Well, if the father’s reasons for not wanting his daughter to marry a black were purely aesthetic, i.e. he would prefer his grandchildren to appear a certain way but did not have any prejudices at all towards people of that race, it would not be racism, just very weird, like a father who told his daughter not to marry a short guy because he wanted tall grandchildren.
As to the OP, I find nothing racist about not being attracted to people with a certain physical appearance. You can’t really control what turns you on. For me personally there is no one physical trait that is found in every member of a particular race that I find unattractive, so I can find examples of every race that I find attractive, but there are certain ‘types’ of people I just don’t find attractive at all, so I could see how some people could find all members of a certain race (and I am using the term race in it’s common usage, I know it’s not a valid biological term) unattractive. After all, since ‘race’ just means ‘people who share a certain physical trait’, it should be fairly common for visually stimulated people to not find some races attractive.
For instance, I personally am not attracted to most Asian women. There is something about their facial features that is a bit of a turn-off to me. There are many who I do find attractive, but they seem to have atypical facial bone structure for their race. This would not stop me from dating an Asian woman - I have dated women I found more physically unattractive than the average Asian woman because I was attracted to them for other reasons, but if I was judging just by looks and you presented me with several women of various races and asked me to rate which ones I found most physically attractive, there would probably be a preponderance of Asian women near the bottom of my list (and the top would probably have a disproportionate number of hispanics and brunette whites). That doesn’t make me racist, that just makes me someone who finds some faces more attractive than others.
I think the question in the subject heading depends on what you mean by “black”. No, really.
IMHO having particular physical preferences like “No redheads!” is rather bizarre, but if someone has a purely personal preference for light-skinned romantic partners then that’s no more morally wrong than having a purely personal preference for blondes. If the preference is due to some sort of socialized belief that dark-skinned people are dirty, stupid, or criminal then that is a problem, but if it’s just a matter of taste – well, there’s no accounting for taste.
However, saying “Blacks are not my type” is not the same thing as saying “I don’t go for dark-skinned people”, at least not in the US. In some parts of the world “black” is used purely as a description of skin tone, but in the US it’s often applied to people as light-skinned as Tisha Campbell. On the other hand, I’ve known Indians and Sri Lankans with far darker skin than the average African-American, and they aren’t considered “black” by most Americans.
If someone has a personal preference for light skin they should have no problem being attracted to a light-skinned African-American but should be turned off by, say, my dark-skinned Indian hallmate. But if someone who claims that blacks aren’t their type is turned off by light-skinned African-Americans but not dark-skinned people of other ethnic or cultural groups then this can’t be attributed simply to personal taste in matters of a potential partner’s skin tone. There must be some other factors involved. If one of those factors is prejudices about what African-Americans are like as people, then yes, that’s racist.
On preview, I see that Badtz Maru has said something very similar. I don’t think it’s racist if particular physical traits commonly found in particular ethnic groups are a personal turn-off for you, but as BM says, these traits won’t be universal among members of that ethnic group and may be found in members of other ethnic groups. Being turned off by these traits isn’t necessarily racist. Assuming that all members of a particular ethnic group must possess these traits is a form of prejudice, though.
I’ve never felt sexually attracted to any man shorter than 6’. I don’t think I am discriminating, I’ve met many wonderful men that were “just not my type”, no chemistry. I am sorry, I can’t help it. This is not because I think short people are less intelligent, dirty, morally corrupted, worse lovers, have smaller penises or some such, they just don’t do The Thing. And I don’t think I am prejudiced, I am short myself.
Well, putting aside verybdog’s lame attempt to turn this thread into a copy of his other thread, I have to admit that the set of facial features I personally find appealing are more likely found on Caucasians than blacks or Asians. That said, I’d gladly nail Vanessa Williams and/or Rosalind Chao. Ming-Na’s kinda cute, too.
I’m not wild about blue eyes. I prefer brown eyes.
I’m not wild about blondes. I prefer brunettes or redheads.
Therefore, I would find Halle Berry more attractive than, say, Michelle Pfeiffer. Both are very attractive women. One simply appeals to me more than the other.
