You’re talking about a super-select segment of the population. That’s like me looking at Bill Gates and Larry Ellison and suggesting that these few White guys tell me something about the population of White guys as a whole. Or Jeffrey Dahmer and the BTK killer and thinking the same.
Truth is, world-class sprinters, business moguls, and serial killers are outliers. They are unique and quite special. I’d be more attentive to their individual traits, rather than assume there’s a Black sprinting gene, a White male money gene, or a White male serial killer gene.
I understand there are some societies in Africa where long distance running is a part of everyday life. Stands to reason that of that population, some folks would become quite good at it. I’ve had several friends who are college athletes, and I think most of them would argue that their talent has as much to do with their dedication and willingness to train their bodies a certain way. As much as non-athletes like to think that it’s all genetic, there is some effort involved.
Well, in that case I guess my problem is that it’s just too vague. Labelling something as undefinable as “an institution” discriminating against people based on something as undefinable as their “race” as “racist” does dilute the word so much as to become meaningless, I think.
But it makes reference to the “victim’s” race. A black American who looks down on a black African is not doing so because of the race of the African but because of something else. A white Canadian who looks down on their customer service provider because of their foreign accent / percieved inability to speak English is not doing so because of their race. You see what I mean?
No, it’s not racist to point out that different races seem to have different aptitudes for different sports. It would be racist to draw from this the conclusion that different races DO have different genetic aptitudes for different sports without also examining all the other factors that come into play. For instance, there are a number of reasons why most current NBA stars are black, none of which have to do with genetic predisposition.
When people use the word racism as an all-encompassing label that is supposed to connote value and offensiveness and meaning all at the same time, then I can understand why they’d balk when a scaredy cat grandmother is called a racist along with David Duke. That is why I object to making the word value laden. It means we always have to worry about hurting feelings.
But how do you know illegal = breaking the law? If I challenged you on this definition, what would you cite as evidence that you’re right? It would probably be a dictionary from a credible source.
I don’t see where all this uncertainty is coming from. If someone called me nigger, it’s perfectly possible that they were calling me that because I’m a woman, not because I’m black, and maybe they’re from a bizarro world where women are affectionately called nigger. I don’t know for sure why they are calling me nigger. However, its much more reasonable to conclude racist intent than to assume that it is not a racist intent. Same goes for the lady who trembles in fear at the sight of every black man, even if the man is Morgan Freeman dressed in a business suit. At some point you have to go with what is a reasonable conclusion instead holding out for absolute, irrefutable evidence.
That’s why simple definitions are handy. It really isn’t that difficult to determine if you ask yourself. 1) What is the underlying assumption behind this belief? and 2)If this thought is carried out, could discrimination occur?
What is his hypothesis? If his hypothesis is that the races are the same and he is testing that hypothesis appropriately, then I don’t see why he’d be called racist.
Again, what is their hypotheses and underlying assumptions? Do they have an agenda or are they approaching the subject as disinterested scientists? It’s an important consideration when determining someone’s beliefs.
Maybe and maybe not. I guess it all depends on how someone reaches their conclusions. If, for example, they have an idea that blacks are naturally more criminal than other groups and look for evidence that supports their position rather than the other way around, then I’m disposed to think of them as being racist. If, on the other hand, someone reaches a particular conclusion because they look at statistics and mistakenly infer causality instead of association, then their conclusion is flawed but not necessarily racist. Hope that makes sense.
So another “-ism” (ethnicism? xenophobia?) would be more appropriate than racism. The same thought process is behind these “isms”, but the markers for group identification are different.
I guess this is the crux of our disagreement. I think it comes down to “race” and what it is and how it’s determined. What would you consider to be the “markers for group identification”? (great term, BTW)
As far as I’m concerned, things like language/accent and hair and dress so forth are just as important as other indicators in determining “race.”
Bob Marley, for instance, is clearly black. Ask anyone. But I bet if he shaved his head and wore a blazer and spoke in a Canadian accent, he would not be considered black by many who met him - it was his dreads, his patois, his lifestyle which made him “black” more than his skin colour, which was really very light.
It is very common in black colonies for kids to be forbidden from speaking their own native patois and encouraged to speak “white.”
How often have we heard about black kids criticizing other black kids for “acting white”? That is RACIST, even though the race (if defined by skin colour, etc) is irrelevant.
This is why negative treatment from black Americans towards black Africans is precisely racist: the Africans are more “black” than the Americans.
Excellent point, cowgirl. I’ve tried to make this point before, but you’ve done a better job of it. It raises an interesting question: if you find someone who is a racist, what is the “thing” they hate so much. Is it the actual skin color? Or is it the particular culture that the person’s overall presentation represents? I’m sure there are people for who it is both, (and, of course there are there are the Spremacist groups) but it needn’t be. So are both groups racist?
For race, you have physical cues. But race is such a complex construct that markers are not just limited to appearance. If it was as simple as appearance, then white-looking black people back in the day would not have had to “pass” in order to be free from discrimination. They could have just been themselves, acknowledging their background, and would have been accepted just the same as whites. But they weren’t. And because they weren’t, that tells me that race means more than what skin color you have. It comes with other stuff, other markers.
For Africans vs black Americans, the markers are not so much biological and genetic, but rather cultural and environmental.
Disagree. Dress me up in the same clothes that middle-America whites wear and I’m still as black as I am if I’m wearing something else. Clothes and accents do not determine race. That’s why I made a point in my hypos to control for stuff like dress. If a black man, irrespective of dress, speech, etc, elicits a certain response its likely due to his race. Not things that may be associated with race.
I sorta see what you are saying, but Marley is a bad example because he was a light skinned man (who also created crossover music). If you were talking about Shabba Ranks (sp?) I doubt putting him in mainstream gear would cause him to be perceived as “less black” by the masses.
I don’t understand you here. Race is not defined by skin color. If that was the case, my white-skinned father would not be considered black.
I don’t know if you can reach this conclusion without knowing a little bit more about the tensions. There may be a self-hatred component to the tensions between black Americans and African Americans, but personally, I think it has more to do with black Americans internalizing many of the cultural stereotypes Americans have about Africans and reacting the same way someone acts when they are embarrassed by an “undesirable” relative out in public. The same type of tensions exist within the black American community, between the “ghetto” blacks and the “bougie” blacks.
Okay. I’ll bite. Calling someone a name does not mean you can hit them. There is a boundary between words and actions, and I don’t want to reference a nursery rhyme. It’s simply true. If I call someone a name, walking down the street and they hit me, they have no right to do so.
It’s not right to call anyone a name, either. I certainly don’t condone that, but responding to hate with violence certainly runs contrary to everything Dr. King and Ghandi stood for.
You fight violence through non-violence. Things get accomplished that way. After Ghandi, India declared non-violent demonstrations illegal. Why? Because they work.
Shoulda previewed, but I read a portion of the thread. If we’ve gone past this issue (as I suspect we have) feel free to ignore and keep on keeping on.
Bonds is an arrogant jerk. He plays baseball for a living. He is not making it a better world. He just plays ball. He mistreats people , speaks down to them and is snotty and defensive. I dont care what color he is. He fuels the flames by his attitude.
What Rose did is much worse. He should never be allowed in the hall of fame. His actions are the kind that could take the game down.
I dont care about Bonds and steroids. Its his body and he can do what he wants to it. None of my business. Actually it is good for the spectators. Quality of game improves.