to hunt, but certain groups, whose ancestors evolved extremely good visio-spatial skills, may be at an advantage over others in the modern world...

Originally posted by timo

Nowadays, Mongoloids, particularly the Japanese demonstrate astonishing levels of visio-spatial ability, which translates often as being incredibly adept at mathematically-based problem solving. This can surely be an advantage in the modern world. So, we may not be "required" to hunt, but certain groups, whose ancestors evolved extremely good visio-spatial skills, may be at an advantage over others in the modern world...

Thats weird whenever I've been monged I have also had an improvement on my visio-spatial ability. I wonder if theres a link?

I also dance like a MF. But wouldnt like to sit a maths test unless the equation was mdma = funk.

However once after a heroic dose i couldnt find the bar for six hours - but laughed for seven!:thumbsup:

Originally posted by timo
Disco Cat,
You are absolutely correct to say that Islam does not recognise races. Few seem to know this, and I am glad that someone has made the point. However, this does not mean for one minute that muslims themselves cannot hold racist opinions. The Urdu phrase, "Gory" is often used by British Asians [many being of muslim faith] as a derogatory name for whites in general. I believe it refers to pigs, although I may be incorrect here. It is an insulting, racist term nevertheless on par with '******', 'wog' and 'paki'.




HOLD ON THERE TIMO, YOU ARE SOOOOOOO WRONG!!!!!!!
Gora, in the context you refered to as describing a person means white man as in a "male" and goree means a white female person, nothing more. On par with terms like ******, wog and paki?, give me a break, Which book of racist translations have you been reading? If any young asians wanted to call you a pig, they probabaly would just call you a pig--- Please don't justify it by reasons like some bloke telling you what it meant etc, I speak the language and find your comments very shallow, ignorant and way off the mark.

can we put this hatred thread to bed? This is what i think!

Here is the truth! and yes its the postmodern truth! If you hate anyone (ANYONE) for any other reason other than for genuine self preservation then it is its own reward, exactly like smoking! If you smoke, its your choice, and so you must suffer the prospect that you may have to endure a slow and painful cancerous death.
Similarly, if you hate a group of people because you don't like the look of them or because they are not like you, then you must also endure the consequences of living with that hate that will eat its way through you like an idealogical cancer - full of bitterness and bile. Your choice. You choose to live hate free accepting that change is an inevitable part of social diversity. Or - by contrast, live with that fear of others invading your percieved space - guarded and turned in from reality, trying in vain to protect the fragile materials that scarcely make up your life and ignoring the real space of your imagination - which can be wide and open and truthful.
I say let others smoke if they want - let others be racist and pose ridiculas questions about the sanctity of one material people. While we watch passive like a detached cameras or take the **** until we see all the holes and flaws of their ideas knowing that we have the imagination to escape that miserable death that hate inflicts upon them, tearing them open and exposing a shrivelled black heart beating in time with no one.

We sit on the fence - judging no one for their wrongs knowing that those wrongs conspire against them.

stuff like that!:|

I think that everyone is a racist to certain degrees. It is a natural human instinct to be suspicious/down on people who are diferent from yourself.

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.
As said before UN Racism speel.

Hypothetically:
I hate dodgy fake tans.
Am I racist?
I hate teenage kids with bad attitudes, most of which I have encountered to be asian, I therefore prejudge when seeing an asian teenager to protect myself. When I find an asian teenager that doesn't have a bad attitude, I will like them twice as much as I would have.
Am I racist?


Racism in our society rarely exists in its original pure form these days. Where do we draw the line?
The racism bandwagon is sitting waiting to trump their horn and get some political attention at the slightest sign of something they can spin.
Take the recent evening standard - Ken livingstone incident. Ken wasn't being racist, far from it, he was having a go at a homophobe reporter on the door of a gay event. Oh but here come the Jewish and the ever popular anti semitic anthem. They had only last played their trumpet for prince harry dressing in a nazi uniform for a fancy dress party. I've gone to a fancy dress party as a pumpkin, vampire, rambo, all sorts. doesn't mean that I am a pumpkin or that I even like pumpkins.
/end rant

bit basic , if you love being british then your a racist,???? why because you dont accept being blown up , abused, and treat like ****.

