[fuzznbass]

I'd definately say that some of the ones on TSR are mentally ill.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by TheHansa)
Since you don't believe that white working class people suffer:

Correction. I wholeheartedly agree that white working class people suffer. You have incorrectly gleaned or deduced that from what I've said. That is not the issue. The point I was making was that white working class are indeed the same race as white middle or upper class, nothing more than that.

(Original post by marcusfox)
So what you are saying is that you can't be racist towards a race that's politically more powerful than a minority?

Yes, roughly yes. But you can be reverse-racist, racially prejudiced, racially stereotypical, etc. towards them. My main argument is with the word "racist".
The mistake everyone makes is that by thinking that racial crimes are any less serious for not being "racist". The fact that they are not racist does not make them any the less serious.

Just to be clear - A white man can be racist in this country towards a black man, but a black man cannot be racist towards a white man seeing as whites hold the economic and political power in this country. HOWEVER - and this is the important bit. A black man can commit a racially orientated crime towards a white man (reverse racism, racial assualt, racial prejudice) and it is EQUALLY as serious as the crime of the white man towards the black man.

Just because the use of the word "racist" or "racism" is technically wrong does not make the crime any less serious, or any less orientated around race.

The same thing applies towards sexism.

There's no real use arguing this, because I am right and the rest of you are also right. It's a language thing. I just think that the far right have cottoned on to the fact that they can bandy the word "racist" around for emotive effect to further their cause, whereas some people including myself would question whether the use of that particular word is actually correct. I put foward the idea that they use it for propoganda. The same as the repetetive use of the word "indigenous". Which is also debatable.

[frankieboy]

And another thing just for the record - I actually agree that white people are now suffering more and more racially motivated crimes against them adn we have a problem with this. But I disagree with the use of the word "racist" on technical grounds.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Just to be clear - A white man can be racist in this country towards a black man, but a black man cannot be racist towards a white man seeing as whites hold the economic and political power in this country. HOWEVER - and this is the important bit. A black man can commit a racially orientated crime towards a white man (reverse racism, racial assualt, racial prejudice) and it is EQUALLY as serious as the crime of the white man towards the black man.

So, would you say it cannot be racist if a white man in Zimbabwe uses unmentionable slurs to a black man?

[frankieboy]

(Original post by marcusfox)
So, would you say it cannot be racist if a white man in Zimbabwe uses unmentionable slurs to a black man?

That's a very good question, one which I ponder often myself. I would definitely count it as a racial attack, or an attack based on race but racist? By my reckoning, perhaps not. Seems that the white man is oppressed in Zimbabwe, so there the roles are reversed.

It's the layer of oppression that makes it "racist" as such.

We all agree that attacks based on race are wrong. Where people disagree with me on this thread (and I thought they might) is about the layer of oppression that makes something "racist". And where it becomes complicated like that in this country wher an ethnic minority attacks a white man, is you've got the oppressed attacking the oppressor. Hence "reverse racism".

Another example, I believe is "horizontal racism" or "transverse racism" - an ethnic group slurring another ethinc group because of race. Both on the same social and economic levels.

To me the word "racism" signifies a race higher up the social and economic standing abusing someone of a race lower on that standing, and therefore oppressing them from that position.

[frankieboy]

Just to boot - for it to be racism, there has to be a slur there, a placing of the receiver into an inferior position. Saying black people are not as intelligent for example is racist. Sayng black people tend to be faster runners, or have deeper voices is not racist. It's racial stereotyping, which is slightly different.

I think nowadays in this culture of everyone screaming "racist" at every opportunity, I notice they often mistake racial stereotyping for racism.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Just to boot - for it to be racism, there has to be a slur there, a placing of the receiver into an inferior position. Saying black people are not as intelligent for example is racist. Sayng black people tend to be faster runners, or have deeper voices is not racist. It's racial stereotyping, which is slightly different.

I think nowadays in this culture of everyone screaming "racist" at every opportunity, I notice they often mistake racial stereotyping for racism.

How about saying 'White people tend to make inferior runners?' Or 'White people tend to be more intelligent'?

[frankieboy]

(Original post by marcusfox)
How about saying 'White people tend to make inferior runners?'

Racial stereotype (derogatory).

(Original post by marcusfox)
Or 'White people tend to be more intelligent'?

Racist. This implies that non-whites are intellectually inferior.

