Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

definition of racism? Is it due to Racialization or the traditional dictionary def.? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    This video rly got me thinkin mane
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Racism is a word of ambiguous meaning. It is applied far to liberally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Racism is just another form of good old-fashioned tribalism and its genetic imprint, for obvious advantages on the ground in terms of survival. Were we all in this world to look just the same, a truly one-race world, and what would have been different in history? Slaves would still have been traded all over the world, that never happened due to the colour of anybody's skin or their racial background.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'll go through this as it goes;

    (a) Race as technology segment - nonsense. If no power existed, if every human being was ordained with fundamental equality and that was the only change made to society race would still exist. It does not predispose power nor is it intrinsically connected. Before travel, when humans could only walk and feared water race still existed, there was no cultural intermingling at the time but they were still of a race. 'To manage the unruly' also doesnt make sense. It sets a framework that a category in objective existence is used to manage the unruly of any race. Plenty of people of all races are unruly, race is not a factor in controlling them unless the people themselves are stupid enough to bind themselves to the term.
    (ai) Disproves his own theorem by admitting equality of all citizens is a generally accepted precept of liberal society. Therefore there is no obvious underclass or clear oppression by virtue of things existing as he supposes them to.

    (b) a state exists to preserve itself. Obviously. If a state existed in any other manner than self preservation there would not be a state. This is why power is decentralised (democratic elections, fixed terms etc) rather than the state abolished. Peace and justice keep a state in power. Look at the overthrow of Caesar, the French Revolution, the English Civil War and plenty of other historical examples. In order to preserve itself a state must act for the people else they demolish it. Paying out benefits doesnt help the state, but it keeps cohesion that allows the state to carry on existing. Power is an illusion that exists only as long as people buy into it and politicians know this.

    (c) A non sequitur and fundamental misunderstanding of history saying they preached liberty for all whilst owning slaves. At the time the historical context was slaves were accepted as property, it would be the equivalent of a future movement demanding 'free the dogs from human oppression' and people saying of us 'their opinions on everything were wrong because they kept pets' and abolishing equality laws or doing whatever they so pleased. Its an arbitrary derailment of the discussion. It wasnt considered in the same way they didnt consider to set hunting dogs free, or horses, they were property (albeit living property). No i am not saying slaves were subhuman before anyone misrepresents me, what i am saying is slavery existed for thousands of years, of course it took people a while to challenge it - and of course people didn't consider slaves to be equally deserving of liberty due to their form of existence.

    (d) it rules out certain groups. Name one. As a person who has studied in law i can say without exception so far that not a single law has 'unless you're muslim/a woman/black/whatever minority you like, then this law doesnt apply'. In the modern era this simply isnt how rules work as he admitted 'equality for all citizens' is a precept and slaves no longer exist making people equal in the humanistic sense, thus the rules apply to all equally. Again this is historical context, i cannot murder my dog. I can kill my dog but legally it is not recognised as murder because of the dogs contextual existence at this point in history. If i kill ANY person then the law recognises that as murder. Its not racially charged as to how the law is applied. He's also complaining about learning. Mistakes arent racial; hillsborough, bloody sunday and the miner protests prove this - mistakes are corrected as they are encountered hence amendments to laws and social practices. Up to this point he hasnt in fact answered why 'race is used to preserve the state' as his discussion hasnt brought in race once as a direct point.

    (e) outright bias. To say the law penalises wearing the Burka or being involved in BLM is an outright lie. France banned the Burks for security reasons after multiple tests concluded it was impossible to assess even the persons gender with a burka on and islamic law does not require the wearing of a burka, in fact only muhammeds brides wore them. The burka is an expression of self importance - this being the words of a muslim. The religion is not penalised and islam isnt a race anyway. BLM activists have hurled bricks at police cars and officers, blocked streets, aggravated nuisance, threatening and intimidating behaviour, loitering with intent and other crimes, filing false police reports and attempting to racially aggravate and commit racially aggravated crimes but no arrests have been made (look up TL DR and his BLM Dindu nuffin video for a comprehensive explanation).

