to this is not ok (racism related)?

[Warriorqueen69]

Name changed. I'll keep it brief and this is really more a WWYD than an AIBU, but I guess they overlap. DH is American. We live in the UK. Our two DCs have always grown up understanding that they are both British and American. We keep reasonably good links with our huge family over there, celebrate American holidays and they pick up American vocabulary and phrases from their father. All in all, both DCs consider themselves to be both. They have dual nationality, so this is the reality of the situation.

Throughout primary school, my older DD has had occasional anti-American remarks made to her by some of the other kids (e.g "I hate Americans" or "Americans are stupid"), but school never seem to do anything about it when I bring it up. Now, a boy in her class has taken to regularly mocking her, putting on a fake American accent, and saying, "Hi, my name's XXX. I'm American and I'm stupid and dumb." Again, her teacher has told her to just ignore it, but both she and my DH are pretty annoyed, as am I.

Why do some people think it's ok to make racist remarks against Americans? I don't think it's ok, not one tiny bit. But I'm not sure whether it's worth taking things further with the school by speaking to the headteacher. WWYD please?

I am sorry but even the usual of the word "normal" ("normally heighted") is problematic to me.

I remember being astonished also when I moved to the UK when I was buying fake tan. You could buy fake tan for "normal" skin and fake tan for "dark" skin. So bizarre.

Climbing Everest is about what they have done, not what they look like. As society we should value that former and render the latter insignificant. I would hope.

I am not saying that it is "racist" to describe someone as "the black person" but that it is highly problematic if we want to value people for who they are as people and not based on characteristics that they have absolutely not control over.

I am six foot and my husband is 6 foot 7. People refer to me as the "tall woman" and my husband as that "tall guy".

I do not see this as prejudiced in any way. It is stating fact.

And I would have no hesitation saying the white nurse if she was the only white nurse because of course that would be the clear distinction in the group. I'm not going to stop being sensible just because some idiot is racist. Racism is stupid. Utterly stupid. Why should we pussyfoot around being logical and sensible so as not to be thought as stupid as the stupid people. Bugger that!

If there was a crowd full of white people and one black person and someone asked me to point out Mr X and he just happened to be the black person, I would say the black guy.

Equally if it was a crowd with only one white person in I would say the white guy.

To be fair if I was that racist, I would not have given the job to the only applicant who was not white.

Chaya, I don't place any value by the colour if their skin. Their skin is their skin. I believe and teach my kids that racism is stupid because what could possibly make you feel superior to someone based on the colour of their skin. It's ridiculous and stupid. Have I said yet that it's stupid?

normal - typical, average, usual, common.

On top of being american, I am not white and abnormally tall. or unusually tall.

that's problematic?

in your skin case, it is a bit bizarre, because "normal" isn't a good description. I wouldn't know what normal skin is, for the purposes of tan cream. just say light.

come off worst with casual racism in the UK are Americans and Germans

To which, may I add 'white middle aged men.'?

Guaranteed to get a smuggy sniggery laugh whenever white middle class women are gathered together especially when I, a non-white, non-class-classifiable non-man am among them.

Ladies, I don't hate white middle aged men because I don't know every single one and also, I'm married to one and he's bloody lovely. And Dutch, which adds amusement...

It astounds me how eagerly we lap this up, but hypocritically get ourselves in great shrieky knots about completely non-racist statements elsewhere.

When I read 'normal' on skin cream I tend to think it's referring to the condition of your skin rather than colour. So not too greasy or too dry. I wouldn't think it strange to see cream targeted at black women though because like with their hair, their skin is genetically different and may need a different combination of oils.

I am not saying that it is "racist" to describe someone as "the black person" but that it is highly problematic if we want to value people for who they are as people and not based on characteristics that they have absolutely not control over.

I don't see how the mere mention of being black is valuing it all, either under or over.

frankly, I see it as problematic that it is problematic to mention race or skin color. it suggests to me that it is something to be embarrassed about, or should be hidden. I would certainly hesitate to describe someone using an adjective that would be unflattering e.g. smelly.

Someone asked me to repeat my question about the deaf community so here it is.

The definition [of race] given above ("any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.") also strikes me as far too broad. People in the deaf community in many countries share a common history, language, and culture. Does that mean that we should define discrimination against the hearing impaired as racism? Or deafness as a racial category?

That is the point. I did not think that using the term black was unflattering or offensive.

If she had been overweight, I would not have referred to her as the fat woman because I do see that as derogatory.

