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?

Racism hasn't come to mean nationality. It always has done in international law. You are attempting to change the definition of what racism is, not resist a change imposed by others.

We have specific laws and rights for different kinds of issues because patterns of racism, disability discrimination, sexism and homophobia follow different paths and require different international responses.

There is no such thing as 'race' in the UK. We don't legally have races here. This is not the USA. We have official categories of ethnic identity and national identity, but there are no racial categories.

Many countries are in a similar position.

Do you think that is right though? That I is worse to kill someone because you hate their race than to kill someone because you hate their sexuality? A brutal murder on Clapham Common of an ordinary man because he is gay is worse than the murder of Stephan Lawrence?

I can't answer that. Hate for someone for what they are, with the same brutality and cruelty and the same result: death?

They are both examples of hate crimes and would (now) be treated as such by the police.

Yes, I think it is worse that almost all Mandeans could be wiped off the face of the Earth by ISIS than if the equivalent number of people are murdered by a psychopath. It breeds a form of misery and human suffering that has a greater and more widespread intolerance that can last for generations.

Almondcakes: from the EHRC " Race:Refers to the protected characteristic of Race. It refers to a group of people defined by their race, colour, and nationality (including citizenship) ethnic or national origins."

It's quoted in different ways through this thread and used to explain that bullying an American due to nationality is racism.

I think this is inaccurate and we should recognise bullying due to nationality as xenophobia and none the less heinous as a result.

As Iggi says, sexual orientation is also covered by hate crime legislation. I am saying yes, hate crime and genocidal crimes are worse than the same crimes carried out at random on random people.

Yes Cadmium, I understand what you are arguing. I just don't understand what you think redefining racism to not include national origins will accomplish.

Your argument just seems to be 'I think racism means X. The law should be changed to agree with my definition.'

Why? To what end?

I think this is inaccurate and we should recognise bullying due to nationality as xenophobia

Why? I don't see any merit in such a distinction.

"Yes, I think it is worse that almost all Mandeans could be wiped off the face of the Earth by ISIS than if the equivalent number of people are murdered by a psychopath. It breeds a form of misery and human suffering that has a greater and more widespread intolerance that can last for generations"

So it's quantitive thing?

Well there is something in that - the impact overall can be worse.

The numbers of people undergoing gender re-assignment and at risk of discrimination up to and including murder is infinitesimal in comparison, but theier para is just as long...

Why is it important that we include race and nationality in the same category (I am talking about the EHRC / Equality Act definitions that are out law) , but religion is different? We are careful to separate religion and race ('muslims are not a race, so it's not racism') even though the combination of religion and nationality are the crux of many a mass slaughter, (within the same race) but we lump race and nationality together?

I wish people would stop obsessing about the definition of racism. Xenophobic or racist matters not, just the fact that what is happening to the OP's child is NOT okay.

You should most definitely see the HT and raise your concerns about your child being bullied and mocked due to their nationality and the nationality of their father. It is absolutely not okay and it shouldn't have to be just be ignored. The child/ren should be corrected on their horrible behaviour and penalised accordingly (detention or whatever).

As a multi-national this is something I worry about with our (future) children as well. I have every expectation any children will use words from their other nationalities at school and I plan to speak to the school about how they plan to handle it (it is not "wrong", it is just the wrong language, "remember we're writing in American English right now").

Religion is classed differently because of anti semitism influencing international declarations at the time Cadmium.

No, it is not quantitative. An act of genocide is qualitatively different in impact. There is a fear created by stated genocidal intentions of ISIS that will shape the world quite differently to an equivalent number of random killings.

"Why? I don't see any merit in such a distinction" Because racism means race and nationalism means nation, and if we are going to use any words let's use them accurately and say what we mean.

Though I confess I don't actually know what 'Xeno' means ...

And because, as I just said "Why is it important that we include race and nationality in the same category, but religion is different? We are careful to separate religion and race ('muslims are not a race, so it's not racism') even though the combination of religion and race are the crux of many a mass slaughter, (within the same nationality) but we lump race and nationality together?

