to not understand the definiton of racism?

[191011]

An obvious namechange here as I understand that this has potential to deteriorate. But please don't let it, this is a construct I am struggling to understand.
I just don't understand how if I said "All Italians are miserable eeijts" how that can technically be construed as racist. Unpleasant, yes, unnecessary, yes, offensive, yes, but it isn't strictly racist is it? I'm not entirely convinced it's xenophobia either, as in my mind, that is dislike/fear of all things foreign.
I know something is defined as racist if someone deems it racist, but, surely, that's got to fit within logical boundaries.
AIBU to want some better minds than mine to help me comprehend this?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense uppity.

I think the point about what you mean matters a lot too. I'm sure we've all heard people say really awful, offensive things out of ignorance, and it is different from saying them out of malice. The difference is though, if you say something that upsets someone out of ignorance, and they let you know, you'll feel bad and not do it again. The type of person I would call a racist won't do that -they'll stick to their guns and insist whatever it was, is true and fair.

My dad does this - to hear him say it, he's not a racist, of course not, because he likes everyone. But he's said some offensive things that upset people, and instead of apologizing, he'll become furious and insist he was right to say whatever it was. And it will always be a generalization, which he could never hope to prove true because he's talking about thousands and millions of different people, all lumped together!

Birds I know the difference between prejudice and discrimination, I kind of hoped my post would show that!

Oh and I heard a great sexist joke recently...

Why did God invent the orgasm? So women can moan even when they are happy.

Recently I was told at college that irrespective of how YOU might feel a particular term/phrase is being used,if the recipient of said remark feels it is discriminatory, then it is.

Not sure how that sits legally but it made sense to me, some of the most racist/bigoted (to my mind) remarks I have ever heard have come from the mouths of those against their own race or sexual orientation.

Lovely.

I have a great non-sexist reply: fuck off.

Churchill and Stopes were racist by the standards of our time ? and so were many others. In 1923 the French and Belgians invaded the Ruhr to try to collect reparation payments; there followed the Great Inflation to which some attribute the advent of the Nazis, a point on which opinions differ.

However: that year the Annual Conference of the TUC passed a resolution condemning the invasion and specifically expressing their horror that many of the French troops were black colonial soldiers sent among a white population.

Again: the Trade Union Congress in 1923. There may be people still living who read about it in the newspaper the day after and remember it. So let?s not be too quick to condemn a man of Churchill?s background born in 1874 for not being other than he was; or Marie Stopes either. Let?s rather be glad that for all that is wrong with this country, this world, and indeed the unions, that would not happen now.

Well, people are usually pretty ignorant about where I come from and have some sterotypes about it - hence I don't tell them; I've covered my accent pretty much, I look like you, I talk like you - you can't actually single me out and persist in asking stupid questions - thats fairly well how I live my life. I know if I 'out' myself I have a novelty value - which bores me shitless having to explain things to otherwise educated and well read people.

Hence I just don't do the whole 'race' thing.

some of the most racist/bigoted (to my mind) remarks I have ever heard have come from the mouths of those against their own race or sexual orientation.

I can certainly agree with you there. Having always worked in very multi cultural environments - the Greeks dont talk to the Turks (Cypriots); Don't even get me started on the Indian caste system; West Indians treat Africans with contempt. As far as I have ever discerned, it's the White British (who generally dont give a shit about religion etc) they talk to everyone and keep the peace!

Why did God invent the orgasm? So women can moan even when they are happy.

I like that!

I think 'racism' becomes rather woolly. You're not allowed to discriminate against someone because of their race, but any derogatory remarks are only deemed racist if someone finds them offensive. And it makes no difference whether or not that person is the subject of the remark.

I hate the whole idea that anyone would regard me more or less favourably because of the colour of my skin.

trois I understand from colleagues that in Ghana Nigerians have the stereotype of being villains; that in Nigeria Ghanaians have the stereotype of being country bumpkins; that in Trinidad the stereotype of Jamaicans is that of villains and that in Jamaica that of Trinidadians is that of, you've guessed it, bumpkins; and that Jamaicans and Trinidadians often regard other folk from the Caribbean as mere "small-island people".

Then there's the mean Scot, the thick Irishman, the dishonest (and sheep-shagging) Welshman.

And in Germany they tell "thick Irish"jokes about East Frisians.

Seems to be hard-wired into the species!

The problem with the argument that the trades unions leaders, Churchill, Stopes etc., were products of their time, is that there were people around at that time, who argued that racism was a nonsense.

they were dismissed as crackpot anarchists, communists, and gone-to-the-bad-lefties.

I think it is very straightforward. It is discrimination based on ethnicity, some physical characteristics or nationality.

To try and claim that ethnic group is not a basis for racism if the two groups are very similar in appearance would put us in the bizarre situation of having to claim that the Rwandan Genocide was not racist.

Just want to say that I agree with OTheHugeWerewolef about the 'something is racist merely if someone thinks it is' being disturbing.
I'm not sure how often that is applied in the real world though. It might be just one of those MN things.

As for the OP. I'm not entirely sure of the distinction being made there, but I think you can make distinctions depending on context and intent.

Are these equally racist for example?

1. Black people are lazy.

2. Chinese people take children's education very seriously.

If you need to ask 'are these equally racist', don't say either of them, surely?

I don't get this.

Why is there a need to sail close to the wind, and find the most racist-yet-acceptable remark one can? Not accusing you of this onegar as I know you are using them as examples, but some people in RL seem to delight in it.

Interesting thread. Perhaps 'racism' as a word is not so useful now that we have moved on from thinking of people in such black and white terms. Race doesn't exist, it never has, only heritage. We're all humans and can all relate to each other on that basis alone.

Discrimination is equally abhorrent no matter why it occurs, it's always based on judging someone based on characteristics they share with others. I have a silly laugh but a great sense of humour. I have blonde hair but am pretty clever. People in general are less likely to judge based on appearance or perceived membership of a particular group now, which is a good thing.

IMO we need a new word for generalised discrimination that includes travellers and Jews, because I don't think 'racism' really works - it's sort of a best fit word.

Yes, Uppity, that's the way of the world. But there's no call to blame the people who didn't see the light. Churchill saw the menace of the Nazis and the TUC saw that the invasion of the Ruhr was a disastrous nonsense; it's not given to any of us to see the whole truth.

We need to wonder what seems obvious to us and will seem like barbaric nonsense to our great-grandchildren.

but I think you can make distinctions depending on context and intent.

Thank you ongar far better put than I did!

I like your examples. I was trying to make similar styled examples. Which failed. Dismally!

I have blonde hair but am pretty clever

Now there is a sterotype - Essex girls are 'dim' - but Scandanavians aren't considered so. Both havea sterotype of being uninhibited though

Eric is right - race is socially constructed, and the minority groups that have been constructed as racially 'other' in different periods of history and in different places have often had little or nothing to do with any kind of biological differences. Troisgarcons said above that she didn't see how it was possible to be racist about the Irish, Scots or Welsh (presumably meaning from an English point of view) because there's no 'racial' difference. However, the idea of Irish racial inferiority was used to justify English colonisation of Ireland for centuries - the civiliser was bringing civilisation to the barbarous and savage Celt. Over time, this idea morphed into the contemptible figure of the drunken, feckless, 'stupid Paddy' (often depicted with negroid features in caricatures) of the 19thc. It didn't matter that there's no justification for any biological difference.

12th century: "A most filthy race ... sunk in vice, a race more ignorant than all other nations of the first principles of the faith ... They pay neither tithes nor first fruits; they do not contract marriage, nor shun incestuous connections" - Giraldus Cambrensis.

18th century: The Irish are "buried in the most profound barbarism and ignorance" - David Hume.

1836: Irish immigration into Britain "is an example of a less civilised population spreading itself as a substratum beneath a more civilised community" - parliamentary inquiry into the Irish in Britain.

1930s: "They (the Irish) have settled into the closest poor quarter and turned the settlement into a slum" - J. B. Priestley.

1950s: "No Irish need apply" - lodging house notice.

(from a review of Mary Hinkman's Religion, Class and Identity)

And not just in Ireland - there's a good book How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev, which looks at how the immigrant Irish of the 19thc were orignally seen as racially inferior by WASP Americans, and only gradually became accepted as 'white' (mainly by racially oppressing black Americans in their turn...)

andrew - yes, I agree. I think you notice this with older/younger generations, don't you? What is considered perfectly fine and not offensive actually changes pretty fast!

EllaDee, it's not about sailing close to the wind.

Think about my examples for a moment.

To say black people are lazy means all black people yes? regardless of where they come from, how they are brought up and so on. It is just based on skin color which is ridiculous.

But saying "Chinese people take children's education very seriously" is different. If I said that I'd be saying that at this moment in time (it might not be true in 30 years time) the predominant culture in China supports the view that education is important.

This is a real thing that you could go and examine. It would be nothing to do with skin color. A person who lived in Yorkshire, but whose great-grandparents were Chinese would not share it because it's cultural not genetic. A person whose great-grandparents were Dutch but who was born in China probably would share it.

Excellent post HardCheese

Onagar, then wouldn't it be clearer for the speaker to just say what the mean?

If they mean that education is seen as important in contemporary Chinese culture, why not just say exactly that?

To say 'Chinese people' subtly changes the meaning and makes the intent unclear.

troisgarcons it is hard to put into words isn't it. I actually do think that Chinese people take education seriously. I could be wrong of course since I've not been to China, but then many of us have never been to New York either yet we accept that what we have read and see on TV about it is probably true.

Not every single person in China of course, but if a thing is part of our upbringing it becomes the default position for most people.