Org Mobile Site
Thread: Define racism!
nm
Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
sorted
sorted
Deleted
Thanks.
Thanks.
Originally Posted by Aries777777:
Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
Yes, exactly. Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
IA, You can call it xenophobia, if you like.
Originally Posted by Aries777777:
Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
sorted
BZZZ. Wrong. Racist: A person who is discriminative against someone because of there race, culture and background
sorted
Racist is someone who judges, stereotypes, or in any other way persecutes someone based solely on race.
To do the same with culture means you're an entho-centrist, not a racist.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Yes, exactly.
IA, You can call it xenophobia, if you like.
Oops sorry mate. No offence, wrong forum.Yes, exactly.
IA, You can call it xenophobia, if you like.
I wish I hadn't had that beer! 
hey i just found an old friend called wikipedia! any uncertainitys you had should be answered here i think...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
A thousand definitions. Most people just go off their own personal one.
I use the academic one I studied and operated off in college. Racism is the advocacy, implementation of, or justification of, systems of inequality and use of power which advantages a favored group and disadvantages others, formally or informally (i.e. through courts and laws or just by default through prejudicial practices by everyday people).
In other words, it has a power component backing it up, or you propose that power (laws, government, punishment for crimes, access to jobs, whatever) should uphold your particular racist views.
Racism just in the sense of "I don't like black people, I think they're stupid" is bigotry and prejudice, and a racist mindset and attitude. But when people break racism down to just being that, they're overlooking the much more important factor of institutionalized (either hidden, or obvious) racism, wielding power to advantage and disadvantage on the basis of race over a whole society, rather than just individually. Slavery was institutionalized racism. The Holocaust was institutionalized racism. These things dwarf "I don't like black people."
Among colonial powers, it being very typical for indigenous people not to be able to testify in court against colonials would be a great example of this, as would apartheid and such. To a lesser extent (but still valid) would be things like harsher legal punishments or substantially higher conviction rates of one race for the same crime as another race.
I use the academic one I studied and operated off in college. Racism is the advocacy, implementation of, or justification of, systems of inequality and use of power which advantages a favored group and disadvantages others, formally or informally (i.e. through courts and laws or just by default through prejudicial practices by everyday people).
In other words, it has a power component backing it up, or you propose that power (laws, government, punishment for crimes, access to jobs, whatever) should uphold your particular racist views.
Racism just in the sense of "I don't like black people, I think they're stupid" is bigotry and prejudice, and a racist mindset and attitude. But when people break racism down to just being that, they're overlooking the much more important factor of institutionalized (either hidden, or obvious) racism, wielding power to advantage and disadvantage on the basis of race over a whole society, rather than just individually. Slavery was institutionalized racism. The Holocaust was institutionalized racism. These things dwarf "I don't like black people."
Among colonial powers, it being very typical for indigenous people not to be able to testify in court against colonials would be a great example of this, as would apartheid and such. To a lesser extent (but still valid) would be things like harsher legal punishments or substantially higher conviction rates of one race for the same crime as another race.
Because we all know that wikipedia can be trusted over someone who is majoring in Anthropology. 
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae:
Because we all know that wikipedia can be trusted over someone who is majoring in Anthropology.
well its usually right Because we all know that wikipedia can be trusted over someone who is majoring in Anthropology.
like koga said everyone has different opinions, but the basic outline as the name suggests, is being discriminative against someone because of race, that surely isn't up for debate?almost everything can be debated to have more than one side to it, but thats the just of it
The LAWFUL redistricting of states can be based on race to disenfranchise a race or ethnic group. Is that not racist?
Racism takes many forms. Stereotypes come from somewhere though...
Racism takes many forms. Stereotypes come from somewhere though...
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
The LAWFUL redistricting of states can be based on race to disenfranchise a race or ethnic group. Is that not racist?
Racism takes many forms. Stereotypes come from somewhere though...
Absolutely, fixing voting structures so that people of a certain race have minimal or disproportionately smaller control over the outcome of the election than their percentage of the local population is indeed formal racism. Either by intent or by default. (Someone might just be doing it to "win", as say a Republican, but it's still engaging in racist tools to do so.)The LAWFUL redistricting of states can be based on race to disenfranchise a race or ethnic group. Is that not racist?
Racism takes many forms. Stereotypes come from somewhere though...
Originally Posted by Aries777777:
well its usually right like koga said everyone has different opinions, but the basic outline as the name suggests, is being discriminative against someone because of race, that surely isn't up for debate?
almost everything can be debated to have more than one side to it, but thats the just of it
According to Scientific Theory, everything is up for debate. Even simple things such as definitions of what racism is. Comte was the first to take a scientific approach to society (a radical change from the philosphes of the day).well its usually right
like koga said everyone has different opinions, but the basic outline as the name suggests, is being discriminative against someone because of race, that surely isn't up for debate?almost everything can be debated to have more than one side to it, but thats the just of it
I don't take issue with classifying racism, but I do with incorrectly identifying ethnocentrism as racism. In today's society, stereotyping based on culture ("Look at that Japanese commercial. It's so weird. Why can't they make something normal like we do?" or "Feh. Why can't Ethiopians just farm instead of being lazy? That would help the starvation issues if they just get off their butts and work.") is classified as ethnocentrism.
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae:
According to Scientific Theory, everything is up for debate. Even simple things such as definitions of what racism is. Comte was the first to take a scientific approach to society (a radical change from the philosphes of the day).