I think it is possible for this to be the case without being racist. Simply a matter of preference, that’s all.
The reason you referred to her as “not your type” is because she wasn’t. It had absolutely nothing to do with her skin color. I believe everyone here has an excellent grasp on that concept.
Additionally:
"But what if a White father said to his White daughter, “you must not date and marry a Black no matter what!”
Is that racist?"
Absolutely. If you seriously can’t see that, you need to refigure your priorities in life. (Sorry, but it’s true.)
In regards to the original OP: I like your choice of words: Lunatic Ex Coworker. That fits wonderfully.
I think it proves that the words racist and prejudice (along with discriminating) have been coopted by ‘groups’ and they have convinced the public that they inherently mean something bad.
You were all 3 in the OP but have done nothing wrong. I don’t mean you were being improperly (or bad) racist - but unfortuntally the word racist (and the others) now means something bad in peoples minds.
So to sum it up:
Yes you were being racist (and other terms), as is your right and you are morally correct in doing it if you wish. You have done nothing wrong and no one should condem you for being racist in this instance.
or no
The definition of racist (and other terms) have been co-opted to mean something now that doesn’t fit what you have done. You are not racist by the co-opted definition of the word.
Then what are you thinking you are doing? Let me fill you in here, You are discriminating but you are allowed too and it is not bad in and of itself.
Again the word means something, just because different human races don’t exist doesn’t mean the word doesn’t have a meaning. Just like a hamburger contain no ham doesn’t mean that a clown doesn’t serve them.
k2dave, at what point does the preponderance of common usage render the meaning of a word effectively changed? What I mean is, considering the usage of word “racist” as having evolved so that in contemporary use (i.e. not when referencing a historic document), the negative connotation is no longer a matter of some “group” but the accepted consensus of the mainstream.
FWIW, some Webster’s definitions:
Notice how curiously “prejudice” is given the value-neutral synonym “predilection”, even though its own definitions were all negative. Still, it is interesting that “Prejudiced” and “discriminating” RETAIN some value-neutral aceptions in common speech mostly because colloquial usage allows you to be prejudiced or discriminatory in favor of things socially approved, e.g. “predilection” for a Harvard education. However has “racism” ever been used in a positive sense among the mainstream since the mid-20th century-- at least in any form * that calls it “racism”*? Because then “racism”, the word, hasn’t been “coopted by ‘groups’,” it is a negative by the consensus of the mainstream.
Oh, and I missed something I wanted to include: that by these definitions, the OP would involve “prejudice” but only in the sense of its synonym “predilection” or of a value-neutral “preconceived opinion”, rather than in the malicious sense.
I have to admit that I had to rethink ‘racism’ last night.
your 1939 dictionary however does give at least one neutral meaning:
while prejudice used to define racism also has a neutral meaning
But it was based on race (or color of skin since there is no races :rolleyes:) so racism fits this too. Again nothing wrong morally or legally in doing so.
My point is that the word now conveys an image to the mainstream that it really didn’t years back. I’ve heard that the word discrimination, discriminating has once had a positive meaning. i.e. discriminating taste.
Well, I’m white, but haven’t dated a guy with blond hair since high school. Does that make me a racist? People are attracted to whomever they’re attracted to. (To note an extreme case: I have a huge crush on my guitar teacher, but not on his near-identical twin brother.)
Besides, there are all kinds of guys who I might find physically attractive, but that doesn’t mean I want to have sex with all of them. I might just want to appreciate them from an aesthetic point of view, or maybe they’re stupid, or maybe they have ideas that I find annoying. Or maybe something as superficial as the way they dress turns me off. Or maybe I think we’d make good platonic friends, but nothing else. I once dated a guy who I could spend hours kissing, and who turned me on upstairs in all sorts of ways, but somehow the idea of actually having sex with him never appealed to me. He was half-Japanese; does that make me racist?
I think we should stick to a strict definition here; if you don’t want to date someone who you would otherwise be attracted to solely because of his/her race.