I remember as a child, my parents told us girls that interracial marriages were fraught with worries and pressures (society being what it was, and is). They were not hateful, or bigoted when they said this. They were just telling us what they percieved to be the reality at the time.
One of my sisters married a black man when she grew up. My parents were OK with it, (though worried about the pressures from society and trying to make sure that she understood and could cope with these pressures). She married, with my parents’ blessings. My sister and her husband have been happily married for many years, and have two fine sons.
I don’t think what our parents told us as children was bigoted or prejudiced. I think their reaction when one of their daughters decided to marry a black man is in character for them. And I don’t think the OP is talking about the behavior my parents displayed either.
Why would you think that? Overall, IMHO, I think the internet makes provides the type of environment that would allow for a more honest discourse; so in a sense, the answers you are getting IMHO are more reflective of what people feel deep down, away from societal burdens of the imagined PC conformaty.
You could also think of it this way: If it were just a few PC dopers reacting to you, then you would imagine that a few decidedly un PC dopers would chime in and defend your position, standing along side you. This however is not the case.
Do I think what your father is an evil man, based on your descriptions? No, I think he is living with some of the past prejudices that have afflicted this country, I think he means well ultimately, but he is doing wrong. This might seem a little contradictory, but what I mean is this: He, IMHO, probably knows that “hard” racism is wrong, what he is ignorant of is “soft” racism. I don’t know if I’d use ignorance as an excuse, but I will say that I don’t think he is evil. I save that word for people who truly are evil. I also think that he should be working toward dimishing those feelings-if not in himself, he should certainly not be trying to pass on his prejudices.
To me, being “evil” would mean that your father was a “hard” racist. As opposed to some “soft” racists, who do not realize that they are being racist; they have been brought up a certain way and have been exposed to a limited environment and don’t see that what they are doing is, in fact, evil. I think this makes them a doer of wrong deeds, but I don’t think this makes them evil.
Also, just so that I don’t confuse you, I think that “soft” racists can be just as evil as “hard”, but I think there is more hope in changing a “soft” racist than a “hard” one.
All different species. Interfertility is not the sole measure of species differentiation. The domestic horse and Przewalski’s are interfertile as the two broken chromosomes of the Przewalski will align with the unbroken chromosome of the domestic horse. Similarly it is possible Plains and Grevy’s Zebras might be technically interfertile in the same way ( however they do not mate in the wild due to geographical and ecological isolating mechanisms ). However horse/donkey hybrids are usually sterile, as are zebra hybrids with donkeys or horses.[/hijack]
You did Scott. I personally don’t have the expertise needed to really debate some of these points. My response is much more visceral.
vbd, the “some of his best friends are black” line smells from a mile away. Every one of your examples, from the OP right up until now, have gotten scarier and scarier. You have proved that the answer to your question in the OP is “yep, racist” without any help from us.
Perhaps “blond hair/blue eyes” is too close to the Aryan thing for us to ignore, but even if it was the opposite (black hair/brown eyes) it would still be wrong.
I think that this “hypothetical” dad might be you, although I haven’t checked your profile. Or maybe it’s your dad, or your brother, or uncle.
I would expect to find stuff like this on stormfront, not here.
Aryan features are endangered? So gross, I don’t have the words.
Could there be a chance that the majority of Dopers in this thread be wrong by calling the daddy racist?
Because in American society, once one gets called a racist, people would automatically assume that he’s a “hard-racist”, or “racism-1” - a ‘RACIST’ in upper case.
Sure. But I would not bet money on it. And it still makes his attitude vis-a-vis his daughter’s reproductive choice at the very least silly as hell IMO
AND… you’re still wrong about YOUR OP,vbdog.
Your OP, quoted exactly:
[sub]BTW, note your “b” scenario is set there as a direct “telling her what to do”without ANY qualifiers, only LATER did you add all your qualifiers about him “not having anything against blacks”, about dominant/recessive genes, about not saying it directly but using some weird daddys-girl psychology, etc.[/sub]
You are wrong because (A) “telling her daughter to study hard to be a lawyer” , firstly has nothing to do with race; secondly, can be argued rationally on a social and economic cost-benefit basis that is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of society; thirdly, your a-posteriori argument about “she may want ot be a hooker” is a straw-man not germane to the substance of statement (A) since lawyer/hooker are NOT her only choices.
Thus, regardless whether (B) is or is not racism, be it ideological or sociocultural, either way (A) IS NOT RACISM. Unless hookers, blue-collar workers, civil servants, soldiers, artists, stay-at-home housewives and everyone else not a Lawyer or Doctor is a “race”.
Therefore, YOUR REASONING THAT IF (B) IS RACISM, THEN (A) MUST BE, is incorrect. OP answered.
Arguments about “discrimination against hookers” are straw-men because they are obviously introduced for the purpose of preemptively tainting arguments in favor of freedom of choice, by pretending that the ONLY other choice is indisputably undesirable; and are not germane to the comparison between (A) and (B) since people can CHOOSE to NOT become hookers but they can’t choose to not BE black (Michael Jackson excluded). So there’s no equivalency.
Insofar as our opinions as to whether (B) is racist, you have read here that (B) is any of the following, depending on which of us answered and at what point in the argument: ideological “hard” Racist; sociocultural “soft”-racist; irrationally prejudiced; bigoted; shallow about physical appearances; wacko; or just preally silly and misguided.
