Of course I do. Do you have to keep on being so patronising?
Sure, and you managed to find ONE definition that was brief enough to agree wit your point, and you dishonestly manufactured another.
One definition that supports your chosen interpretation of the term, so we’ll just ignore all of the others?
You first responded to something I said. Are you actually saying my argument is a knee jerk reaction to something you said after me?
nm.
Wow, the set of autocompletes for “How do I get” is like the Intertubes in miniature.
Useful: “… a passport” and others; bizarre (my sister); slightly skeevy (… pregnant); World of Warcraft (… to dalaran); music lyrics (… you alone lyrics); and of course wasting time at school (… on myspace at school)
I’m sorry, but it’s oversensitive and silly to construe any sort of racial or cultural stereotype to be racism.
For example, one could ask “Why are Arabs close talkers?” The fact is, a large portion of Arabs, who come from an Arab culture, often stand much closer when conversing than Europeans or Americans. The converse of this would obviously be an Arab googling “Why do Americans stand so far away?” Neither of these are racist or bigoted observations/questions.
The main issue here is that race and culture aren’t well distinguished when we speak informally. Asking “Why are black people loud?” is asking, generally, about the black culture in the U.S. (I doubt they are talking about your average Ethiopian) – no one is saying it has to do with some inherent property of being black, nor are they saying that this inherent quality is somehow inferior. Without both of those underlying assumptions, there is no racism, only an examination of cultural differences.
It’s the same when we talk about things like “Black people are more/less susceptible to disease X” or “White people tend to have different muscle structure” or “Asians rarely have curly hair”. Those are traits that most people of a race share, just like standing close is a trait of a lot of Arab cultures. Without judgment, you have no racism. And being offended by posing genuine sociological questions that happen to go along race or culture lines is simply silly.
There are obvious differences between ethnicities, races, and cultures. To call any generalization racism is to put on the blinders and pretend the world is different than it is for the sake of an ideal that isn’t even logical.
If you want to make the point that we’ve invented race as a social construct, well, fine, but then you’re just going off on a pedantic nomenclature usage that everyone pretty much understands and ignores.
Apparently I do, because if you understood how a dictionary worked, you wouldn’t be accusing me of quote-mining by pulling the specific definition you asked for, when that was the entirety of that particular definition, just because a later, alternate definition gave the version that was the only one you were familiar with.
It’s been my experience that the second I refer to any judgement based on race or sex that is not obviously discriminatory or hatred-based as “racist” or “sexist,” I have somebody immediately telling me that I’m wrong. And that’s exactly what happened here–you asked if it was racist, I contended that it was, and you immediately came back with the assertion that it’s not racist if there isn’t discrimination/hatred/whatever.
Why? You think it’s a *good *thing to make assumptions about what someone is going to do or be like based on the set of phenotypes they display?
Those first things are genetic. How close you stand when you’re talking is cultural. You could have a German baby adopted at birth by an Arab family, and he would display the same cultural traits (e.g., standards for personal space when talking). A Japanese baby adopted by a Black family isn’t suddenly going to be more likely to develop sickle-cell anemia. So, no, it’s *not *remotely the same thing, and it’s disengenuous to pretend that it is.
Subtle, innocuous racism and sexism is the worst kind, IMO. It’s so fucking insidious. Expecting people to act a certain way because of some trivial genes that mostly determine outward appearance is foolish–whether the assumptions you’re making are negative (Mexicans are lazy), positive (Black people are good musicians), or neutral (Arabs stand close when they talk).
Also, I’m going to pause for a moment to let us all absorb the irony of you talking about “Arabs” as a monolithic group as an example of how generalizations aren’t racist/racialist.
You’re just plain wrong here. I accused you of quote-mining when you truncated part of a sentence - you edited the quote of your first citation to change the meaning so that it agreed with you. This is exactly what quote mining is
To reiterate; your first citation:
Following the link, it actually says, as part of the same sentence - not a second definition or anything:
(highlighting mine, of the part you truncated when you quoted it).
I agree that your second citation included a definition that fits the sense you’ve been arguing for, but that definition doesn’t trump all the others - you can use it to support your definition of racism, but it doesn’t refute the very much more common definition I’m talking about.
The assertion wasn’t a reaction to what you said - it was part of my original question. I didn’t react to you in this way - I’d already been talking about it before you arrived.