    (f) in the eyes of sovereign power you are a threat, whether they are consciously aware or not. Attempting to measure the unconscious and presuppose from guesswork. Also if those claiming benefits are a threat to the state why does it continue to hand them out and aggressively defend doing so?

    (g) the real context. we dont push out a race, we push out criminals their race is irrelevant. If he means by protecting borders then its not race, its a case of we dont have enough stuff, room or money to support everyone so we back the people already in those lands above the right of people not in them to come and take all their stuff - as inherently to move to another country you take up land and resources in a different power structure. This is not the 'they steal our jobs argument', it is the economic reality of adding one more person to the population from a group outside of it. There's a reason mass immigration is in to western countries, they have more stuff and people want some of it. He's also being racist himself, oh lets assume theres a group we consider unruly and are racialised. Except for nobody does that except him, he is strawmanning and in doing so projecting his own world view. Sovereign power controls those who threaten the social cohesion that lie at its foundations, this is fundamentally against racism as race tensions quickly escalate in to chaos as history has shown (ie Mugabe). The distinguishing feature is their lawbreaking. Thats what sets them apart. The star wasnt to set them apart, it was to mark them as the group who had been set apart and jews were hardly vulnerable, they were in massive numbers and controlled a lot of the industries - hence Germany's reaction. They were poor and they picked on those who held the wealth because their kids were starving in the streets of Berlin. Yes they set them apart in some way, but that is to justify what they did, not the reason for doing it.

    (h) and we say everybody with that feature is like that. No, we dont. You know who does? Cultural marxists, "all white people are x and they oppress all black people who are y and all muslims who are z". That is their opinion. Most people know not all muslims or not all black people, but they accept that generalisations have to be made and if a group disproportionately does something they will become stereotyped for it the same way cultures are stereotyped for their actions. These generalisations are born out of reality, they dont just pop out of thin air. Also what race is excluded from society? That statement is unjustified nonsense, the only way to prove it is legally ie in law which it does not exist so the argument comes down to 'i feel'.

    (i) 'Skin colour and genetics ie melanin levels and inherited traits, dont define race. This doesnt need explanation as to why its an inherently stupid statement. Hair and eye colour are universal, there are x colours present in all races. A finite list that any race can have. Differences in actual appearance ie skin colour, eye shape, nose shape etc are fundamental genetic differences by geographic reason which is literally a fancy way of saying race. The rules for race come from power. Er no. Cameron doesnt define what is Asian, where that person comes from geographically defines that. He cannot look at someone from Tunisia and say 'you're white american' and it becomes so.

    (j) an american citizen is still racially japanese. I am still racially part Scandinavian and part Italian despite not being a citizen of those countries. Race is geographic. My ancestors geographically were based in these places and so i have some of their race within me. The vast majority is traditionally of my home country and therefore thats my identifier. In the same way these japanese people were still vast majority racially japanese. I'm not saying it wasnt a stupid policy but this argument is equally invalid.

    (k) difficult to understand discrimination. No, it isnt. Humans are pack animals and therefore biologically reject that which is different for their own safety and show preference towards same. In the same way dogs can pack together from all species but its more likely to find a single species pack. being intelligent, humans reject this arbitrary survival mechanism of being wary of difference and teach themselves to accept and embrace difference. Note this does not mean people are biologically racist, for example the first time a white person sees a black person its very surprising to them. The second time its noteworthy, subsequently they are just another person. Normalisation by exposure is how every living being works. Humans associate with what is around them in their immediacy as they are tribalist at heart. This is why they fight people even of the same colour, from the aztecs to feudal europe going to war with your neighbour was commonplace because they weren't your immediacy (and likely had stuff you wanted)

    (l) black people are more likely to be shot because they disproportionately commit violent crime. I'm not saying socio-economics arent a factor but if they didnt commit any crimes then they would rarely be shot. If they disproportionately commit crimes then the statistic for justified and unjustified shootings will obviously be higher. Its still not part of the law. Cops discharge their weapons on basis of what is a threat.

    (m) redefines racism to be basically meaningless.

