What is racism? - serious debate

[aurora5772 10]

Hi All.

 

I'm genuinely confused by some of the threads on this forum about people's perceptions of race and racism.

 

I hope here to start a reasoned debate about what IS and what IS NOT racism.

 

According to the MacPherson report, an action by an individual is racially motivated if "the victim or anybody else" believes it to be. i.e. no account is taken of a person's intention.

 

Think carefully about this. Its implication is that if I criticise a colleague for their work performance, and they choose to believe that I am racist, than I am a racist by legal definition, even if my criticism was justified, and was not stated in any abusive or racist way.

 

I think that MacPherson's definition is inadequate - but how should it be changed?

How can we find a definition which simultaneously protects people from racism or racist abuse, but also protects people against false or unfair accusations?

Is it possible to prove someone's intentions in a court of law, or are we effectively asking for mindreading?

 

For each of the following overheard remarks, label each as A (abusive) or NA(not abusive) and R (racist) or NR(not racist):

 

(1) "John is black"

(2) "John is a c**t"

(3) "John is a great bloke"

 

(4) "John is a black c**t"

(5) "John is a great black bloke"

(6) "John is a great bloke, even though he is black"

(7) "John is a c**t, even though he is black"

 

Assuming that (1) is factually true, how would your ratings of the above remarks change (if at all) if the speaker was also black?

[butchill 10]

too complicated for me to comment

[Cardboard 10]

(1) "John is black" NR, NA

(2) "John is a c**t" A

(3) "John is a great bloke" NR,NA

 

(4) "John is a black c**t" R, A

(5) "John is a great black bloke" NA, not sure about if R, or NR - could be either really

(6) "John is a great bloke, even though he is black" NA, R

(7) "John is a c**t, even though he is black" A, R - makes the suggestion that all black people arent c**nts and that other races are.

[Guest]

(1) "John is black" - NA, NR

(2) "John is a c**t" - A, NR

(3) "John is a great bloke" - NA, NR

 

(4) "John is a black c**t" - R, A

(5) "John is a great black bloke" - R, NA

(6) "John is a great bloke, even though he is black" - R, A

(7) "John is a c**t, even though he is black" - R, A

 

I would say that saying someone is black is a fact and not in anyway racist.

 

If you bring the persons skin colour/ race into a comment for which it has no relevance, then I believe it to be racist as you are adding a comment which is not needed.

[upinwath 10]

According to the MacPherson report, an action by an individual is racially motivated if "the victim or anybody else" believes it to be. i.e. no account is taken of a person's intention.

 

 

What a load of old rubbish.

 

It's the intention of the person that matters.

 

I'm off to the chinky for a meal. Often taken as racist but no bad intention at all.

Racist - no way man even if it's a bit crap.

 

Some **** *******. Well of course it is. It uses race as part of an insult.

 

I hate pakis and chinks. That's clear.

 

I was in carphone whorehouse a while back and a lass pointed to where two blokes were and told me to see him.

They both were about the same hight, had dark hair and similar build so I said "the asian guy".

Daft bitch looked at me like I was some raving racist just about to renew my subs to the BNP.

[Ashcroft 19]

number 4 i would say is racist, but number 5 i dont think would be because its more positive. most people now {black} think most of this petty so called racist remarks are a big joke:)

[TonyRevitt 10]

When I lived in the USA, one of the heads of the local NAACP constantly used the word Whitemail, instead of Blackmail, which he said was perjorative.

Surely it is more racist to alter an established dictionary word and still convey the same meaning.

Isn't it racist to change the childrens poem from;

Baa Baa Black Sheep, to Baa Baa Grey Sheep.

As the Grey Sheep of the family, I am offended by this.

[cgksheff 44]

Just to throw in another level of semantics ...

 

Reading the original post, you will see that 'MacPherson' refers to "racism" and "an action".

 

It is possible to interpret this, limited, reference as suggesting that it is possible for an action to be racial abuse/racism without the individual "being racist".

 

i.e. Through perception, "the act" can be racism but without intent "the individual" may not be a "racist".

 

Please, do not forget that it is not yet an offence to be racist or have racist thoughts!

It is only an offence to carry out or encourage "acts" of racial abuse/discrimination/hatred.

[TonyRevitt 10]

Hi All.

 

I'm genuinely confused by some of the threads on this forum about people's perceptions of race and racism.

 

I hope here to start a reasoned debate about what IS and what IS NOT racism.

 

According to the MacPherson report, an action by an individual is racially motivated if "the victim or anybody else" believes it to be. i.e. no account is taken of a person's intention.

 

Think carefully about this. Its implication is that if I criticise a colleague for their work performance, and they choose to believe that I am racist, than I am a racist by legal definition, even if my criticism was justified, and was not stated in any abusive or racist way.

 

I think that MacPherson's definition is inadequate - but how should it be changed?

How can we find a definition which simultaneously protects people from racism or racist abuse, but also protects people against false or unfair accusations?

Is it possible to prove someone's intentions in a court of law, or are we effectively asking for mindreading?

 

For each of the following overheard remarks, label each as A (abusive) or NA(not abusive) and R (racist) or NR(not racist):

 

(1) "John is black"

(2) "John is a c**t"

(3) "John is a great bloke"

 

(4) "John is a black c**t"

(5) "John is a great black bloke"

(6) "John is a great bloke, even though he is black"

(7) "John is a c**t, even though he is black"

 

Assuming that (1) is factually true, how would your ratings of the above remarks change (if at all) if the speaker was also black?

 

 

If John were a miner all would be acceptable

[LordChaverly 10]

Hi All.

 

 

According to the MacPherson report, an action by an individual is racially motivated if "the victim or anybody else" believes it to be. i.e. no account is taken of a person's intention.

 

I think that MacPherson's definition is inadequate - but how should it be changed?

 

The MacPherson report is full of nonsense such as the above. 'Inadequate' is the wrong word to use in this context: 'absurd' would be much more appropriate. Macpherson was also responsible for popularising other paranoia-inducing, and finger-pointing, terminologies such as 'unwitting racism' and 'institutional racism' etc. Unfortunataly, the malign influence of these Macpherson definitions shows no signs of abating.

[KenH 10]

What a load of old rubbish.

 

It's the intention of the person that matters.

 

I'm off to the chinky for a meal. Often taken as racist but no bad intention at all.

Racist - no way man even if it's a bit crap.

.

 

 

It is racist if someone hearing it is offended and they belong to that ethnic group, or a reasonable third party would be offended. In your example you happen to think that "chinky" isn't offensive but if a chinese person overheard you and is offended then it is racism and intention on your part is irrelevent. If "intent" is necessary then you could call someone a p*ki and not mean to be offensive and they would just have to tolerate it. In fact this term has become a term of abuse and so, even without intent, it causes offence and so is racist.

[dj4321 10]

The MacPherson report is full of nonsense such as the above. 'Inadequate' is the wrong word to use in this context: 'absurd' would be much more appropriate. Macpherson was also responsible for popularising other paranoia-inducing, and finger-pointing, terminologies such as 'unwitting racism' and 'institutional racism' etc. Unfortunataly, the malign influence of these Macpherson definitions shows no signs of abating.

 

this report may be full of non sense to you but there is only one organisation to blame here. METROPOLITAN POLICE, for showing institution racism has existed here for a long time but only now it has come to light.

So the Macpherson report is NOT nonsense as it highlighted a serious problem that is growing in Britain.