Except you’ve missed my entire point. When people say black in the U.S., it is shorthand for “people from a generally recognized socioeconomic segment of our society, most of whom are generally of African or Caribbean decent, sharing common cultural markers such an language and dialect, values, and other commonalities”. It’s not “having these physical characteristics which are genetically determined”. Even among actual racists, most of them appear more influenced by percieved cultural shortcomings in a specific group, and then extrapolating incorrectly that it is a genetic condition.
And yes, “arabs” are obviously not homogenous, any more than “Japanese” are, but they do have a lot of interaction and commonalities that define them, which is why most people who identify as arabs share the cultural traits that define being an arab.
It’s not insidious, and I think you are reading more judgment into such cultural descriptors than is warranted.
On the part I’m referring to (with the multiple definitions), you said “except that, again in the context of the definition on the page, it’s”–which to me is a clear call-back to the quote-mining accusation.
I cropped the first quote because I didn’t want to throw an entire huge chunk of text at you. But since you’d apparently stopped after the first sentence, I guess I’m going to have to.
That certainly supports my assertion that not all definitions of racism necessarily involve explicit hatred or discrimination.
You’re the one who was insisting that my definition of racism was wrong–I just said that yours wasn’t broad enough. I never said that racism can’t involve hatred or discrimination: just that it doesn’t *necessarily *require these things.
What you said, was, “Can you find a dictionary or encyclopaedic definition of racism that describes it in the bland sense you are using?” And I did, and you didn’t like it.
Who identifies as “Arabs”? At least in the U.S., most of the people I know who would qualify as Arab are a lot more specific–they call themselves Egyptian or say they’re from the UAE (look, it’s even got Arab in the name!), but not Arab as such, any more than I’d identify as European. And given the wide range of peoples who fall under the heading of “Arab,” I’d say it’s about as fair to say that Arabs have cultural traits as it is to say that Europeans have cultural traits–i.e., not very.
And yes, it is insidious. Here, since we’re on a dictionary kick:
[QUOTE=m-w.com says insidious means]
having a gradual and cumulative effect : subtle
[/QUOTE]
Why do you think it’s okay to make neutral or positive judgements about people based on their race, but not negative ones? You don’t in the least bit see that allowing for the validity of making non-hateful or discriminatory assumptions about someone based on their race legitimates ones that *are *hateful or discriminatory?
Well, first, that’s a slippery slope argument, and one that doesn’t even have validity. It’s certainly ok to say “You look nice today” without fearing that it will suddenly be ok for everyone to start telling others that they look like a homeless person.
Secondly, your argument demands that we make no judgments based on any sort of cultural reason. So, when I invite a Jewish acquaintance over for dinner, he should be offended if I didn’t serve pork chops because I assumed he might keep kosher?
Third, some racial assumptions (and I’m using race in the hardcore genetic type only now) are important as well as being valid. It’s pretty obvious that different races have different genetics. Look at the drug BiDil. Or look at sickle cell anemia. Or how about Tay Sach’s syndrome?
You say “discrimination” like it’s bad. It’s only bad because you grew up listening to PSA’s about the evils of discrimination. It’s perfectly ok to discriminate – in fact it incredibly important to everything we do. Harvard discriminates between poor students and good students. You discriminate between the bagel or the yogurt cup. What you’re annoyed at is discrimination based on improper means. It’s not correct or appropriate to assume that my Jewish friend is a tightwad. It is appropriate to assume that he should be screened for Tay Sachs before he has kids with a nice Jewish girl.
It’s also perfectly valid to say "Arabs stand closer when talking, because most of them do. If you want to take cultural relativism to the extent that we cannot make any prior assumptions about anyone, then you’re embracing an illogical scheme, as well as one that you don’t follow yourself; when you meet someone who is an American, I’m sure you assume they speak English. Is that racist of you because there are plenty of Americans who don’t speak English?
If you want to play the ostrich game and deny that any presumptions about a person based on any physical or cultural commonality are valid, that’s fine by me. But it doesn’t make it a correct viewpoint, nor does it make everyone else a racist.
ETA: and by the way, if you want to substitute Hispanic for Arab, that’s fine too. Argentinians and Mexicans and Puerto Ricans (but not Brazilians) are all hispanic, and they share cultural traits. They also have differences.
OK, I can see how you might have got that impression - certainly it wasn’t my intention to describe your second citation as quote-mined. Your first certainly is though.
Oh come on, You didn’t want to burden me with the second half of a two-line sentence, that just purely by coincidence happens to change it entirely? Why quote just the very selective bit that appears to support you?
If your intention was to cite the whole article, not just a definition from it, a link without a quote would probably have been more effective.
No, I read more than that, and I’m happy enough to concede that there appear to be definitions of racism that don’t imply bigotry. They don’t seem very common though (that’s my impression now, and it’s changed during the course of the thread, as noted in places above.