Elktheory I gave the examples of American gays or american muslims. they fit that description too. But surely American gays aren't a race (although, you never know here).

Elk that is a very interesting question and I asked what the question was as I know a lot of people in the deaf community. My husband is blind so he attends sensory impaired groups and there are deaf people there.
I would say the deaf community is a very close knit group who share many customs. Even the sign language has more regional variations than spoken English. On a personal level I love sign language as it is so descriptive. My two dogs have their own names in sign language which refers to their physical characteristics rather than their names. Deaf people refer to Benji by his waggy tail and Shauny by the fact she only has one eye.

writtenguarantee, those are excellent examples as well. And I agree with you, I wouldn't define any of those groups as races.

raltheraffe, that's very interesting about your dogs' names in sign language.

Written guarantee, nationality is listed in UNESCO's declaration on racial discrimination and in the international legal definition of genocide as well as in the declaration on elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

There have been acts of genocide carried out on the basis of nationality and national origins? Why would anyone want to trivialise nationality as a form of racism? Stalin's treatment of Ukranians? Japanese treatment of the Chinese in the 20th century? Indonesia's mass murder of the Chinese? Turkishs killing of the Greeks and Armenians? Are these now no big deal?

I do not understand what the point is in trying to pretend that racial discrimination on the basis of national origin isn't the cause of some or many of the greatest atrocities of recent history.

While the OP's daughter is presumably in the UK for positive reasons, there are plenty of children whose families have come here fleeing conflict. They have every right not to face racism here, and after Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland, we should have enough knowledge to know that it isn't all about appearance.

All lazy generalisations are stupid, and worse if they are rude and insulting lazy generalisations.

I think this is quite interesting, though, on how a norm comes to be accepted, and what establishes a 'norm' and from whose viewpoint.

There have been acts of genocide carried out on the basis of nationality and national origins? Why would anyone want to trivialise nationality as a form of racism? Stalin's treatment of Ukranians? Japanese treatment of the Chinese in the 20th century Indonesia's mass murder of the Chinese? Turkishs killing of the Greeks and Armenians Are these now no big deal?

who's saying it's trivial? who's trivializing genocide and saying it is no big deal? Who said national origin or nationality have not been used as a basis for horrific acts? of course they have.

I think I am starting to understand what you are thinking. People seem to think because we don't want call it racism, we think it isn't bad. nothing could be more false. why would you possibly think that? Sexism is horrible, but not racism. Homophobia is horrible, but not racism. there are bad forms of discrimination that aren't racism.

Acts of genocide as a result of religion, the killing of a generation of female babies and foetuses in China all utterly horrific and not trivialised in the least by not being called racism.

Are we assuming that anything not categorised or called racism is somehow less important, a less oppressive way of killing, sacking, or raping someone? That racism has a special importance over and above every other form of atrocity? That other forms of bullying are just gentler and more polite than racism?

And therefore more trivialised?

Because I don't.

x-posted with wwrittenguarantee!

We could just as easily say that discrimination on the basis of skin pigmentation should be called something other than racism, but what would be the point?

What would you like to happen? For national origin to be written out of international human rights laws on racism and be given a separate set of acts and declarations? To be overseen by a separate committee? What do you think would be the point?

So Kurds as an ethnic group fall under the racial discrimination laws, but if they get their own nation state it is no longer racist because now they have a nationality so it is under a wholly different set of laws? What is practically being achieved?

I think that part of the problem (if there is actually a problem) is that things are framed in terms of lists of target groups to be protected from discrimination. Whereas it would be better to say 'people must behave in a fair and just manner , appoint jobs on the basis of skill, treat all humans with respect and understanding...' etc.

As soon as you start on lists, someone can get left out, someone can be presumed to be higher up the list, there will be endless debates about the scale of the lists - who fits where, feminists don't want transgender, BAME extends to BAMER, LBGTT and some other letters because someone isn't included, racism comes to mean nationality....at which height is someone of restricted growth....

What we all believe in is 'don't be nasty and unfair. To anyone.'

Cadmium, yes, we do treat racially motivated crimes as more oppressive. They can be given longer sentences in the UK than the same crime without a racial motivation. And racially based mass rape is a genocidal act in international law.

However, I do think it is useful to name things like homophobia, sexism, racism... it reminds us about common targets for nastiness and unfairness. And that is why think words, if we choose to use them, need to be accurate. And for racism to refer to race. And not a whole overlapping venn diagram of associated isms.