And you’re basing this on…what? Again, which of the two sides in the Rwandan conflict has compiled, or at least is operating off of a hierarchical ranking of mankind? If this, rather that us-against-the-world ethnocentrism, is a universal human condition, give some evidence of that. We all can make up some evolution based origin story for whatever modern-day phenomenon we want to rationalize, so that effort was worthless.
Why do you think that’s so important? Do you really think that racism only becomes endemic in a society when it propagates down from “scientific” theories proposed by the intellectual elite? I think you give scientists far too much credit. Preexisting racist notions drove the development of the theories, and not the other way around.
I’m quite sure that people can be every bit as racist if they come from a culture absent a cabal of egghead scientists assuring them there are studies justifying their preconceived prejudices. People become racist because of their own experiences and the influence of their peers, not because of a textbook.
I often think the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are in a battle to the death for the title of most racist people. But Thais are racist, too, and they see nothing wrong with it. They actually cannot understand why it’s considered objectionable in the West. It works in my favor often, because I’m automatically considered a good guy in most situations just because I’m white. Black visitors often have a hard time. The darker your skin, the more evil you were in your previous life is the thinking. And they downright hate South Asians and Muslims. Even my wife, who is Western-educated, felt uneasy when I took her to South Asia, but she was pleasantly surprised by how nice the people really were.
They aren’t too fond of Muslims either. In our deep South, close to Malaysia, the population is Muslim-majority and ethnically Malay. And dark. There’s been an insurgency going on for three years now, with maybe 2000 or 3000 killed total. About five a day are dying now on average. The military assaulted a mosque where some militants had holed up after attacking an army post, and everyone inside the mosque was slaughtered. More than 100. There were a few voices decrying the incident, but you look on the local bulletin boards, and the vast majority were saying, “So what? They’re Muslim! They deserve it!”
The deep South seems to undergo some sort of insurgency every 20 years or so, whenever they get fed up with the central government neglecting their needs. Their needs are neglected mainly because they are Muslim and not Buddhist.
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. It’s virtually indescribable to anyone who’s not seen it firsthand.
You are constructing a definition of racism that leaves room for inclusion of only those populations which have a “world” view and a “hierarchical ranking of mankind.” Under such a narrow definition this gets the Hutu who chops up a Tutsi off the racist hook in your paradigm because his knowledge of geopolitics is limited and his ranking extends only to Hutus, Tutsi and the Twa. For you the European white who lynches the African black (please excuse my label shorthands) is more racist.
Such an approach creates a hierarchy of sinning which has as its basis the definition of a word and not the relative wickedness of the core behaviour. Under your definition one gets to apply the inflammatory pejorative “racist” only where the the perpetrator belongs to a culture or population whose success and conceptual development has extended to include the whole world. If the Tutsi conquer the Hutu who conquered the Twa, well that’s not racist; thats a regional conflict unworthy of the term “racist.”
Nonsense.
Pick an ethnicity and I’ll point out the centrism. Come on…you don’t need a cite for that; you need a history book. No two populations or ethnicities will remain a population or ethnicity without being ethnocentric.
It may be entirely true that the Europeans invented the term “Race,” elaborated a hierarchical construct that extended beyond their local geography, and were more successful than any others at conquering other peoples. That is a reflection of their skillset and their ability to vanquish other ethnicities. The limited scope of less pervasive populations and cultures is a result of limited success, not the purity of their motives or a lack of effort.
This notion that a white man unjustifiably repressing a black man is racist, but that a Hutu unjustifiably repressing a Tutsi is just “animosity between two peoples” and unworthy of a “racist” label has got to go. It is identical behaviour, identically atavistic, identically motivated and identically condemnable.
A failure to recognize that promotes a color-consciousness which is deeply divisive. It’s time to look past the color of a man’s skin and focus on the content of his character.
Now I’m curious. Might I ask for some examples?
Dunno, to be honest. Both sides were pretty much racist in their contempt of each the other and the frequent attempts to kill each other’s countries off by ‘breeding’ the other out of existance, planned rapes, etc… but the same could be said of a lot of wars (thinking specifically of the Eastern Front in WW2 - German general said 'half a million German babies will be born in Russia, Russian general replied after the counter attack and movement west of the Red Army ‘A million Russian babies will be born in Germany’ in response)
I think it’s really in the case of the English and French a very blurry line between racism and nationalism. If the Hutu and Tutsi were on opposite sides of a border, rather than in the same country, then I would say the same fuzzy line applies.
A lot of the Japanese / Korean / Chinese thing is pretty true; I didn’t see racism in Thailand but admit I was only there for 2 weeks or so…
Hutus and Tutsi consider themselves to be seperate peoples or are you trying to say that you know better then them and that all black africans are the same race ?
Sunnis and Shiites are a schism within one religion though not necessarily of the same race ie.Arabs,Persians and Egyptian/Arabs.
I think the East Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) are not so much the most racist as much as the most ignorant and/or insensitive regarding race. All three countries are extremely homogeneous and dealing with different races is not an everyday occurrence for them. They learn stereotypes from the western media and there’s nothing around that really contradicts what they see in movies.
I think it would be inaccurate to describe the sort of xenophobia seen in those parts as ‘racism’. Race isn’t really an issue but when dealing with their very small population of foreigners, it tends to be handled clumsily and with little consideration, mostly due to lack of experience I feel.
Well, I don’t. I grew up for most of my childhood in Korea and attended undergrad there, and while I don’t dispute that many Koreans are extremely racist, I don’t see how you’re going to stick them with the title of “most racist.” Japan and China are just as racist as Korea, in my opinion.
I’m still waiting on some kind of clarification on what being “most racist” means. Koreans may be pretty up there when it comes to their mindset, but in terms of actual damage I don’t think they come close. (Although the way they treat immigrant laborers from SE Asia is pretty vile, at least they haven’t engaged in mass genocide. Which is more than one can say for the Japanese.) There just isn’t a clear concept of “racism” in Korea, because Korean society is composed largely of Koreans. It hasn’t really been thought of as a problem until recently.
I’m certainly not making excuses - God knows how fed up I am with Korean society! - but just trying to shed some light on the issue.
I measure my time here in decades, and believe me you catch on to it after not too long. If I did have any doubts, my Thai wife would definitely dispel them, as she agrees that her people are quite racist. It’s the norm here, and most see nothing wrong with it, it being the natural order of things and all that. Being here just a couple of weeks, everything is going to seem fresh and new right on up to the end, so it’s difficult to see. also helps to know the language and HEAR what’s being said while they’re still smiling. But like I said, it works to my advantage in many if not most cases.
Showing photos from back home to Thais, they will invariably wrinkle their noses and say things like, “Oh, bad, very bad,” upon coming across a pic of a black friend. Mostly this is upcountry in the rural areas, but then that’s the vast majority of Thailand. You get it in the Big City, too, not uncommonly even among educated Thais. I knew a couple of Peace Corps Volunteers back in the 1980s whom I used to see from time to time, both black. One was an older lady, rather hefty, and she took it all in stride. A neat, jolly old lady. Said Thais where she lived would just stop dead in their tracks in the street and stare at her with open mouth, and she’d just stop and stare right back.
The guy, though, was rather young, fresh out of university, and he was having a hard time dealing with it. He was very angry at Peace Corps for sending blacks to Thailand knowing people’s attitudes here. After a while, he started getting a little paranoid, even thinking his fellow white Volunteers were giving him a hard time. or instance, there used to be a brand of toothpaste here called Darkie toothpaste, with a minstrel-showtype black-face logo. (Since changed to Darlie, and the man in the logo is more race-generic. See here.) Seems a fellow Volunteer visiting him left a tube behind, and he started accusing him of doing it on purpose. I lost track of him after a year or so, so I don’t know if he stuck out his assignment, but he really was having a hard time.
The Darkie-brand toothpaste makes me think of a current product seen here: Black Man-brand mops and toilet plungers. The logo on the label is that of a Stepin Fetchit type of smiling black man a la the 1930s or so.
Oh, my opinion, too. Thus my remark that the three often seemed to be locked in a three-way struggle for the title of Most racist. But if I HAD to pick one and one alone, I’d say Korea. No offense meant.
Re: The Hutu and the Tutsi it is important to note Solkoe’s point. This was and in some senses still is European scientific racism at play.
Originally you had to different ethnic groups, that also corresponded to two different cultural groups. But well before the Europeans had entered the picture, economic culture had become the primary identifier of ethnicity, not phentotype. Thus you had dominant, minority, pastoral Tutsi and majority, agriculturalist Hutu. But it was possible for a “Hutu” who accumulated enough capital to buy their way into “Tutsi” status, becoming a cattle-raiser. Similarily a “Tutsi” that fell upon hard times could become a “Hutu.” Thus ethnicity became an issue of malleable economic status more than bloodline, with some minimal opportunity for class change.
As I think I mentioned in another thread and as Solkoe noted here, the Belgians, based on their own curious take on a “scientific” racist concept known as the ‘Hamitic hypothesis’, took a slightly flexible class system and turned it into an utterly rigid caste system, with predictable results for local race relations.
So using the Hutu/Tutsi example as a counter-example of non-European-style racism actually veers quickly into deep and muddy water, as the Belgians have to take a lot of blame for the ratcheting up ( or possibly, arguably - largely creating ) the murderous tension in that corner of the world.
- Tamerlane
I’m not offended, but I would like to know what exactly you’re basing your opinion on. (Believe me, I don’t mind criticism about Korea. My friends joke that I’m more racist about my own country than anyone else. :dubious: )
I think you’re very wrong here. The countries are not homogenous; each has multiple phenotypes within it’s boundaries.
The Koreans hate the Japanese, as the Chinese hate the Japanese, largely because of the horrific abuses they suffered at Japanese hands during WW2. The Koreans further dislike the Chinese because of the Korean War - Chinese invaded the South and killed lots of their people in supporting the North, and also just because China supports the North full stop.
The Japanese honestly feel superior to every other Asian / Oriental race; they are unashamedly racist. They treat the indigenous peoples of Japan (the Eino) with nothing but disrespect as well.
It’s a mess, and if you’re not sensitive to it, travelling through the region can be quite interesting 
Well you can’t be racist against your own race can you? I completely agree that there is a lot of bad blood between the Chinese/Koreans and Japanese, but again, to describe it as racist would be inaccurate. Unless of course, your definition of racism is one that I’m not familiar with. Also, the Koreans and the Chinese don’t mind each other at all. And those countries are very homogeneous when compared to most other nations, especially Korea.
I also agree with HazelNutCoffee in saying that if you had to choose, the Japanese are probably the most xenophobic out of the three. But of course that opinion may be influenced by my own personal bias.
A wealth of personal experience, my own and that of quite a few others.
:dubious: This is Great Debates - you can’t expect other people to say, “Oh, so this argument of yours is true because you’ve personally experienced it? I am persuaded.” In what way, exactly, are you saying Korea is more racist than other Asian countries? More racist that Japan, who ruled most of Asia with an iron fist and still, to this day, refuses to apologize for it? Again, I am not denying Koreans are racist, but I am curious as to what convinced you that they are more so than their neighbors. This question is also directed to Paul in Saudi, since he made the same claim.
Surely you don’t actually believe racism was invented in the 19th century?