There was a bit of an outrage on some message boards a few months ago where if you type in “Why is Islam…” you would get no suggestions, but if you substituted it with Christianity or another religion, you get suggestions like “Why is <x religion> bullshit/fake/wrong/etc.”
I just checked it for Islam right now and it is back up. Maybe they were trying to protect it? One of the suggestions for Islam is “Why is Islam protected by Google?”
For that matter, that’s the kind of belief that could well be true ( no idea if it is in this case ); Mexico after all is a culture & nation not a biological grouping. They may well as a culture just have different standards as to what qualifies as “staring”, as opposed to just looking. Or they may not consider staring impolite.
I love that so many of the “Why do Canadians” search deal with language.
Why do Canadians say eh
Why do Canadians say zed
Why do Canadians say aboot
Why do Canadians speak French
Why do Canadians say sorry weird
For the US, my favorite is:
Why do Americans act like that
I wanted to know how Bismuth is mined, but along the way, Google thinks I was going to ask ‘How is babby formed?’
(I know what it’s in reference to, BTW)
On the other hand, Google had no problem with “George W. Bush = miserable failure,” and even went on record stating they had no intention of changing it. 
Yes, I read that in your post. :o I might get off my damn butt and find a cite…
Except they did change it. 
That’s what I was coming in to say.
Yes. You’re judging an entire nationality on the basis of a few people. That’s what racism is. Also, the hypothetical person in this example is probably also being stared at by Latino people who aren’t Mexican.
Grape Kool-Aid.
–Cliffy
No it’s not - that’s just possibly hasty generalisation.
Thing is, it’s not even a judgment. It’s a question. It is not racist to wonder if certain nationalities have certain tendencies, or even to recognise such tendencies if and when they do exist. Racism is the conclusion that differences exist, and make people inferior or despicable in some way.
If you really want to stick by your definition of racism, then the above statement is itself quite racist (why would you say this is probable?)
When you ascribe a universal tendency that isn’t phenotypic to someone’s nationality or ethnicity, then, yes, you *are *being racist. Think about a question like, “Why do Black people have good rhythm?” It’s the same thing.
Because the kind of person who thinks that Mexicans stare at him probably can’t tell the difference among a Mexican, a Puerto Rican, a Guatemalan… My point wasn’t “If he’s being stared at by a Latino, they aren’t Mexican,” it was “He thinks he’s being stared at by Latinos, and to him all Latinos are Mexican.”
Maybe in some technical sense (that I have yet to encounter in the real world), but in both the dictionary definitions, and in all of the common usage I’m familiar with, racism isn’t just ascribing a tendency, it’s concluding that the ascribed tendency (whether or not it actually exists in reality) is the basis for discrimination against them.
There’s a kind of person who thinks this? Are you being intentionally ironic here?
If you don’t think that blanket statements about someone *based solely on their race *are racist, there’s not much more we can discuss here.
Yes, there are *kinds *of people who are defined by their attitudes. Are we actually having this conversation? Do you seriously not get that people can be classified by the attitudes they display more easily than by the color of their skin?
On the off chance anyone hasn’t seen this:
“Black people have skin that is darker than white people” is a blanket statement (OK, a tautological one). Is it racist?
Can you find a dictionary or encyclopaedic definition of racism that describes it in the bland sense you are using? - one that doesn’t mention anything like negative discrimination, subjugation, conclusion of inferiority, hatred, etc?
Yes, we’re having this conversation, and I am quite surprised you have been able to deduce so much about a person who is no more than hypothetical. When I asked the question, I was actually imagining someone who had perhaps returned home from a holiday in Mexico, with the impression that he’d been stared at more than usual.
I just don’t understand how you managed to extrapolate this into a story about what this hypothetical person was probably thinking, without making some quite prejudicial judgments of your own.
My *deepest *apologies. Apparently I was wrong to assume that you’d be able to connect the dots between a post and one two before it. Let me quote it for you:
Again, I’m very sorry for assuming that you could figure out that I was still talking about a blanket statement that related to something other than the racial definition itself.
Wikipedia: “Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities”
Wiktionary: “The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.”
translationdirectory.com: “Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their race.”
Perhaps a less loaded term to use would be racialism, which (in its current meaning) removes the aspect of hierarchization, while still maintaining that humanity can be separated into races, and that those races have distinct, inherent traits.
So, to avoid any possible connotation of discrimination or hatred, would you agree that a question like “Why do Mexicans stare?” or “Why do Black people have good rhythm?” is at least racialist?
OK, sorry about that, I was trying to think of an example blanket statement that was factual and not obviously offensive - I’m sure there are such things, but that wasn’t a good one.
You’ve quote mined it (why would you do that?). The whole sentence:
Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
OK, that’s a definition that doesn’t mention any of the prejudice components, so I guess that satisfies, except that, again in the context of the definition on the page, it’s:
And this one doesn’t really qualify, because the graped section is talking about prejudice, isn’t it? (and it seems a bit of an obscure source to be citing, anyway)
I don’t know, because I’m not really familiar with that term - from my initial searches, it does seem like it might be a more clinical and suitable term to describe simple observations that people are different from each other.
No, there aren’t such things. Any statements about race that aren’t tautological are *by nature *racist (or racialist) and therefore offensive, even if they aren’t used as a basis for discrimination or are even flattering.
Do you understand how dictionaries work? Multiple definitions doesn’t mean the word means all (in this case) three at the same time; it indicates that the word has multiple *possible *definitions.
It popped up in a Google search for “define: racism,” so I included it. And again, it’s backing up my assertion that while racist beliefs can also involve discrimination or hatred, that’s not a necessary component. You can treat someone differently without it being a *negative differently. For example, you can assume that I’m staring at you because I’m Mexican instead of staring at you because there’s a booger hanging from your nose.
*Hypothetical me. I’m not actually Mexican.
I’m not familiar with it either, but it popped up when I was searching. If I’d been more familiar with it, I probably would have used it from the beginning, to avoid these knee-jerk “NUH UH IT’S ONLY RACISM/SEXISM/WHATEVER IF THERE’S HATRED OR DISCRIMINATION” arguments that always seem to crop up.
ETA: “Simple observations that people are different from each other” on the basis of race are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Race is a social construct. Someone’s culture might influence their behavior, and someone’s “race” might suggest to you what culture they were raised in and/or are currently a part of, but that doesn’t absolutely define their behavior, either. There’s nothing about having ancestors who came from Spain and a certain region of Central America that makes you inherently more likely to stare at people, for example, even if you could document that *culturally *Mexicans have different standards for staring/eye contact/whatever.
People who are savvy enough to hang out on a message board do, but many people do not, as anyone who runs a website can tell you. Here are two recent terms that got people to my site:
“i want pliny the younger beer in santa clara”
“example of a floor layout of a sports bar”