(but I edited it to make more of the sense I intended)

Almond - interesting.

Thank you, I am enjoying (not quite the right word) this end of the thread (sorry OP, I hope you do manage to get the school to deal with this),but I have to go to bed.

Didn't want to leave without saying 'goodnight'.

It is important that nationality is part of racial discrimination because

a. it historically has done and all international law protecting people discriminated against in this way is organised in this way. It would be a massive global undertaking to change international law, with no benefit to doing so given by you.
b. many people do not consider themselves to have a 'race' and consider their national origin to be their ethnicity. For example some Nigerian British people consider Nigerian their ethicity but dislike being labelled as part of a race with people who are from vastly dissimilar cultures. the same for many Iranians in Britain.

We would have to set up a parallel set of laws to racial discrimination laws to deal with people whose phrasing of their ethnicity was based on national origins. This would serve no practical purposes and is simply differences in terminology.

And importantly, because there is no such thing as race. It is just a historical phrase for a collection of things related to nationality and ethnicity, which sometimes includes skin pigmentation.

Exactly Almond We are all homo sapiens.

So...if there is no race, where does that leave racism?

What is racism if no such thing as race?

Which brings us back, maybe, to the beginning.....

There is a legal definition in English law, from the Crime and Disorder Act: A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

See that - nationality (includig citizenship)

Having religion and belief as a separate protected characteristic might be helpful as a person of exactly the same race/nationality/citizenship as another person could still harass them or discriminate them as a result of their beliefs.

I think the OP needs to speak to the headteacher. There has been 11 pages of debate on whether or not this boy's behaviour constitutes racism. Whether or not this is racist (I am not sure) it is bullying. If this bully was mocking a Pakistani or Chinese accent it would be taken very seriously indeed. Why should this be dealt with differently?
Unfortunately teachers can brush bullying under the carpet. I was bullied at school and went to the teacher and the teacher did jack shit. So I went to the head of year and they did jack shit. In the end I dealt with it personally and it soon stopped.

There are no different "races". It is an artificial construct to explain differences in physical appearance.

It acquired dubious ,erroneous and discredited scientific authority by way of eugenics.

What you mean by "race" is hating someone and treating them badly just because they are different from you; usually but not necessarily when "you" are part of the majority group.

I don't actually think "racism" is a helpful term. I have seen posts on here saying white people can never be victims of racism. You came quite close to that by assuming white people have no protected characteristics.

Talk of "racism" to me perpetuates the notion of races.

I'm not sure what word would be better but what should be protected is being discriminated against and being treated badly simply because you are different from the person doing it.

ratheraffe it is treating someone horribly just because she is different.

If this bully was mocking a Pakistani or Chinese accent it would be taken very seriously indeed. Why should this be dealt with differently?

short answer, because the teacher thinks like many on this thread: she is American so it isn't racism

If the OP on this thread had read "my daughter has a strong Pakistani accent, like her dad, and is being mocked and bullied at school for her accent, and the teacher just says she should ignore it" what should I do.

I guarantee you we wouldn't have had 11 pages of "this is not racism" derailing away from the main issue.

For some weird reason I have never been able fathom, many Brits think Americans (and Germans) are fair game for racial taunts. Mocking Pakistanis or Chinese based on their accent is socially unacceptable, yet it's acceptable when it comes to Americans. I have no idea why.

The same goes for the school teacher, he or she obviously has thoughts similar to many on this thread (i.e. it's not racist because the victim is American). If the OPs child had a Pakistani accent and ancestry, I am sure it would have been taken very seriously by the teacher.

Attitudes on core issues like this takes YEARS to change. Post the same question 10 yrs from now, there will be less people saying it's not racism, 20 yrs from now less still will deny it's racism, and with a bit of luck maybe 30 yrs from now people will be appalled that we could even have this conversation in 2014 as by then it will be so obvious to all that it is racism.

Yes, if you replaced an example of something that isn't racist with something that is racist, people would be much more likely to say that it was racist