I don't take issue with classifying racism, but I do with incorrectly identifying ethnocentrism as racism. In today's society, stereotyping based on culture ("Look at that Japanese commercial. It's so weird. Why can't they make something normal like we do?" or "Feh. Why can't Ethiopians just farm instead of being lazy? That would help the starvation issues if they just get off their butts and work.") is classified as ethnocentrism.
True. What happens is that people get lazy and want to leap from making a specific comment to painting something as a universal truth across a whole group. So the line does frequently get blurred. I mean, you might have someone legitimately making the observation of, let's say for instance, "I did missionary work in Uganda and seriously, the men there are lazy... I'm not trying to sound racist, but it's cultural there, the men are used to the women doing all the real work." But then someone else might go "YEAH, and you know the black people near my house, they're lazy too, they never work and get welfare." Just as an example of how people blur that line.According to Scientific Theory, everything is up for debate. Even simple things such as definitions of what racism is. Comte was the first to take a scientific approach to society (a radical change from the philosphes of the day).
I don't take issue with classifying racism, but I do with incorrectly identifying ethnocentrism as racism. In today's society, stereotyping based on culture ("Look at that Japanese commercial. It's so weird. Why can't they make something normal like we do?" or "Feh. Why can't Ethiopians just farm instead of being lazy? That would help the starvation issues if they just get off their butts and work.") is classified as ethnocentrism.
Originally Posted by Aries777777:
almost everything can be debated
my point made earlier exactly.......almost everything can be debated
isnt this 4 the backroom? one mans curiousity has turned into a debate, as you said everything is set up for debate...
(Pseudo)To the backroom...and awaaaaay!
I always felt that the simplest definition is believing one race to be intrinsically better than another.
I believe this subject will be better served and debated in the Back Room.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Absolutely, fixing voting structures so that people of a certain race have minimal or disproportionately smaller control over the outcome of the election than their percentage of the local population is indeed formal racism. Either by intent or by default. (Someone might just be doing it to "win", as say a Republican, but it's still engaging in racist tools to do so.)
Democrats do it plenty, as well. The entire system is based around this sort of thing...Absolutely, fixing voting structures so that people of a certain race have minimal or disproportionately smaller control over the outcome of the election than their percentage of the local population is indeed formal racism. Either by intent or by default. (Someone might just be doing it to "win", as say a Republican, but it's still engaging in racist tools to do so.)
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
Democrats do it plenty, as well. The entire system is based around this sort of thing...
Aye. The Dems have made there living post-64 telling blacks that they cant succeed on their own...and they wonder why the hispanics are overtaking them even though they have been here for allot less time. Funny really.Democrats do it plenty, as well. The entire system is based around this sort of thing...
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Aye. The Dems have made there living post-64 telling blacks that they cant succeed on their own...and they wonder why the hispanics are overtaking them even though they have been here for allot less time. Funny really.
As interesting as that is.... I see no evidence that Dems make a concerted effort to knock white people off the voting lists so that a greater percentage of Dem votes are being counted than Rep ones. The opposite has quite a bit of evidence, though.Aye. The Dems have made there living post-64 telling blacks that they cant succeed on their own...and they wonder why the hispanics are overtaking them even though they have been here for allot less time. Funny really.
By the way, it was the Civil Rights movement that asserted that rights on paper without economic opportunity made equality pointless. Not the Democratic Party. And I happen to agree with it. Tell some guy he's equal but can never get a job, or a loan, or start a business, and he's never going to be equal.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
As interesting as that is.... I see no evidence that Dems make a concerted effort to knock white people off the voting lists so that a greater percentage of Dem votes are being counted than Rep ones. The opposite has quite a bit of evidence, though.
Thats not what I'm talking about.As interesting as that is.... I see no evidence that Dems make a concerted effort to knock white people off the voting lists so that a greater percentage of Dem votes are being counted than Rep ones. The opposite has quite a bit of evidence, though.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Thats not what I'm talking about.
Then I have no idea why you said it because racism was brought up in reference to redistricting voting districts. Which usually translates into, trying to cut out constituencies unlikely to vote for you. This was done in Texas to create the "republican revolution" and essentially minimize the importance of minority votes and create a very dominant, long-term Rep majority in state government.Thats not what I'm talking about.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Then I have no idea why you said it because racism was brought up in reference to redistricting voting districts. Which usually translates into, trying to cut out constituencies unlikely to vote for you. This was done in Texas to create the "republican revolution" and essentially minimize the importance of minority votes and create a very dominant, long-term Rep majority in state government.
Gerrymandering! I misread your post I apologizeThen I have no idea why you said it because racism was brought up in reference to redistricting voting districts. Which usually translates into, trying to cut out constituencies unlikely to vote for you. This was done in Texas to create the "republican revolution" and essentially minimize the importance of minority votes and create a very dominant, long-term Rep majority in state government.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Gerrymandering! I misread your post I apologize
No probs.Gerrymandering! I misread your post I apologize
The infamous distract in west Texas. And to think the Supreme court only had a problem with that ONE! 
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
The infamous distract in west Texas. And to think the Supreme court only had a problem with that ONE!
Where are the other problems?The infamous distract in west Texas. And to think the Supreme court only had a problem with that ONE!
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Where are the other problems?
If I remember correctly parts of Houston looked pretty "if-y" and so did some of the districts in south Texas (from Corpus to the border etc).Where are the other problems?
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
If I remember correctly parts of Houston looked pretty "if-y" and so did some of the districts in south Texas (from Corpus to the border etc).
Yea I know the Suburbs of San Antonio are in Ciros district. Those guys must be hurtingIf I remember correctly parts of Houston looked pretty "if-y" and so did some of the districts in south Texas (from Corpus to the border etc).
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO