To think that this was racist?

[Simmerflew]

DH and I visited in laws at the weekend. They'd recorded a rugby match and were watching it. I don't follow rugby, so I'm not sure who else was playing, but I know France was. The camera zoomed in on a French player who was potentially non-white (for the record, I'm not even entirely convinced on this, but he had dark hair and eyes, and a darker complexion than many white people would have). The conversation went as follows:

FIL: I wonder where that guy's from.
DH: Well he's playing for France, so the most likely option is France.
FIL: Well you don't look like that and come from France, usually.
DH: Why do you say that?
FIL: Well, lots of non-French players play for France. They let anyone in. One of their players is called Demba Bamba.
Me: (vaguely recalling hearing this name during a conversation in work) Right, but he's French, isn't he?
FIL: Well not with a name like that.
Me: But this guy on the TV could have been born and raised in France - how do you know he wasn't?
MIL: well, he might have been born and raised there, but looking at him I can tell he's really Arabic.

I didn't want to say too much and the conversation moved on after that, but I felt uncomfortable about it for the rest of the day.

AIBU to think that making trying to make a judgement about this guy by his skin tone (and the other player by his name) is actually racist? I mean, I understand being curious about someone's heritage, but surely bringing up race when it's not relevant does kind of cross a line into racist territory?

"othering" is part of a continuum, I think. It might not be racist in the definition PB is using, but where does "othering" end?

in terms of "identity" it's the same old same old - how far back do these questioners want to go? There have been people who aren't white living here for centuries.

I'm a Londoner, that's my identity and my history.

As explained, it isn't racist as such and it would only be offensive if they would not ask the same when seeing Bobby Smith turn out for Japan.

Māori rugby fan here. I think this particular comment did possibly come from a racist place, but I will join others in giving some context.

There are massive issues in rugby, particularly with English and French clubs, bringing in players from overseas, many from the Southern Hemisphere and many from nations which are being stripped of their players as they can’t compete with the money, it’s even happening to NZ. Many rugby fans are angry that their national teams are using players that haven’t either been born or grown up for a considerable time, in their country. I think that’s valid. Indeed France has set up an academy on Fiji, which is on the other side of the world. It’s creating a lot of animosity as home grown players are not getting their chances, and the nations they buy players from are finding it hard to retain players they’ve trained. I think this is in part why he said what he did, and usually I’m quick to point out racism. It probably would have been a good time to say, do you have a problem with different ethnicities, or foreign players taking places from our own players?

scatter are you saying that a person can identify as a race that they are not? So by your reckoning Rachel Dolezal is black?

Seriously?

Also, the ‘they let anyone in’ comment, I think in this context, is meant the French team. That is quite accurate, like I say, they have academy’s outside of France.

weeping how do reach that conclusion based on what scatter wrote?

dreich

Identity is made up of a multiplicity of attributes. Some of which will be: legal, ethnic and cultural amongst many others. For many people what they are is legally, culturally and ethnically the same. But increasingly, in our modern era of globalisation and migration, people will have identities made of different facets.

Race is not an identity. It is also a protected characteristic in law.

Rachel Dolezal did regard race as an identity, in precisely the way scatter suggests. She was roundly pilloried for that, IIRC.

Oh, okay. Does race not form part of ones identity regardless of whether or not it is a protected charactersic in law of the country where one lives?

@saxtablesalt you seem quite angry for some reason.

By your definition, I must be racist too. for context i'm a black British African who asks people of colour and non usual names about their ethnic origins. Sometimes it's based on skin colour, other times it's based on accent.

I don't find it othering or racist when people ask me about my heritage and neither do most of my multi-cultural friends and family. So I would suggest you not decide that you speak for everybody when you say such.

Whether it's a protected characteristic or not, it's also not an identity.

I don't identify as white, I am white.

@JessicaWakefieldSVH yes, they definitely meant that the French team let anyone play for them.
Thank you for providing the context. I don't think it excuses the racist attitude of my FIL, but I do understand why you brought it up.

This is part of the English dictionary definition of identity
Identities explores the relationship of racial, ethnic and national identities and power hierarchies within national and global arenas.’

I identify as Scottish, being Scottish is part of my identity, I am Scottish all three of these statements are true at the same time.
It is also true I could identify as being Welsh, but on discovering that I have no connection with Wales since the 1830's others might disagree with my self identification as Welsh.
Claiming to have racial or ethinic or national identities that you do not is likely to meet with scorn. This is not the same thing as accepting that your race, ethnicity and national identities form a wider sense of your personal indentity.

well, I don't know what dictionary you got that from but that's not in the concise Oxford I have in front of me.

However, I would say that the facts of me being white, female and British (for example) make up my sense of self (ie my identity) but are not identities in and of themselves. I have parents from England and Scotland so that would be part of my sense of self but I wouldn't identify as Scottish, because I'm not. I was brought up in a certain faith, so that again forms part of it, but I'm not sure that I would identify as being of that faith (though one can acquire a faith in the way one can't acquire a race).

