What is your definition of racist?

[GeneralPeter]

Mine is: "Believing others are of lower (or higher) moral worth on account of their race/ethnicity".

What is yours?

I'm not pushing any line or trying to make any point here.

But inspired by many threads where racism is discussed but almost never defined, and aware that there are many very different definitions, I'm curious what MNers think.

I think that’s too deep. I don’t think it’s even as deep as that I think to myself it’s like when people say I am not racist but there seems to be a lot of brown people in this area. That’s racist if you have to mention somebody’s skin colour about mundane stuff then I think you are being racist.
if people that watch TV that say oh my God there’s so many black people in this advert why would that bother you? It doesn’t bother me. I don’t even pick up on all this. I think in the way it’s racist to be like that so I don’t think it’s as deep as what you’re saying

Racism is anything or anyone that prevents people from experiencing justice, dignity and equity based solely on their race or racial identity - not actually my own words, but that in my mind, just about covers this complicated and nuanced topic. Examples: Antisemitism is racism; Discrimination and prejudice based on skin colour, is racism.

I think those examples may or may not be racist, depending on the context.
Are people commenting because they actually think there shouldn't be so many brown people in the area or in some other context?

My child's grammar school has a lot of brown/black children compared to the local area demographic. I don't have a problem with that at all, my child has made friends with children from a variety of backgrounds. But is it factually correct so I think its weird to be afraid to say it for fear of sounding racist!

Similarly there are times when it is important to "see" race. E.g there are a number if medical conditions which are more common in certain ehnic groups, do surely it must be okay for a senior doctor to say to a junior doctor "this patient is asian so be sure to look out for XYZ"?

E.g there are a number if medical conditions which are more common in certain ehnic groups, do surely it must be okay for a senior doctor to say to a junior doctor "this patient is asian so be sure to look out for XYZ"?

I think I get the point that you're trying to make, but this is not necessarily the case. Something can be "more common" in certain groups, without being very common at all. Imagine a rare disease that affects ten men in a million but only one woman in a million — a doctor wouldn't say "Test him for X, he's a man", because it's still very unlikely that a man would have it.

It can then get very problematic if it's not a rare genetic disease, but, say, a particular illegal/dangerous substance that is more popular among certain ethnic groups than others, but again still not very common overall.

And that's before we get to the very poor level of understanding of statistics and probability that most doctors have.

People are actually amazingly similar in terms of genetics. A far better predictor of most medical outcomes is socioeconomic status (or "class", for short). And the majority of everyday racism is not really Nazi-style eugenics-based racism, it's just classism with the lazy shortcut of skin colour.

I understand that for a racist interaction to occur that two conditions need to be met. The first is the actual racist incident itself be it verbal, physical, social or all three.
The second condition is that initiator of the racism is from a dominant group, and the receiver of the racism is from a minority group often the target of racism from the majority.
In my opinion the second condition should not be included as a person who often experiences racism should know very well not to do it themselves.
I am thinking here of the Asian who does not want a non Asian in the family, or a West Indian disliking a person because they are African.

Seeing someone as "less than" based on race or ethnicity.

And the majority of everyday racism is not really Nazi-style eugenics-based racism, it's just classism with the lazy shortcut of skin colour.

Is it that it's a form of classism, or is it moreso that classism and racism are intertwined? I think in many cases, an underlying cause is a sense of superiority over someone else's culture and values.

I'm happy with the equality act definition:

The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because of your race. In the Equality Act, race can mean your colour, or your nationality (including your citizenship). It can also mean your ethnic or national origins, which may not be the same as your current nationality.

The second condition is that initiator of the racism is from a dominant group, and the receiver of the racism is from a minority group often the target of racism from the majority.

Last year I was a guest in someone's house. His mother came to visit while I was there. She tried very hard to get him to kick me out and get a hotel instead; she made the last week of my stay extremely uncomfortable. I found out later that she doesn't like white people or Brits.

I also have a family member who had to hide a romantic relationship from their partner's parents because they didn't want their child dating someone white.

I find it a little strange that these two scenarios are not considered racist because my skin is the wrong colour.

These days, I think it's anything that offends someone of a different race to those they're talking to.

Realistically, it should be a legitimate belief in superiority over another race.

E.g there are a number if medical conditions which are more common in certain ehnic groups, do surely it must be okay for a senior doctor to say to a junior doctor "this patient is asian so be sure to look out for XYZ"?
I think I get the point that you're trying to make, but this is not necessarily the case. Something can be "more common" in certain groups, without being very common at all. Imagine a rare disease that affects ten men in a million but only one woman in a million — a doctor wouldn't say "Test him for X, he's a man", because it's still very unlikely that a man would have it.

