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?

This being a forum predominantly (but not exclusively) populated by Brits, and reading that the OPs child is in the UK, then the only correct answer to the original question is "yes this is racism".

I have conceded that on many occasions, and so have other people. We aren't disputing that the UK law (if quoted correctly above) seems to include nationality in racism. I concede that, and I also said the OP should use that when speaking to the school. The dispute is over whether we (the half or so people above who think it is not racism) agree that nationality should be included in the term racism. Reading the OP's post, I don't think she was asking a legal question (i.e. is this considered racism here). I think she assumed it was, and simply called it that.

national origin is not something that you can change.

sure, that is likely why it is protected, and also because it is probably often used to discriminate.

there are lots of things we can't change about our birth like gender (well, we can change that), our birth hair color, our birth weight etc etc, but not all those things constitute race.

The dispute is over whether we (the half or so people above who think it is not racism) agree that nationality should be included in the term racism.

But nationality is included in the term in the context we are discussing. But some posters have said that they don't think that the OP should bring up the legal protections her child has in her discussions with the school, when clearly those protections are there.

Dunedin, your comments about American law are not the ones that are annoying me, it is more the ones made by people like writtenguarantee who keep trying to make out this isn't racism because it (possibly) wouldn't be racism in the US. I have no idea if it is or isn't racism in the US. I do care though when racism gets minimised in the UK by people bringing the laws of other countries into the equation to support their apologist views.

The dispute is over whether we (the half or so people above who think it is not racism) agree that nationality should be included in the term racism.

does it matter what you or anyone else thinks? Or does the law matter?

I might think (I don't, obviously) that a drunken woman wearing a miniskirt who consented to go back to the guys apartment can't possibly have been raped, and sadly plenty of people would agree with that. What does it matter though if 1% or 50% of the population hold those apologist victim-blaming views on rape? Rape is rape. And racism is racism, no matter how much you (and others) try to minimise it.

I do care though when racism gets minimised in the UK by people bringing the laws of other countries into the equation to support their apologist views.

And I am on the other side from that. As a non-white American, we are frequently accused in public and private discourse of using the term racism too easily and loosely. For that reason, I am very careful when I use that term, for otherwise you get discussions precisely like this. The effect, worse than minimizing this particular case, is to water down that word entirely.

Or does the law matter?

I have said about 15 times for the OP it's the law that matters.

does it matter what you or anyone else thinks?

This is a discussion forum. We are all opining on whether or not we agree that UK law should include nationality in racism (I would say it should be a protected separate characteristic) because it's clear that similar other places (and probably the dictionary) disagree. So, of course our opinion matters on that point.

Racial discrimination has always included ethnic and national origin, not just colour. It is written into the International Declaration on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

National origins as a form of racism is not something new or unique to British law. It is part of international, EU and British law. As such, the school should be recording the incidents as racist bullying and doing something about it.

The idea that prejudice on the basis of national or ethnic origin rather than some physiological quality like skin pigmentation isn't really racism, or is a less serious form of racism, or is weakening the meaning of the term. Really?! Are current global events passing you by?

If that were true then most of the locations where genocide has occurred or which are currently under genocide watch can stop worrying, because according to the logic of this thread, it can't be genocide because it isn't really racist if the two groups involved look the same.

The effect, worse than minimizing this particular case, is to water down that word entirely

well I am glad you at least finally admit to minimising this case.

As for watering the word "racism" down. You are the person doing that now when you say the OPs daughter was just a victim of bullying or discrimination.

Unless you are of the "racism is only racism when the persons skin colour is different" persuasion. Which to me is the exact same as people (apologists) who say wives/drunk women/scantily clad women can't be raped.

We are all opining on whether or not we agree that UK law should include nationality in racism

that's maybe what you want to talk about....it not what I want to talk about....and it's not what the OP asked. The OP asked "Why do some people think it's ok to make racist remarks against Americans?" and asked for advice on dealing with the apologist school.

