Because race is a social construct, and therefore it’s up to each society to define what it means. It so happens that in Britain, “Welsh” and “English” are sometimes defined as “races”.
The definition of race over here includes skin colour, ethnic origin and nationality, IIRC.
That the attackers and victim are, I assume, all white doesn’t come into it, they guy was attacked for being English.
If you define race in a stricter sense, it’s still a racist attack because the attackers are Celtic and the victim Anglo-Saxon.
By who, exactly? Not even my Plaid Cymru friends back at Coleg Jesu would go so far as to define the Welsh and English as distinct races. Distinct nations or peoples, yes, but hardly “races.”
Well, by Sun writers obviously, for one thing.
any incident alleged by the victim to be racially motivated is now required to be investigated as such - result of the McPherson Enquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder.
Here ya go, from here:
Note to self: don’t speak ill of leeks in Scotland. They really like their leeks.
No, it’s the Welsh who like their leeks. And sheep.
Right, then. Change Scotland to Wales and Bob’s your uncle. Or some such rubbish.
Amoungst Scots, on the other hand, do not speak ill of the thistle
Screw thistle. You thistle-eating weirdos. You bunch of Scottish thistle eating hooligans. There I said it. I hate thistle. THISTLE THISTLE THISTLE. I’ll even mangle the spelling. THISLTE. Ha Ha Ha. Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Thanks for the reference, Kal. From a strictly historical standpoint, I find the law strange–but, if it streamlines discrimination prosecution, so be it.
Sorry if it seems like a stupid question…but what do you mean by this?
Well, because there has been so much migration and intermarriage between Wales and England over the last thousand years or so that it’s difficult to claim that the two “races” have any distinct meaning any more. (Exhibit A: my ex-wife, who had a Welsh mother and an English father. But I digress.)
Now if you were looking at it from a cultural standpoint, I could see that. But the history of the Welsh and English are so intertwined to make historical, possibly even genetic, distinctions meaningless.
The law does not work from a historical standpoint - it concentrates on how things are perceived in society today. I don’t think anybody is claiming historical or genetic purpose behind the definition - it is all about culture.
It’s all about culture? How did culture get so elevated?
If a bunch of thugs beat me up because they don’t like the way I walk that’s okay
but if they beat me up because I have an accent it becomes “racist” and therefore
more heinous a crime? :rolleyes:
We’re not arguing the legitimacy of hate crime legislation, BwanaBob.
If a non-hispanic beats up a hispanic for being hispanic, even if they’re both technically the same “race” under the Caucausoid-Mongoloid-Negroid theory, is that a “racist” crime? Most people would say yes. And that’s the proper analogy to the OP.
Oh, I know that…that’s why I have no real problem with the law. I just find it strange, that’s all.
And I also have no problem with Wales and England being considered distinct societies. But I would find it similarly odd to call, say, Englishmen and Frenchmen different “races.” But, as you say, that’s what the Race Relations Act would say.
“Most people” might, but, according to many branches in the US government, Hispanic origin is considered “ethnicity,” not race. For example, in this study of Census Bureau data by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Granted, as in this document, race and ethnicity are lumped together, but there does seem to be a distinction there.