    Sorry about the essay but these sorts of people annoy me, they dont understand the world in its actual existence and plug the holes in their knowledge with ideology
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    .....
    Well done! you are spot on.

    Has anyone actually read this book he references? it's crazy as ****.

    First 3 pages of the introduction are a great example of how dumb it is:

    on the first page "The nazi's use race to discriminate"

    On the third page: "Why don't we used race as a intrinsic feature of law".... well you ****ing moron it's because of the NAZI's... we don't use race in law because it discriminates based upon an uncontrollable factor.

    Basically this person is trying to get race implemented into law so that they can discriminate based upon race.....i'm not joking.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    Well done! you are spot on.

    Has anyone actually read this book he references? it's crazy as ****.

    First 3 pages of the introduction are a great example of how dumb it is:

    on the first page "The nazi's use race to discriminate"

    On the third page: "Why don't we used race as a intrinsic feature of law".... well you ****ing moron it's because of the NAZI's... we don't use race in law because it discriminates based upon an uncontrollable factor.

    Basically this person is trying to get race implemented into law so that they can discriminate based upon race.....i'm not joking.
    And what is wrong with that?

    I think you have to think a bit more precisely, as you may have jumped to a few conclusions. So why don't we use race as a feature? Surely you don't think it's only because of the Nazi's? I am sure we can agree that the Nazi's actions were intrinsically wrong, but the action was surely not wrong because it was something that Nazi's did.

    Now, is it because it is simply because it is a factor that we have no control over, and thus it is unfair to discriminate against? Seems more reasonable, but I don't think is completely accurate. I mean one basic counter example is that restaurants are allowed to use racial discrimination if there is a specific theme. Or schools are allowed to select students of only a specific gender. I am assuming of course that you think this is acceptable.

    So it seems that in some cases it actually is acceptable to use such factors. Then why do people get so aggravated about the idea, for example if we used someone's race to stop them from getting a job? I suspect it is because this 'factor' is viewed as irrelevant for the particular situation. Your race in theory should have no impact on whether you get a position - it should come down to factors such as education, employment history, people skills. Really it is only wrong to use race as a discriminatory factor, if race is something that is or at least should be irrelevant to the situation. The same holds for other uncontrollable factors. In this sense, there is nothing wrong with discriminating by race if it is relevant.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)
    Now, is it because it is simply because it is a factor that we have no control over, and thus it is unfair to discriminate against? Seems more reasonable, but I don't think is completely accurate. I mean one basic counter example is that restaurants are allowed to use racial discrimination if there is a specific theme. Or schools are allowed to select students of only a specific gender. I am assuming of course that you think this is acceptable.

    So it seems that in some cases it actually is acceptable to use such factors. Then why do people get so aggravated about the idea, for example if we used someone's race to stop them from getting a job? I suspect it is because this 'factor' is viewed as irrelevant for the particular situation. Your race in theory should have no impact on whether you get a position - it should come down to factors such as education, employment history, people skills. Really it is only wrong to use race as a discriminatory factor, if race is something that is or at least should be irrelevant to the situation. The same holds for other uncontrollable factors. In this sense, there is nothing wrong with discriminating by race if it is relevant.
    There is everything wrong with discriminating by race, whether you are picking someone because they are a certain race or not picking someone because of their race you are still discriminating against either everyone who is not that race or everyone who is. There is no Liberal or Classically Liberal reason to discriminate based upon race even when it comes to impersonating someone else, however i have no issue myself with whites being made up to look like Asians or Africans or whatever, but it's currently not acceptable to do this so it is avoided. Of course there are some exceptions but they must be made with utmost care but 98% of cases there is no reason to discriminate based upon race.

    Picking based upon Sex is entirely different to race, mostly because sex has fundamental effects on your brain, how you learn, work and how you behave, unlike race. However i still think that it is wrong, but men and women must compete on equal footing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    There is everything wrong with discriminating by race, whether you are picking someone because they are a certain race or not picking someone because of their race you are still discriminating against either everyone who is not that race or everyone who is. There is no Liberal or Classically Liberal reason to discriminate based upon race even when it comes to impersonating someone else, however i have no issue myself with whites being made up to look like Asians or Africans or whatever, but it's currently not acceptable to do this so it is avoided. Of course there are some exceptions but they must be made with utmost care but 98% of cases there is no reason to discriminate based upon race.