Preponderance of the evidence – provided by you, remember? – points to some form of “racism”, even if small-r. Your successive qualifiers changing your OP (B) scenario to one in which he’s attempting to “condition” her to give him pretty caucasian grandkids, or to preserve the white race, just added “creepy” to the adjective list.
You see, in America, racism is not exactly about race. Racism in America is about hatreds, is about daily insults, is about frequent acts and verbal expressions of contempt and disrespect, is about discriminations, about slavery. If racism were all about race, then ask today’s upstarts Tiger Woods, Colin Powell, Denzel Washingtion, Serena and Venus Williams sisters…to see if they got any?
Racists think that only low-status jobs should go to low-status stupid races (white included) and that members of the economically and culturally dominant race alone (blacks included) should have access to privileges, political power, economic resources, high-status jobs, and unrestricted civil rights.
The reason this father wanted his daughter to be in a high profession is becaue HE IS a racist. He looked down upon any jobs that are lower than what he would have dreamed about for his daughter. (Hey, I just happened to pick hookers to be the most miserable representative of all these lowly jobs.)
Now analyze to me why the father’s forcing of his daughter to be a lawyer or doctor (or else) is not a racist while is the other father who merely wishes his grandkids look like him?
If the “high-status” group includes black people, and the “low-status” group includes white people, then it isn’t racism anymore, it’s “classism”. Granted that “race” is a social construct, the particular attitude you’re describing isn’t based even on a social construct of “race” (let alone some mythical biological subdivision of the human species) but on some sort of economic and socio-cultural grouping. Why not call it “sexism”? The father doesn’t want his daughter taking a job associated with the “low-status gender”, like hooker or secretary or other “women’s” jobs (which “gender” includes both males and females), he wants her to have a “high-status” job like lawyer, which is held by “men” (including males and females). Of course this doesn’t really make much sense in terms of language and meaning and so on, but if you’re just going to arbitrarily redefine what words mean, I think it works about as well.
Very, you can’t change the meaning of words to suit your causes. Racism is only about race. Other forms of discrimination may also be based in bigotry, but they are in no way racism.
Where are you from? How old are you?
You write as if English is not your primary language, or you sound very young, one of the two, so I wonder about your qualifications in regard to forming an opinion about what American culture does or does not consider “racism.”
The majority could be wrong, but the likelihood isn’t good. I mean, a comet could come smashing down and end all life as we know it, once again the likelihood isn’t good.
People can assume whatever they want, it doesn’t make it so. In the same vain, I think that racism and any form of prejudice is a bad thing and should be stamped out.
A is not racism, it is, as I believe MEBuckner said, classism. Or even elitism. In my opinion it’s still not an appropriate thing to do/or feel.
Racism is about discrimination/prejudice about race. What you are describing is what happens on the news, which is primarily “hard” racism because controversy sells.
I for one would be happy if Tiger Woods, Denzel, and Serena never experienced any racism-I doubt it, but I would be happy if they hadn’t. It would be an indication to me that this country is going in the right direction. On another note, your examples don’t seem to support your position, I mean what are you saying? That racists are in charge of who’s popular? I’m sorry but I didn’t understand that paragraph very well. Can you rephrase it?
Also, the father wanting success for his child is a seperate issue from race. If anything it would be elitism or classism. Now, if that father wanted his daughter to be a doctor instead of a lawyer, because the legal profession is, in his mind, filled with “jews” then yes, that example would be racist. How you have it phrased though, it appears to be classist.
Once again, if race is not involved in the father wanting his daughter to be in a certain profession, then it is not racist.
Also it seems, on the face of this question, that the father could just want to see the best for his daughter. If he’s going to force her then he is still misguided. If he is pushing real hard, that’s another thing.
It seems to me like this “father” has some issues with: Race, class, and inferiority.
BALDERDASH, verybdog. “racism” is about RACE, a notion based primarily on phenotype. Seeking a high social status may be classism, elitism, etc. as others have pointed out before. That is, of course, unless you subscribe to the doctrine that “American” or “Western” culture (and its current world hegemony) is essentially built upon a bedrock of racism.
I stand by my last post fully.
You, on the other hand, may need to reconsider your apparent attempt to take the sting out of the word “racism” by either (a) “rescuing” its meaning to a neutral denotator without any social/moral oprobium attached or (b) broaden it to include every single form of discrimination based on sociocultural mores as to render it meaningless.
Poppycock, JR. Classism, elitism. Hmmm…One man’s classism is another man’s racism. How do you know the motive behind this classism, or elitism? How do you know the father is not motivated by racism from the outset for insisting her daughter to be in a high profession? (there aren’t too many black lawyers or black doctors out there, you know) To be objective, there’s no way to know, as there’s no way to know if the father is a racist for wishing her daughter not to marry a black.
You Dopers’ calling of that father racist in case (B) is simply overstepping the line.
Very, by the freaking definition of the word, racism can only be about prejudice regarding race. It has nothing to do with economics or class. There are black lawyers, ergo a white father wanting his daughter to be a lawyer cannot be a racist act. There are more white prostitutes than there are black prostitutes in America, you know. So not wanting one’s daughter to be a prostitute does not fit the definition of racism, either. Get this through your skull, and stop trying to change what words mean to fit your sophomoric view of the world.