Both of these assume we are in a location of white social, political, and economic power. In Zimbabwe, for example, the first one would become racist, the second one would become racial stereotyping (complimentary) - similar to if I said "Black girls are in general more beautiful than white girls" (in this country) .

[Mexican Red Knee]

The definition of racist is often over used and taken out of context so to define a racist is very difficult as its a broad word.

If someone wants their country to remain indigenous are their racist?

If someone wants no mixed race are their race?

If someone wants Muslim extremists our are their racist?

If someone wants illegal immigration people deported are their race?

If someone wants immigration completely stopped are their race?

If someone is proud of their country are their race?

There is so many "if" it's a very difficult thing to define.

But no they are not mentally ill, it is a belief and an opinion, who are you to choose what a person believes?

If someone says that white people in Britain are getting treat like 2nd class citizens are their racist?

If someone even questions certain things about the Holocaust are their race?

Etc etc etc.

It is like saying are religious people mentally ill?

[Old Father Time]

Racists are those who are first gullible to what they hear, and secondly are deluded into believing that this opinion is the right one.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by frankieboy)
Racial stereotype (derogatory).



Racist. This implies that non-whites are intellectually inferior.

Both of these assume we are in a location of white social, political, and economic power. In Zimbabwe, for example, the first one would become racist, the second one would become racial stereotyping (complimentary) - similar to if I said "Black girls are in general more beautiful than white girls" (in this country) .

Saying black people tend to be faster runners is thus racist, because it implies that whites (or other races) are inferior.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by Old Father Time)
Racists are those who are first gullible to what they hear, and secondly are deluded into believing that this opinion is the right one.

You could also say that for the sheep who believe everything in the media.

(Original post by marcusfox)
Saying black people tend to be faster runners is thus racist, because it implies that whites (or other races) are inferior.

There is genetic differences among races, whites swim faster, blacks have smaller brains (not saying it alters intelligence), blacks have lower IQ's, blacks have a higher crime rate...and so on and so on.

If you don't believe there is differences among races then you are sadly mistaken, that is not racist to say what I said neither.

[BACTSR2]

I'm not answering your question but I have a problem with the premise.

Modern, 20th Century racism, based on notions of white supremacy was actually connected to Darwinian thought. In other words, yes, racists from that period would accept that they are genetically linked to Black people, but they would see themselves as more highly evolved or, to put a more scientifically correct spin on it, they find the qualities that thrived in Northern Europe to be qualities admirable and physically attractive.

[pink pineapple]

Depends how extreme their views are. But a loit is to do with ignorance

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by BACTSR2)
I'm not answering your question but I have a problem with the premise.

Modern, 20th Century racism, based on notions of white supremacy was actually connected to Darwinian thought. In other words, yes, racists from that period would accept that they are genetically linked to Black people, but they would see themselves as more highly evolved or, to put a more scientifically correct spin on it, they find the qualities that thrived in Northern Europe to be qualities admirable and physically attractive.

But when you hear people say "we are in the 21st century there is no place for racism" is just utter stupidity, every century that has passed there has always been racism, it will never go away, that is a fact.

I don't see how it is racist to acknowledge and understand that between races there is differences.

In fairness as well it seems only white people are considered racist, it's a double standard word.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)

If you don't believe there is differences among races then you are sadly mistaken, that is not racist to say what I said neither.

I think you missed the overall conversation that led to you taking what I was sayng out of context. I'm not saying there aren't differences between races.

The person I was replying to was saying that it wasn't racist to say black people tend to be faster runners, but it was racist to say that black people are not as intelligent because in the second example there was a negative slur.

So I said how about saying 'White people tend to make inferior runners?' Or 'White people tend to be more intelligent'? (as there was no direct negative slur on other races)

He replied that the second example was still racist as the negative slur was there as it implied other races were inferior. So I turned it round on him and said that:

Saying black people tend to be faster runners is thus racist, because it implies that whites (or other races) are inferior.

[Mexican Red Knee]

(Original post by marcusfox)
I think you missed the overall conversation that led to you taking what I was sayng out of context. I'm not saying there aren't differences between races.

The person I was replying to was saying that it wasn't racist to say black people tend to be faster runners, but it was racist to say that black people are not as intelligent because in the second example there was a negative slur.

