Because cultural characteristics can be funny…
There was a whole show here in Singapore sending up “kiausism” (basically being afraid to lose) which is seen as a cultural trait, see the humour of Billy T James, or even this ad…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lR1sEn8nMI
All sending up cultural traits for humour. I was also looking for the Maaate ad done by I think speights, but I couldn’t find it so quickly
Yes, the serious point.
My answer is that it comes from intent. And that seems to be where we diverge from the American sentiment. If I caricature any nationality or race with mean intent, not just to find fun, but to take it past that point, to push to where genuine hurt is caused, then it is racist. But of not, it should not be judged so.
There does seem to be a recent principle that any group that is in some sense oppressed, has been oppressed, is weak, or currently subject to vilification, is not fair game under any circumstances. This is clearly where there is significant disagreement. Further, the position that the target group occupy in one society may be quite different to the position they occupy in another. If the are oppressed in one, and not another, does a caricature in the society they are not oppressed in automatically become racist, in that society, because they are oppressed in another society?
Part of the problem comes when the protests about the apparent racist humor come, not from the target group, but from the politically correct lobby. There is, and has always been, a racist undertone in the protests from the PC lobby. One that doesn’t sit well with many people.
I agree with you completely and I believe I made a similar point earlier in the thread- ie, for something to be racist, there has to be an intention to hurt or seriously offend someone.
Also excellent points and perhaps worthy of an entire thread in their own right.
One of the news website columnists here observed that a good chunk of people were offended by things because they thought they should be offended, not because they actually were offended. I see a lot of validity in that.
No, just to differentiate on the basis of race, really.
The ratio of how much you are offended by it varies, of course.
But the level of offense taken is not the litmus test whether something is racist.
Unfortunately poking fun at cultural differences can sometimes be confused or mingled with racism if the ridiculed culture is a different race.
It’s not OK as such…it can still be offensive but it carries nowhere near the venom of racial stereotyping.
Why?
Because for one thing it’s not obvious to anyone that I’m british until I’m having a conversation with them, at which time there’s ample chance to undo (or reinforce) whatever stereotype they may believe.
But it’s different with skin colour; people can make judgements about you without even speaking to you. They can start to believe whatever caricature especially if they choose to engage most often with people of their own ethnic group.
It’s the same reason why gender stereotyping is also considered worse than national stereotyping.
Exactly. All it takes is a moment to consider the roots of prejudice. To pre-judge.
Just saw this on Yahoo:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/french-vogue-does-blackface-since-when-is-this-ok-525789/;_ylt=Ap38Fp8SWhk5__6RLmngAkaCfNdF
Apparently there are other instances of this elsewhere outside the US that haven’t had as much coverage.
I have a suspicion that it’s been a long time since minstrelsy was a big thing in the US, and that people are essentially re-discovering it, and aren’t aware of how deep the feeling about it runs*. The current response ought to teach them. Make no mistake about it – people in the U.S., especially, i think, black people – are extremely offended by this.
And to those who say that the world ought not to be swayed by what only some Americans think, I really do have to ask – What do the majority of your compatriots (not just you) feel about this stereotype/ How do blacks in your own country feel? I certainly know that in America we are certainly chided (both from within and without) for anything that seems to be derogatory stereotyping of others outside the country (not that this necessarily stops the behavior).
*At a Halloween party a few years ago , someone was dressed jn clothes with cotton tufts glued to them, in ludicrous minstrel-quality blackface, and with a noose around their neck. I was appalled. even if this was intended as an ironic “look how politically incorrect I am” statement, it was in the worst possible taste.
I think that a caricature of national stereotypes can be hateful or honestly belittling, but isn’t necessarily. Your nationality is something that you could change if you wanted to. Your culture is something that you actually do. Your race is fixed. It is how you were born and there is nothing you can do to change it.
I did that. Then I found myself wading through a lot more contradictory or inconclusive information than I was willing to do just to verify somebody else’s claim. Take your oh so helpful link to a Google search as an example. The BBC is the most trustworthy site I saw on the first page and their expert states “The evidence on muscular fibres is by no means definitive.” Everything else either leads back to a book written by one guy (Jon Entine), random people on message boards, or Yahoo! Answers. The second page isn’t any better and the search string I put in when I looked for information last night gave me links of a similar quality. I assumed the person making the claim might have a better cite than any of those so I asked a simple question. Is that ok with you or do I need to do more in the future to avoid feigned exasperation?
Yeah, making fun of the Jackson 5’s dance moves or their songs is one thing. Or joking about the fact that none of them ever really reached the talent of MJ. It could have been funny but it was just about the fact that they have dark skin. It made them look so provincial (the sketch guys)–like, “Oh wow, look, DARK PEOPLE!” That’s the only angle I saw.
Something just occurred to me about the language we use. We keep talking about being “offended” - or at least quite a few people do. It is the wrong word. If I fart in a lift, tell a crude or rude joke, park in the disabled space (my father is hemiplegic, I can tell you I get really peeved when people do that) people take offense. Racial jokes, stereotyping, villification, isn’t offensive. It is far worse. Sure it gives offense, but to stop at this point and worry about which citizens of which country were “offended” is really missing the deeper point. I’m afraid I often don’t give a damn about certain people I offend.
Racism is a deeper poison. People die, have their lives wrecked, never get a start in life, spend lives in poverty and misery due to racism. Racism, even in modern western nations, maintains barriers that keep people in underclasses, never able to pull clear. And it isn’t just material issues. Hand in hand goes destruction of self. That is why targetted villification hurts so deeply. Attack the sense of self and you might as well attack with fists. But it is easy, and the cruel and stupid do it. It isn’t good, or in any way defensible.
Offended? Get over it. Racism isn’t about that.
My bad, and no offense meant, omgzebras. Perhaps I’m gullible and the claim is highly dubious; I give it credence in large part because of the overwhelmingly predominance of black participants in the short sprints of international track meets, and that physiology plays a role.
I’d just like to point out something that is often forgotten when this point is made: As recently as 1972, the gold medalist at the 100m in the Olympics was a Caucasian: Russian Valeriy Borzov.
It may be the case that a particular group among blacks have more fast-twitch fibres. Of all the groups that we tend to split people into, “black” is by far the most genetically diverse.
That said, I have recently started a course that involves attending many medical lectures. In such lectures, they often make generalisations based on race e.g. “black people have higher bone density”.
It’s ok. It’s possible that physiology does play a role, but I think it’s more likely that culture drives most of the difference. A culture where most kids spend their early years playing soccer every day in the street is going to produce more strong runners than a culture where most kids just stay home and watch TV or at most go to soccer practice a couple hours a week. A culture without any real chance of advancement beyond athletic pursuits is going to have a heck of a lot of people pursuing athletics.
Here’s an interesting article about just how big a deal running is in Kenya*. In Jamaica, running is considered a major sport. It seems self evident to me that cultures that place such a value on running will produce proportionally more strong runners than cultures that barely pay attention to it.
If you take it to the level of just the US and why our fastest runners are black, I think part of it stems from a feeling (somewhat justified, I think) among blacks that the deck is stacked against them with regard to normal advancement opportunities. Just like in the article about Kenya, the more people view athletics as a way out of poverty, the more likely they are to pursue athletics and to put all they have into it. Somewhere out there there are probably some white kids, or Hispanic kids, or Asian kids that could grow up to beat the world record for sprinting if they worked hard at it. But because their cultures don’t place much value on being a sprinter, they’ll never even try.
If there are blacks that have more fast twitch muscles, it’s most certainly a sub-group; the Kenyans and Ethiopoans, who dominate the long distances, would not fall into this group.
When I was reading about this subject I saw some claims that Kenyans, or at least Kenyans from a certain part of Kenya, may be more suited to long distance running due to physiological differences. I thought it fit with my point of culture vs. physiology so I included them also. I should have clarified that they’re not in the fast-twitch category.
There absolutely is something to be said for culture and environment. There was a time in the 1980’s that something like 6 of the starting shortstops in the major leagues all came from the same town in the Dominican Republic (San Pedro de Macaris).
I would note that The Simpsons’ primary targets, in almost all cases, are Americans. In this case, Americans’ pre-conceived notions about Australia, and how everything that they know about Australia comes from The Road Warrior and Crocodile Dundee. If you didn’t recognize the Australia they presented, then they were successful.
Whilst you can change your nationality (or take an additional one), people will still pre-judge you once they hear you speak or find out where you’re from.
For example, I’m from NZ originally, and the first thing many, many Australians say to me in a social setting when they find that out is some lame joke involving sheep. It’s all meant in good fun and it’s not offensive, but it gets tiring after a while. There’s often usually an assumption that I can speak Maori (which I can’t), that I passionately support the All Blacks (which I don’t), and that I’m super proud to be a New Zealander (which I’m not). All of which are forms of stereotyping, the last time I checked.
Of course, and no-one here has excused national stereotypes. Not entirely anyway.
The point is, at least you were already having a conversation with those guys before they knew your nationality.
With skin colour they can see you, judge you and avoid you. And you have no chance to do anything about it because you aren’t even aware anything has happened.
That’s why racial stereotyping can be more damaging.