@samarrange This literally does happen. For colour-blindness. Most males aren't colour-blind but almost everyone who is colour-blind is male. So opticians look out for it more in males than in females.

There are loads of illnesses which are more common in certain races. From eye conditions to diabetes to certain types of skin conditions.

It's daft to pretend that there are no physical differences across the races (or sexes). And to suggest that recognising this is the same as eugenics is a massive jump. I can acknowledge that black people have different type of hair to white people without hating or discrimitating against anyone, much less wanting to eradicate anyone!

We should be applying the same criteria to racism as something like ageism. We all know that people can be all different ages, it's only an ageism if we treat them unfavourably because of it.

I think it's prejudice relating to someone's( sometimes perceived) ethnicity, nationality, background or physical features .

Not all undesirable behaviour experienced by some of of a different ethnic background is racism , however, it is often claimed as such .

Treating someone differently on the basis of their race

I don’t agree with this because it implies that circumstances can be racist even without any human prejudice. I know the term racism is often used in this way but to me it stretches the meaning so far that it becomes difficult to understand and use. As an example, a lack of uptake of vaccination in Roma communities is a completely different situation to having an employee who has racially insulted a Roma colleague. It doesn’t really make sense to call both situations racism as the causes, attitudes and solutions are completely different.

Most males aren't colour-blind but almost everyone who is colour-blind is male. So opticians look out for it more in males than in females.

Sure, but colourblindness affects about <googles> one man in 12, and one woman in 200. In other words, it is not a rare condition. When the base rate is high, it does make sense to use shortcuts like this.

To give another example, women know that a substantial number of men commit (sexual or other) assault, whereas very few women do. It is therefore not "misandrist" for women to be cautious around men, and most men understand this.

My point is that this logic breaks down when the event is very rare - much rarer than colourblindness. Even if 60% (let's say - I really don't know) of terrorists right now are brown-skinned people[*], terrorist attacks are sufficiently rare that it makes no sense to pull every brown-skinned person in for questioning after a bomb goes off.

[*] Back in the 1970s, terrorists were Irish, but very few Irish people were terrorists. However, the public and indeed the police did not really understand this, and Irish people were subjected to all kinds of harassment, up to and including being fitted up and sent to prison, because of a feeling that "Well, maybe this Irish person isn't actually a terrorist, but I bet he's friends with a few".

I hope this thread manages to continue courteously as it’s very interesting.

I think discriminating against someone based on their ethnicity or skin colour is racism, and that the power dynamic shouldn’t be the arbiter of that.
My DC went to a black majority school and as white kids were occasionally taunted for their speech patterns or ignorance. I don’t think they were at all protected by their status as ‘children of the oppressors’. They were disparaged for being different from the black kids. Overall it was a great school and I’m glad they went there- it was an active choice on our part- but there were some moments where they were discriminated against for their colour.

A system of belief, behavior, and structure that assigns value or devalues people based on perceived racial or ethnic characteristics, leading to discrimination, prejudice, or unequal treatment. This is not just for individual attitudes but also for systemic and structural aspects.

Seeing someone as less than. It is an epidemic in itself.

there's a difference between racial discrimination and racism
racial discrimination=treating someone differently, or making assumptions about them based on their race/ethnicity
the case where a white person experienced hostility from a black person is an example of this
racism=the above and other instances where there is a power dynamic at a societal level, in the UK this invariably favours white people, eg when black youths are treated with suspicion by the police

incidentally I would be v surprised if a doctor had a poor understanding of statistics and probability

Only other people are racist.

Discriminating against people based on their looks/ethnicity/culture, often combined with their religion.

If you have to ask, you have a problem. People are people. End of.

I think that’s a rather silly attitude. You simply accept the attitudes toward race and racism of the society and time you happen to be born in? Because thinking is for bad people?

I disagree with the religion aspect, particularly, and am circumspect around the culture aspect.

Ethnicity is immutable. Religious belief and cultural practice are not.

It would be completely illogical to treat someone prejudicially on the basis of their ethnicity, something about them that just is, irrespective of anything they do or believe.

Religious belief and cultural practices,on the other hand, can be changed and should be allowed to be interrogated without a dog-whistle call of racism. I'm not talking about mocking someone else's beliefs, religious or cultural, rather that we should not feel unable to question elements of human constructs that aren't fact because we would be branded racist to do so.