So I said how about saying 'White people tend to make inferior runners?' Or 'White people tend to be more intelligent'? (as there was no direct negative slur on other races)

He replied that the second example was still racist as the negative slur was there as it implied other races were inferior. So I turned it round on him and said that:

Saying black people tend to be faster runners is thus racist, because it implies that whites (or other races) are inferior.

I get what you meant now, my apologies.

It's quite well known that white people are more intelligent (that is not to say you don't get intelligent black people, of course you do but on an overall whites are more intelligent).

The same as it's quite well known that black people are faster runners (that is also not to say you don't get fast white people, of course you do but against overall blacks are more dominant).

What really makes me giggle is when left wing people and non-whites try and say that race is not biological its only a social construct, you then ask them "how can you be racist if its not real?" shuts them up instantly, of course race is biological (check here for example), just sometimes the categories we put people in are socially constructed, i.e some people (including themselves) consider Jews to be a race while some don't and just say its a religion (Judaism), I also find this to be an interesting article accordingly proving that Jews are a race.

[Kruz]

(Original post by whofan)
racism is individual discrimination by collective guilt.

white people are the main victims of racism in modern britain.

Oh no like we haven't heard that before

[frankieboy]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Saying black people tend to be faster runners is thus racist, because it implies that whites (or other races) are inferior.

I think you missed the crux of my point. In a society of white power, it would not be considered racist. In a society of black power where (and if) whites are oppressed, it would.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
There is genetic differences among races, whites swim faster, blacks have smaller brains (not saying it alters intelligence), blacks have lower IQ's, blacks have a higher crime rate...and so on and so on.

I'd be very careful before attributing these points to genetics. Many theories suggest that the reason for these differences (if indeed they are true) are cultural, environmental and socio-economic etc. Attributing these points to genetics is a very dangerous road, which could easily lead to racism.
If you're going to roll with these (probably fairly scientifically inaccurate) statements, then another outcome that will emerge is that Asians have higher IQ's than whites. In my opinion, also due to cultural differences. Nothing to do with genetics.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
If you don't believe there is differences among races then you are sadly mistaken.

Of course there are differences. It's why there are differences that is the big question, and it's not necessarily to do with genetics (depending on what the differences are). For example, to say that black people have a higher crime rate is a socio-economic difference. To say they have darker skin is a genetic difference.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
But when you hear people say "we are in the 21st century there is no place for racism" is just utter stupidity, every century that has passed there has always been racism, it will never go away, that is a fact.

Just because there has always been racism does not logically follow that there need be racism in the 21st century. I do however agree that unfortunately it looks like it will never go away. I also don't agree that you can state this as a "fact". It's more likely a probability.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
I don't see how it is racist to acknowledge and understand that between races there is differences.

It depends on what environment you're in, and what differences you point out. To be in a white power society and state that black people have a higher crime rate, and lower IQ's is indeed racist, because it is derogatory, and also attributes these "differences" to race, whereas they are in fact the result of black people being socially and economically, and politically downtrodden.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
In fairness as well it seems only white people are considered racist, it's a double standard word.

Indeed, in a white power society, only white people can be racist, depending on whether the race that they're insulting has a history of being repressed by whites. This is reversed in a black power society.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
It's quite well known that white people are more intelligent (that is not to say you don't get intelligent black people, of course you do but on an overall whites are more intelligent).

Again, if we go by the studies that state this, unscientific though they are, we have to accept that Asians take top dollar. Whites are not the most intelligent. These tests also, only use the intelligence quotient to determine overall intelligence, which is not necessarily that accurate an indicator. Personally I don't buy it, in the same respect as I don't buy the fact that Asians are more intelligent due to genetics. They score higher on the tests due to social and cultural differences, not genetic differences.

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
What really makes me giggle is when left wing people and non-whites try and say that race is not biological its only a social construct.

I would agree with you on this point. Although I think you are too quick to brand them as left wingers or non whites, I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[frankieboy]

(Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
If someone wants their country to remain indigenous are their racist?

If someone wants no mixed race are their race?

If someone wants Muslim extremists our are their racist?

If someone wants illegal immigration people deported are their race?

If someone wants immigration completely stopped are their race?

If someone is proud of their country are their race?

No to all of these.
But to some of them the answer is "No but they are probably pretty stupid and unrealistic". For example this would be the answer to the first two and the penultimate one.