Why, instead of answering her question, are you hell bent on debating the definition of racism? If that's what you want to discuss, why don't you open your own topic?

The idea that prejudice on the basis of national or ethnic origin rather than some physiological quality like skin pigmentation isn't really racism, or is a less serious form of racism, or is weakening the meaning of the term. Really?! Are current global events passing you by?

yes, lol, it does seem current global events pass many on MN by.

I'm sure 30 yrs from now less people will hold the apologist views expressed by WG and others. I remember maybe 35 yrs ago a discussion with the women in my family about rape, and how the case in the local news wasn't real rape as the girl had been drunk, scantily dressed, had gone back willingly to his place, had no bruises or cuts etc. With the benefit of hindsight I am sure (if they were all still alive) their own toes would curl at how offensive their rape apologist views were back then. And I am sure in 30 yrs from now people will cringe when they remember that back in 2014 they didn't think an issue like this was racism.

and it's not what the OP asked. The OP asked "Why do some people think it's ok to make racist remarks against Americans?"

That's precisely what the OP asked. Does that sound like a legal question to you?

As for watering the word "racism" down. You are the person doing that now when you say the OPs daughter was just a victim of bullying or discrimination.

Anytime you say racism includes some additional scenario, you of course water it down. under your definition it includes more concepts than under mine.

Unless you are of the "racism is only racism when the persons skin colour is different" persuasion. Which to me is the exact same as people (apologists) who say wives/drunk women/scantily clad women can't be raped.

I honestly have no idea where all these ideas of rape have entered the discussion. straight out of left field from what I can tell.

Why, instead of answering her question, are you hell bent on debating the definition of racism? If that's what you want to discuss, why don't you open your own topic?

I did answer the questions. As you quoted above, the OP asked a question about racism and people have answered. but yes, the thread seems to have lost it's focus.

I think it's a very interesting discussion. Race is a social construct, not a meaningful biological category. For that very reason, it is subject to interpretation. As indicated in this thread, the legal definition in the UK is quite broad and includes nationality/citizenship and national origins. I don't live in the UK, so the UK legal definition doesn't affect me in the slightest. However, the OP does and she can absolutely complain to the school that her children are being subjected to racism.

From my perspective, this legal definition is well-meaning but not particularly useful or accurate. To conflate all forms of discrimination against anyone based on citizenship, national origin, etc. as "racism" seems problematic. My husband, for example, is Russian, Jewish, white, and a US citizen. Does that mean he belongs to four different races?

The definition 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?

Does that sound like a legal question to you?

what does it matter what it sounds like? when someone is asking for reassurance and wider opinions, and they have been a victim of a crime (any crime) it is always worthwhile to remind them what the law says on that particular crime. Thinking that is in line with the law often gives far better chances of a successful confrontation than being at odds with the law.

Anytime you say racism includes some additional scenario, you of course water it down

I am not making up additional scenarios willy nilly, I am quoting the law. It's you who is watering down racism when you refuse to call it by its name and continue to hold apologist views on racist comments.

If you have an issue with the term racism as I apply it, take it up with the heads of every government who use it in the same way as I do.

under your definition it includes more concepts than under mine

my definition? excuse me, I am quoting the law, not a personal opinion.

I honestly have no idea where all these ideas of rape have entered the discussion. straight out of left field from what I can tell.

no, just pointing out that your views on racism are pretty antiquated nowadays, although still quite common, they will eventually die out, just like my old grandmothers apologist views about rape were pretty antiquated back in the 1980s (although still fairly widely held back then) as her views resembled more the views of the pre WW1 era as opposed to the approach to the new milinieum.

It isn't unique to the UK Elk Theory. It has been part of international human rights law on racial discrimination since at least the nineteen sixties.

All countries that signed up to international declarations on human rights should be using that definition of racism. The broadness of the definition is precisely what makes it flexible enough to deal with the variety of different forms of racism that exist internationally that cause serious events up to and including genocide.