I don’t think it makes much sense to purposely pick a less common, somewhat obscure definition of X when we’re asking the question “is this person an example of X?”
You’re assuming a bit too much here. I was quite in earnest asking for a dictionary definition because I looked and couldn’t find one that didn’t mention the negative aspects. The only thing I’ve actually disliked in this thread is your patronising attitude. There’s no need for it, even if you’re 100% right and I’m 100% wrong.
Um, could we get back to the topic of Google? If you want to discuss precisely what racism is, there are other places we can do that.
I saw someone type “where is” into Google the other day, and the top suggestion was “where is chuick norris”. Sadly, its no longer the top option, though it is still there
Hear here!! Take it outside.
I Googled “what is racism”. The pop-up definition included in the predictives (when was that feature added?) says “The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.”
“Google said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” - coming soon to a bumper sticker near you.
“Where can I score” is kinda fun too.
No, it isn’t. The reason that racist statements are wrong isn’t just that they’re impolite or mean; it’s that they’re factually incorrect. When you restrict racism to definitions that only involve hateful or discriminatory statements, you kick a lot of the legs out from under the objection. Consider “lazy nigger” versus “stupid retard” for a decent example of what I’m talking about here. I’m not saying that if we allow positive/neutral racism that it will lead to negative racism; I’m saying that if you legitimate the former, you remove one of the most important objections to the latter.
If I was an ethnic Jew who really liked pork chops, I might be disappointed. IMO, if you had a friend with a Jewish last name (or who just looked Jewish) and you wanted to cook pork chops for dinner, it would be prudent to ask if they keep kosher; but IMO yeah, it is racist to assume that they do. Would you put dog on the menu if a Korean friend was coming over?
For bonus points, you can scroll down to the Reggie White example I give and provide your reaction to it, too.
Duh? Go back and read my posts in this thread. I’ve said repeatedly that this applies to making assumptions about anything *other than *the actual genetics involved. I will mail you fiiiiiiiiiiiive whole dollars if you can find anytime anywhere that I’ve said that making genetic assumptions about someone based on their race is racist.
No shit. Can you please point to what I said that confused you about this?
What about French Arabs? American Arabs? English Arabs? A French or English kid raised in an Arab country? Ethnic groups aren’t segregated to the areas they originally came from anymore.
Go back and read that chunk I pulled out for you. It was because the first half of the sentence was consistent with that big huge chunk, and I figured I’d use the words of the entry itself to summarize the part I was talking about. The alternative was to post the entire huge chunk of text, which I didn’t want to do. If I’d really been trying to mislead you, why would I have linked back to the entry?
Popularity isn’t a measure of truth. This may be a more emergent definition of racism, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a less valid one. IMO, as we’ve combatted the more obvious forms of racism (slavery, segregation, lynchings, etc.), racism has creeped into more subtle forms. And positive/neutral racism is one of the forms of that. It’s a lingering symptom that demonstrates that we still need to break our minds out of the idea that people’s traits and personalities are determined by their race or ethnicity.
For an interesting example of this, look at a speech Reggie White made to the Wisconsin State Assembly back in '98:
He’s saying things that are seemingly very nice and very positive. But IMO, and to a lot of other people, they were also very racist. What’s your opinion of this quote? Would you call these statements racist? Why or why not?
You’re right, I got snarky. My apologies. It felt like you were jumping down my throat, so I got defensive back.
Well, I see it as being a tangent, but a relevant one. If someone asks “Why is Y X?” I think it’s valid to include a discussion of whether or not Y actually *is *X.
Well, I just don’t know. But regardless of your intention, the citation fails anyway, as I asked for definitions that don’t mention the negative/prejudicial aspects. And that one does.
Popularity is not a measure of fact, but when it comes to the meaning of words used to communicate ideas with people, then what other measure is there? Language itself is no more than a consensus regarding what sounds and symbols we will use for what.
It started off relevant, but is veering quite off the original topic now.
As for Google searches… I don’t even bother asking anymore. I just read and laugh.
Sorry for imposing upon everyone. I shall not continue this hijack any further (and this isn’t just because at present, I’ve had the last word in the argument - Shot From Guns can continue/respond in any way he/she chooses - but I didn’t want to just disappear without explaining myself).
I don’t think it’s a hijack, but since others do, I’ll take further responses to PM.
I’ll discuss it further, if you like, but I don’t particularly care to do it by PM. Would you like to start a thread in GD, or shall I?
Wuss. 