And Rachel Dolezal identified as black for many reasons, none of which actually made her black.

Why does the conversation have to be anything? We have no idea as to the intent of those speaking the words. To me they seem to be confusing ethnicity with nationality. If thats the case its perfectly ok to have a conversation about it without it being about racism. Racism ,whilst not being seen as a desirable characteristic by many if not most people, is not actually illegal.

Race is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Whilst it isn't illegal to believe stereotypical or negative things about a person/people due to their race (one definition of racism) it is certainly illegal to act on that, ie to discriminate or be violent or incite violence because of a person(s) race - also racism. Also, I believe, it's a hate crime, though I find that a rather nebulous concept.

I don't think it excuses the racist attitude of my FIL, but I do understand why you brought it up.

I’m not convinced that it was racist. He was clearly making a point about a national team including players who were not French, which as explained is happening far too much. It’s a genuine issue. The fact the French clubs import so many Southern Hemisphere players has really had an enormous effect on the national team. He’s made an assumption, which in the context of a national sports team that does include players who have not been born or resided for long in that country, is often accurate. People are complaining about Brad Shields, a white New Zealander, coming straight into the English team. Because he’s white, it’s not something that sticks out but most people know their team and discussed it when he played. Another example is Bundee Aki, a Polynesian with brown skin, who also caused a lot of debate and disgruntled fans.

I think the context is super important here. Perhaps he’s worded it in a clumsy way, but if you don’t know the backstory you problem shouldn’t accuse him of racism IMO. ( I’ve been spending days discussing racism in NZ, I would call it out if it was ).

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identity

The term racial identity is not an unusual one.

I am of the view that people would believe that they had racial, ethnic and national identities in countries which have no laws relating to this issue.

This is the part I think is racist, which is your MIL:

MIL: well, he might have been born and raised there, but looking at him I can tell he's really Arabic.

The equivalent of what your MIL said, is someone looking at a white All Black, say Ben Smith, and saying, ‘ well he might have been born and raised in NZ, but with a name like that hes not indigenous, I can tell he’s British’

Most people would find that unacceptable. It’s also unacceptable to do that to a POC. Your MIL is def being racist IMO.

Race is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Whilst it isn't illegal to believe stereotypical or negative things about a person/people due to their race (one definition of racism) it is certainly illegal to act on that, ie to discriminate or be violent or incite violence because of a person(s) race - also racism. Also, I believe, it's a hate crime, though I find that a rather nebulous concept.

All agreed. Hate crime is just BS. The law already fully covers any matters relating to assault,abuse,threats etc. It isnt a crime to hate. Its a natural human emotion. Hate crime is Police fantasy la la land speak of course. But we are digressing..

Is this not just ignorance? They didn't make any real derogatory remarks. They don't hate any player who isn't called Jean-Pierre or similarly typical 'french' name. Maybe ignorant, maybe typical of a generation but not racist.

@Simmer I think your confusion remains.

Your in-laws acknowledged that, as this man was playing for France, he was probably "born and raised there" and therefore legally French. They also observed, which you seem incapable of doing through some sort of blind adherence to political correctness, that his ethnic heritage was not French.

Let's try this the other way round. Joanna Lumley was born in Srinagar, India. If I said to you that she can't really be Indian as she looks English would you be equally as outraged? Would you assert that there was literally no possible way I could tell that Joanna Lumley was not "truly Indian"? Are you going to tell me that Joanna Lumley is just as Indian as Ghandi? Or are you able to conceive that there might be different inputs that go into creating someone's identity - some immutable, some chosen - each of which might have more or less import?

I think the mental gymnastics people now go through in order to try and walk a politically correct tightrope is a recipe for disaster. It must be very confusing to not be able to see the world as it really is and instead continue to try and force it through an illogical prism.

@scatterolight
I'm not confused. I read what my MIL said as "he may have been born and raised in France but that doesn't make him France as (if he was) his ethnic background negates this".

Ummmm, I think it's pretty well known that Joanna Lumley is Indian. And yes, I think it would be just as wrong for you to decide that she is not "truly Indian". Yes, she, like most people, may have a varied ethnic background, but it's not for me or you to decide which aspect of this is most important.

But clearly you think you have the authority to make these assertions about people.

@WeepingWillowWeepingWino
"scatter are you saying that a person can identify as a race that they are not? So by your reckoning Rachel Dolezal is black?

Seriously?"

I'm saying you can be legally French AND ethnically African or Asian or anything else. OP essentially thinks the same thing but finds her family racist for articulating it.

I'm not sure what Rachel Dolezal has to do with it. Everyone has an identity comprised of legal, ethnic and cultural characteristics amongst many other things. Some are immutable, some are chosen and some might be wishful.

Absolutely disgusting on their part.

I bet they voted leave