It doesn't stop people looking at specific forms of racism against specific groups, if they want accuracy and precision.

The very first post said it all, IMO!

It has been part of international human rights law on racial discrimination since at least the nineteen sixties.

where does it say this? are you telling me that nationality is listed there?

From my perspective, this legal definition is well-meaning but not particularly useful or accurate. To conflate all forms of discrimination against anyone based on citizenship, national origin, etc. as "racism" seems problematic. My husband, for example, is Russian, Jewish, white, and a US citizen. Does that mean he belongs to four different races?

that's all I am really trying to say. But, apparently, you too have antiquated views on racism.

In the international declaration on the elmination of all forms of racial discrimination!

Here:

'1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

1. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.'

I know people on here enjoy a debate. But actually racial discrimination is internationally defined and most nations have agreed to, and signed up, to a specific meaning and set of rights.

That is the thing about human rights. We internationally have them. They are not meant to be up for debate just because a particular person, leader or country would like to take them away from people. It is decided and agreed upon by the vast majority of nations.

In answer to the question about Jewish people. At the time international human rights were being agreed upon, a number of states refused to sign up to the international declaration on racial discrimination if it included religion, in part because of attitudes in some countries to jews.

Because the international community wanted as many countries as possible to sign up to the racial discrimination declaration, they excluded religion from the definition and put it in a separate declaration.

That is why in the UK we have religion as a separate equality strand to race, because they are separate international definitions.

An individual may of course feel that they are Jewish by ethnicity not religion.

@almondcakes funny, I don't see nationality in there.

by the way, as part 2 states, states discriminate based on nationality all the time (citizenship), but there the convention need not apply. However, within the UK, there is a distinction between nationalities as well. An American who has indefinite leave to remain cannot vote, whereas a Canadian can (as a member of a common wealth nation).

'or national or ethnic origin'

I put in part two to make it clear that they distinguish between citizenship and nationality.

The OP's daughter has UK citizenship. Her national origins are American.

Also, yes, the UK and the USA did not sign up fully to the international declaration, because the USA wanted to allow various forms of racism under freedom of Speech, and the UK because they wanted to be able to discriminate between commonwealth and non commonwealth nations.

@written what is national origin?

UK and the USA did not sign up fully to the international declaration

so, who did sign up? I assume that neither China nor Russia did, so that makes 80% of the UN security council. Did India?

If you are so interested in racial discrimination, why don't you google the basics of it in law?

The UK and the US did both sign up, but were allowed not to agree to various parts.

Obviously the US didn't have much say in the writing of it because at the time these human rights laws were being written the US still had segregation, Jim Crow laws etc.

In my opinion, like sexism, we need more people in a wider range of (legitimate, valid) circumstances to call racism - only this will begin to make people stop and think about their prejudices. About the discrimination they are making. About the casual racism that flits through their heads (Germans and sunbeds, French and garlic).

If we just keep it to DailyMailesque rants against Asians, against blacks, then people will just be able to continue to think "I am not racist, I don't hate blacks". Really your argument about the fear of diluting the phrase does not add up. Pull people up for racism, in all its forms. Remind people that casual racism is as abhorrent. I would pull my DCs up for not liking someone just because they are "Insert random nationality here" wouldn't you? I would say it was racist. It is racist. If I said it was "not nice" and did not emphasise the stupid prejudice behind the thought then I am not doing the anti-discrimination movement any favours at all.

To try and educate UKIP supporters that the party politics of that bunch of xenophobes is racists is important. Otherwise we will have BNP-Light even more entrenched into UK politics. But if I said nothing (because they are not as bad or obvious as the BNP) then what happens.

written you have not said if you have suffered racism at any point in your life then I am sorry for that. Just as I am sorry for any of us who have suffered sexism, disability discrimination, any other kind of discrimination. To get equality is a long hard road. We need to use all the tools and experiences of people to say "no" this is not acceptable. Not to say, oh, keep it quiet as it is not in-your-face-black-hating.