    Picking based upon Sex is entirely different to race, mostly because sex has fundamental effects on your brain, how you learn, work and how you behave, unlike race. However i still think that it is wrong, but men and women must compete on equal footing.
    Essentially your claim is that you can not discriminate against someone because of a characteristic because it hurts everyone else who doesn't have it.

    (With controllable characteristics I'm sure you agree this is absurd, for example universities should be justified in selecting students with the appropriate grades and subjects.)

    With uncontrollable characteristics such as gender or race, it is comparatively messy as it doesn't allow the people who do not have the characteristic a chance to develop the characteristic. However, there are situations where one we might agree one is justified on selecting using racial as a factor. For example with a Chinese restaurant, you might think it's quite reasonable for a manager to hire chinese waiters for the 'atmosphere' of the restaurant. Or perhaps if you wanted a Spanish teacher, you might prefer someone who is actually Spanish.
    Even cases where you might want an actor that is ethnically from a given race to play a role that is traditionally of that race.

    There are these situations where we can justifiably discriminate using race. What is wrong is not the act of discriminating based on race, but discriminate based on race in a situation where race is not of significant relevance. For example if I wanted a cleaner, or a plumber the person's race does not matter on a significant level. As long as I can communicate and they can do their job, then that is fine. In these cases, it becomes wrong to select one person over another wholly based on their race.

    I can accept however if you are of the view that even in the above situations I listed, you should not be allowed to discriminate using race, but I think that is a rather unusual view to take.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BankOfPigs)

    I can accept however if you are of the view that even in the above situations I listed, you should not be allowed to discriminate using race, but I think that is a rather unusual view to take.
    I understand the arguments for them, and i think there needs to be a balance struck between ethics and culture.

    I was speaking purely ethically, ethically there isn't a reason to discriminate based upon race, however from a cultural argument (to maintain Chinese culture for instance) i think it's acceptable to have racial biases. However I'd like to also add they could achieve this without blatant bias. For example a local Chinese restaurant only hires people who can speak English and Chinese, this means that mostly Chinese people work there, however there are 2 Caucasians who work there because they can speak Chinese.

    So i think that you can still maintain a cultural feel and atmosphere and community without blatant racial biases. However I understand this is difficult.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    I understand the arguments for them, and i think there needs to be a balance struck between ethics and culture.

    I was speaking purely ethically, ethically there isn't a reason to discriminate based upon race, however from a cultural argument (to maintain Chinese culture for instance) i think it's acceptable to have racial biases. However I'd like to also add they could achieve this without blatant bias. For example a local Chinese restaurant only hires people who can speak English and Chinese, this means that mostly Chinese people work there, however there are 2 Caucasians who work there because they can speak Chinese.

    So i think that you can still maintain a cultural feel and atmosphere and community without blatant racial biases. However I understand this is difficult.


    I do believe that it is actually possible to have a society functional completely without allowing racial discrimination, and to have employment in the above cases to only use controllable discriminatory factors. For example with the Spanish teacher, argue that anyone who has lived in Spain or can speak native spanish is sufficient and it is wrong to ask for potentially irrelevant characteristics such as ethnicity. It is possible to also argue that our 'desire' for a chinese restaurant to have chinese waiters is actually a result of in built biases and that is is unacceptable to discriminate based on ethnicity. Instead we can, as you said, base employment on language ability and *perhaps* cultural assimilation which are factors that can be controlled.

    Still, one has to consider both the ethical and practical concerns. Whilst we would like to think the law is based on ethical concerns, in practice it has a strong focus on pragmatism. I can imagine that constructing such absolute laws to ban racial characteristics, despite possible, could be quite tedious to maintain and is easily gotten around.

    Further I am not entirely convinced why we should explicitly ban this characteristic when there are other (mostly) uncontrollable factors such as gender, sexual orientation, physical body ect.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 28, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.