Racist or not?

[claw3]

At our local train station at the weekend with ds 12, he was looking at news stand, while i was getting train tickets.

Anyhow at news stand there was a section which had black magazines ie black hair, black beauty, black music etc, etc. Ds asked me why do black people have their own mags and would it be racist if white people had their own magazines ie white hair, white beauty etc etc.

Your thoughts, would it??

Neither term is racist but there is no need for the term WHITE HAIR to be put as a title with the hundreds of magazines that are available to us white people

Black hair and black beauty magazines are very few and far between and the ones that are out there are usually stuck on the back shelf the word black is used to attract the correct audience BLACK in itself is a marketing tool

Also your find Mags like Vouge Glamour hairstyles etc are not just aimed at white people which is why they are not called White. Where as black hair is aimed at one type of customer black people.

anybody and everybody can be racist.

Putting 'white' in the title would be pointless, but not racist. Like some of you have said, these magazines with 'black ....' on them are aimed at 'black' people, 'black' hair etc... in the same way you have described other magazines as not catering for your needs, they cater for the needs of 'white' people and 'white' needs. So by putting white in the title would make it the same, regardless of majority/minority, it wouldn't make it racist. It would however be pointless as like you say people know who certain books/magazines are 'aimed' at, just like 'black' 'asian' etc people would know what magazines are 'aimed' at them. The magazines are for sale to anyone and everyone, so unless the 'black' magazines where not avaliable for 'white' people to buy or versa visa then it is not discriminating against a group of people for their race.

The OP only asked if it would be racist, and wanted a simple answer, she seems to have taken your points and asked for confirmation on them to make sure she has understood correctly and still people are contradicting each other. Everybody has different views on what would be regarded as 'rasist' or not.

Claw said "Saadia - Your reasoning has been black people can use black as a descriptive word because they are in the minority. White cannot be used as a descriptive word because it is the majority, thereby making it racist.

How is this equality?. I doubt my son would understand it, he sees people as people regardless."

Actually the point I think saaia was making was that 'black' identifies a specific minority and therefore can be regarded as specific information.
'White' is almost inevitably superflouous as most publications expect white people to form their readership so, in that context, white could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to exclude non whites.

I think I have made that as simple as possible. Yet I still suspect that it will remain unfathomable to the wilfully dim

""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]""

The LEGAL definition of racial discrimination. It doesn't exclude any race. It also doesn't mention that if a race is in the minority it doesn't 'count' if they discriminate.

Using 'white' as a descriptive became synomynous with racism when it was used in discriminative political contexts and also to promote seperatist groups such as 'white supremists. In corrolation slogans such as 'black power' are also politically dubious - but since black people have a history of being systematically discriminated against by white, people - it's race equality groups that are understandably unhappy about it.

White people have no 'equality' to aspire too, although the fav rhetoric of the BNP, et al, is that white people are becoming oppressed and their freedoms constrained - which is a nonsence. This is why for 'white' to be used would be an unnecessary inflamatory political statement of their past oppression, where use of the work 'black, is a signal of growing black freedoms and their rights to exist as equals beside a previous 'elite'.

It's politics. You might think it's conflicting, but that doesn't make it wrong in the context of history. Human politics is a messy business becasue humans are complex. Extreme groups like to break issues down into black and white issues, figurativly and literally, but real politics is a very delicate balancing act. Extreme groups always target that balance and try to make it seem unstable.

unnecessary inflamatory political statement of their past oppression of black people, I should have said

pagwatch - "But i fail to see why black/white in a title are the total opposite, one is considered racist, the other isn't"

'If you really cannot see why, despite all our combined efforts to explain, then I suggest you let your ds read this thread, because he might get it.'

I dont think thats what Saadia meant, but still seen as you are the exceptionally bright one on this thread, perhaps you can read minds too!

you have not replied to

"'black' identifies a specific minority and therefore can be regarded as specific information.
'White' is almost inevitably superflouous as most publications expect white people to form their readership so, in that context, white could reasonably be regarded as an attempt to exclude non whites."
that part I notice.

I did not say I was exceptionally bright. I suggsted that you were being particularly dim. Those two are not the same.
And actually whilst I think you are being dim I am not sure that you actually are dim. I think you are under the impression that by ignoring the arguements being made to you , you are being amazingly smart and feisty or some such. Which is a little misguided as you are achieveing the oppsite effect

Pagwatch - Im not ignoring your questions, i thought i had already answered.

To put black in a title purely on a descriptive level is exceeding what is necessary. To suggest that black people would not realise these mags are aimed at them, unless black was in the title is just plain silly.

And it's not limited to black/white. In less enlightened times the immigration of south east asian people into Australia was referred to as the 'yellow peril'. So even though you can get magazines that are targetted at Chinese people, they aren't going to be called 'yellow' - that would be offensive because of the history.

The usage of 'black', 'white', 'yellow' is most definitely NOT the same.

I lived in Japan for a while - the mainstream media, including fashion magazines, was (unsurprisingly) aimed at the Japanese market, with Japanese models, even though it wasn't explicity stated. THere were papers/magazines aimed at Westerners - can't remember what they were called - and no, in this case 'white' publications weren't considered racist, just a niche market....

Monkeytrousers - Good answer, makes perfect senses. To empower one group and exclude another based on history, is this not adding to racial tension?

why is it up to you to decide what is necessary or excessive?
And why are they not allowed to address what they are in the title?
Most fishing magazines have a..err. fish on the front, What car tends to have a car... why is it a problem?
It is not unusual for that industry

Pagwatch - i was answering your question as you requested, you asked whether it was superfluous!

No, it doesn't seem so. There will always be people who will attempt to exploit the weaknesses of others, be they black, white, or whatever - young disaffected men are especially vulnerable to this kind of manipulation which tries to transform any personal insecuities with society; being poor (immigrants get mobile phones and council houses), not being successful with women (the myth of black men being well endowed and a threat to white men), etc, etc.

But on the whole, people grumble about the stuff in their own back yard and if society is working well, live and let live. If something catastropic happens to upset that stability, there is always a rise in extremism riding on that energy though - and always enough young fools to do the dirty work.

It isn'tthough. It is operating accordingto the industry norms which arethat often minority magazine clearly identify their target readership in both the title and the cover. And mainstream magazines don't need to do that.

Pagwatch - As you said who am i to decide, the same could be said of you, could it not?

"the myth of black men being well endowed"

oh but some of them are

Claw3 having black in the title is not empowering black people its just stating black hair products

Its not racist its not saying only black people can read this and its saying that black people are better than white people because they have a whole magazine dedicated to there hair.

You are beyond arrogant if you cannot see this and explain this to a 12 year old

there is a market out there for magazines dedicated to products suitable for black people because in general magazines they barely cover these products

The title Black hair is just a title. As previous posts have stated it would be pointless having a magazine called white hair since these magazines are not aimed at just white people they cover a range of things.

Yes, it's that as well, I agree. But the whole politics behind it is important too.

sorry my last comment wasn't very helpful

LOL FAQ I agree

sorry my last comment wasn't very helpful

May not of been helpful but ummm truthful thou

Claw3

Are you just lonely?

You seem intent on prolonging a conversation which, on every level that could possibly be called interesting or engaging, has long since finished.

I only hope your son isn't waiting on the outcome of this for an answer - he must be beside himself with frustration!