I have to agree with the thing about everyone being a bit racist. I must admit that (although ashamed to say it) I am racist myself...

I just don't like white people. I know its irrational, and I'm sure some of them are very nice... It's just that they always seem to be up to no good.

The girl that was murdered two doors down from me was killed by a white man... A girl was raped near here by a white man. The two men who tried to break into my house on separate occasions were both white. The football hooligan who hot me from behind for no reason was white. The men who stole my car were white. The drunken man who drove into the car my mother was traveling in was white.

I just can't help but see a trend here... I just can't see the good in white people... two world wars were started by white men, the crusaides and look what white people did in South Africa... Jack the Ripper was white, as was the Yorkshire Ripper. Harold Shipman was white, and Charles Manson... basically all serial killers in fact.

Hmmm, yeah, I just can't help being a little racist.

Originally posted by brooksy
bit basic , if you love being british then your a racist,???? why because you dont accept being blown up , abused, and treat like ****.

Dohhh yep very basic!!!!
All them non-british people just love being blown up, and particularly by American guns, AHHGH maybe its just a coloured peoples' thing eh? You only feel pain if your skin is fair, hmmm, don't you think brooksy?:loopy:

Originally posted by Pete1024
I hate teenage kids with bad attitudes, most of which I have encountered to be asian, I therefore prejudge when seeing an asian teenager to protect myself. When I find an asian teenager that doesn't have a bad attitude, I will like them twice as much as I would have.

Most teenage asian kids have bad attitudes? More like, most teenage kids have bad attitudes. :)

As for the Livingstone incident, you're absolutely right. Ironic that the journalist in question should be so offended by perceived anti-semitism when he works for an organisation that supported fascism up to World War Two. :rolleyes:

DAV,
Please don't call me "ignorant", or my comments "shallow. I was informed that "gory" was a derogatory term for whites. I also added that I might be "incorrect". There is no need to burst a blood vessel.

Miniminch,
You are a rare and beautiful spirit indeed if you can find "postmodern truth". The whole idea behind postmodernism is that absolute, intrinsic truth does not exist! Still, I am sure that if anyone can locate it, you can. I had heard [in relation to the issue of visio-spatial ability] that you were a Professor of Hard Sums...

i would count it as being racist

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
You contradict yourself. Islam is a religion that does not recognise race, certain radical Muslims may hate the western world and it's values or religious beliefs, but this isn't based upon skin colour.

Technically true but what if the BNP hated the whole of the Indian sub-continent based on culture, values etc. Would this not be viewed as racist. Then in addition to this they planted a massive bomb in one of its most populated cities with the express aim of killing as many inhabitants as possible. would this not bwe viewed as a racist attrocoty.

Originally posted by timo

Miniminch,
You are a rare and beautiful spirit indeed if you can find "postmodern truth". The whole idea behind postmodernism is that absolute, intrinsic truth does not exist! Still, I am sure that if anyone can locate it, you can. I had heard [in relation to the issue of visio-spatial ability] that you were a Professor of Hard Sums...

truth has to exist if it is not to exist at all - for only in the fractured sub realities of your imagination can you really experience the truth. If the truth does not exist Timo then that in itself is the truth and if that is a lie then the truth exists.

the digression is endless and enhancing and soul affirming- i guess we can call it post-post modernism.

sometimes the hard sums are the ones you need to see the world through clearer glasses - if you know what i mean.

Thankyou dear miniminch, or may I address you as mini? You have opened up a new world to me, one which is governed by its own unique rules; the parallel 'baby universe' that is the mind of miniminch...