Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) I'm from Germany myself and the tip-toeing around political ubercorrectness over here is really getting on my nerves. By now, it is considered to be "derogative" if I'd call someone "colored" or "dark-skinned" if I want to refer to... well, people who have a dark skin - although it's an adjective that I use to describe what I see, not an insult. That is a problem. People try to ask politely about origins - out of genuine INTEREST - as in, for instance, are you descended from - say - Masai or Kikuyu ancestors - and you so often see "where are your people originally from" (i.e. are you Afro-Caribbean, African, whatever) - and you get "Birmingham". And fair enough. But you can't ask what someone's racial origin is, as it is Not OK. And you may seriously want to ask about African issues or something. I recall someone genuinely wanting to know about Diwali - and the person they asked if they were from India said no, they were from Slough - and when they were then asked straight out about Diwali, were deeply offended as they were Muslim - and while a lot of Muslims do celebrate it (and Christmas and Easter !) the woman she had asked was not one of them and was mortally annoyed. It has got to the stage where it can be really hard to express any interest in any other culture, which does NOTHING for mutual understanding. (I once asked a friend with a VERY Jewish last name if she was Jewish a while ago. She was livid. No, she had "simply married a Jew", she said, angrily.) I wouldn't automatically call anyone with a different coloured skin an immigrant though. You are only an immigrant if you immigrated, Anyone who was BORN in their family's new country is NOT an immigrant. I don't see a need for a word to cover people of another racial background whose ancestors moved into the country I live in.... But if such a word IS needed - it also covers people of the same racial background as well - so that the children of - say - Swedes immigrating to Germany should be described that way as well. Edited May 5, 2013 by fuzzbucket Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 (But, hey, I don't put much in the dictionary sometimes. I'm a little unclear on why muggle was added as a word or if the usage it cites cropped up before or after HP and it doesn't define friend zone as a derogatory term.) That’s because the dictionaries tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. “A different dimension on which dictionaries (usually just general-purpose ones) are sometimes distinguished is whether they are prescriptive or descriptive, the latter being in theory largely based on linguistic corpus studies—this is the case of most modern dictionaries.” They can experience discrimination but not racism, in my own opinion. Most people I know who follow the same definition as I do also agree that white people can experience prejudice and discrimination but not racism. What you seem to be describing is “institutional racism”. It doesn't make sense to have the word apply only to POC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism I subscribe to the definition that I do because I believe that otherwise, the definition tries to downplay what POC actually go through by trying to make it all about white people. A black person can have a high socioeconomic status. A white person can be at the bottom. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 With that in mind, I am starting to believe in 'racism begets racism'. A lot of PoC are starting to discriminate against whites in the US (especially after Obama was elected). I feel this fits most things. Hate spawns hate, not change--or at least, not good change. We should strive to minimize -isms, not simply flip things so that the party previously in power is treated the way the previously oppressed were. Treating men like dirt because of sexism against women doesn't make the sexism problem go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating straight people like dirt because of homophobia doesn't make homophbia go away--it just redirects the hate. Treating white people like crap because of racism doesn't make the racism go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating cis people like crap ("die cis scum", anyone?) doesn't make the transphobia go away, it just redirects the hate. And, in a lot of case, will then be used by the new targets to justify their behavior. "Well, those black people are attacking me because I'm white! It proves they're monsters!" "Those trans* people are attacking me for no reason, it proves they're unstable freaks!" "Those women are just proving that they're emotional s who should never be in charge of anything! Only a man can be rational!" "Those homosexuals are treating me badly because I'm not like them, that just proves they're abominations who have no sense of common decency!" A lot of times, the people who then use it for justification are already using warped logic, and won't realize that they're just getting a taste of their own medicine. Naturally, as I said, certain groups generally experience -isms or certain types of discrimination more than others. PoC suffer racial discrimination more. GSM people suffer sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination more. Women experience sexism in worse ways. Etc, etc. But that doesn't automatically mean that nobody of the opposite group can experience it, even if it's not to the same degree. (And, as previously mentioned, individual situations can result in individuals experiencing different than the norm for their group.) Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 I feel this fits most things. Hate spawns hate, not change--or at least, not good change. We should strive to minimize -isms, not simply flip things so that the party previously in power is treated the way the previously oppressed were. Treating men like dirt because of sexism against women doesn't make the sexism problem go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating straight people like dirt because of homophobia doesn't make homophbia go away--it just redirects the hate. Treating white people like crap because of racism doesn't make the racism go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating cis people like crap ("die cis scum", anyone?) doesn't make the transphobia go away, it just redirects the hate. And, in a lot of case, will then be used by the new targets to justify their behavior. "Well, those black people are attacking me because I'm white! It proves they're monsters!" "Those trans* people are attacking me for no reason, it proves they're unstable freaks!" "Those women are just proving that they're emotional s who should never be in charge of anything! Only a man can be rational!" "Those homosexuals are treating me badly because I'm not like them, that just proves they're abominations who have no sense of common decency!" A lot of times, the people who then use it for justification are already using warped logic, and won't realize that they're just getting a taste of their own medicine. Naturally, as I said, certain groups generally experience -isms or certain types of discrimination more than others. PoC suffer racial discrimination more. GSM people suffer sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination more. Women experience sexism in worse ways. Etc, etc. But that doesn't automatically mean that nobody of the opposite group can experience it, even if it's not to the same degree. (And, as previously mentioned, individual situations can result in individuals experiencing different than the norm for their group.) *applauds* Thank you. This is partly what I've been trying to get at when I've been saying that you can't only define racism as that experienced by the minority. Doing so ignored the bigger picture, and wider problems. (As well as being totally illogical, but hey). Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 I'm not sure if I'm not kind of crashing your party, so feel free to ignore me, but I'd like to add something to the 'language' discussion. I'm from Germany myself and the tip-toeing around political ubercorrectness over here is really getting on my nerves. By now, it is considered to be "derogative" if I'd call someone "colored" or "dark-skinned" if I want to refer to... well, people who have a dark skin - although it's an adjective that I use to describe what I see, not an insult. I'm still using those words though, because the only alternative I have is saying something like "Afro-American" or "African" - and that might again be an insult because the person in question doesn't consider him/herself "African" but "German", because he/she was born here, lives here and just happens to look a bit different than the majority of us. It's even worse if I want to talk about people whose roots lie somewhere else than Germany in general - according to some political activists I'm not allowed to call them 'immigrants' because that's insulting. What...?! So, the term "People With A Migration Background" came into being some years ago, which is by now frowned upon again. It's a long lost fight, I believe. In my opinion, some people need to realize that it's not the word that is derogative, as long as it's purely describing, but the mindset and the associations towards its reference. And until that mindset has been changed and people have stopped to associate all kind of with certain ethnic groups, we will continue to discard terms that have been 'burned' and think up nicer-sounding word combinations that eventually will go the same way, because changing the label on something won't make people stop hating it and won't stop prejudice. Certain words have been used in a derogative manner. There's lots of history attached to them. "Colored" is one of those. I've never heard describing someone as "dark-skinned" as derogative but perhaps that's something I haven't learned or even a cultural difference. I'm confused what would be wrong with calling them a black person, person of color, or Afro-German? Treating men like dirt because of sexism against women doesn't make the sexism problem go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating straight people like dirt because of homophobia doesn't make homophbia go away--it just redirects the hate. Treating white people like crap because of racism doesn't make the racism go away, it just redirects the hate. Treating cis people like crap ("die cis scum", anyone?) doesn't make the transphobia go away, it just redirects the hate. [Just mentioning since lots of people haven't heard of the -isms for some of these: heterosexism and cissexism or transmisogyny.] But at the end of the day, we need to realize that these hates are forms of protection. At the end of the day, that privileged group still has privilege. What's the result of hate by someone who's oppressed? In most cases, hurt feelings. What's the result of hate by an oppressor? Violence, death, discrimination, bullying, harassment, rape, etc. Is hate wrong? Sure. But we really can't compare misandry to misogyny, for instance. Yeah, double standards exist because isms exist. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 [Just mentioning since lots of people haven't heard of the -isms for some of these: heterosexism and cissexism or transmisogyny.] But at the end of the day, we need to realize that these hates are forms of protection. At the end of the day, that privileged group still has privilege. What's the result of hate by someone who's oppressed? In most cases, hurt feelings. What's the result of hate by an oppressor? Violence, death, discrimination, bullying, harassment, rape, etc. Is hate wrong? Sure. But we really can't compare misandry to misogyny, for instance. Yeah, double standards exist because isms exist. Perpetuating the double standards (and telling people that they can't be suffering from them because they technically belong to a majority group) doesn't help get rid of the -isms, though. And hate by minority opressed groups frequently *does* end up in violence, because they have no other way to combat it. The overthrow of apartheid in South Africa for example. Or some of the action of the Black Panthers. While, yes, the majority of people in an opressed group suffer in silence there have always been those who will turn violently against those they disagree with. We're also not nescesarily trying to compare - just asking people not to dismis such claims totally offhand. Some of the comments here have come close to implying that such things as misandry and racism-against-whites *can't* exist, because those gorups are in the majority. It may not be as big a problem, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that the people suffering from it are in any way less damaged. In a way some comments are beginning to come off as 'more opressed than thou' - which I hope you would all admit is ridiculous. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) Some of the comments here have come close to implying that such things as misandry and racism-against-whites *can't* exist, because those gorups are in the majority. It may not be as big a problem, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that the people suffering from it are in any way less damaged. In a way some comments are beginning to come off as 'more opressed than thou' - which I hope you would all admit is ridiculous. This, personally, drives me nuts and I'm tired of the 'PoC can't be racist' type bull. Yes they can! And as both myself and Tiki have said, it will only make things worse. Example: Recently in a suburb of the city I am in, a line tech was fixing a power line. A home owner on the street used a generator to send a surge down the line, which would have killed him if he hadn't 'heard' it coming in time (he still got 3rd degree burns down his back when he jumped out of his bucket). The home owner's reason for doing it? He didn't want 'white trash working on his line' (I think you can guess the skin color of both people from that). That is racism and it will NOT help things any. As I said, we need more good PoC role models. Unfortunately, I've noticed a trend where those PoC that do rise themselves out of poverty and try to be those good role models end up being called 'Oreos', 'Uncle toms', and 'race traitors' by their peers.... Edited May 5, 2013 by Slaskia Share this post Link to post
Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) Certain words have been used in a derogative manner. There's lots of history attached to them. "Colored" is one of those. I've never heard describing someone as "dark-skinned" as derogative but perhaps that's something I haven't learned or even a cultural difference. Must've been mistranslated by me, sorry. I tried to use the German terms as literal as possible - over here it is considered bad language to call someone 'black', so I opted for 'colored' instead, which is (its German counterpart doesn't have historical connotations) probably not as bad, while 'dark-skinned' is just another literal translation of what we use here, so it's not that surprising you have never heard of it. Maybe I should've stated that somewhere so nobody gets confused. I'm confused what would be wrong with calling them a black person, person of color, or Afro-German? As mentioned above, calling someone 'black' in Germany is not deemed 'politically correct' enough by some groups, while 'person of color' would be essentially the same as 'a colored person' if you translate it - the German Language either puts adjectives in front of the noun that's supposed to be defined further (I consider this to be the logic that my language is built upon, not as an attempt to belittle or depreciate someone, by the way) or you have to construct a whole new term and use six or seven words, which makes it unusable in everyday situations. Afro-German would actually be a good compromise which I hadn't thought about yet. I wouldn't automatically call anyone with a different coloured skin an immigrant though. You are only an immigrant if you immigrated, Anyone who was BORN in their family's new country is NOT an immigrant. I don't see a need for a word to cover people of another racial background whose ancestors moved into the country I live in.... But if such a word IS needed - it also covers people of the same racial background as well - so that the children of - say - Swedes immigrating to Germany should be described that way as well. I agree that people whose parents immigrated aren't technically immigrants and shouldn't be called that. We in Germany currently find ourselves in the need for a neutral word for all of those people, because there are a lot of Turkish/Middle Eastern immigrants or children/grandchildren of immigrants living here and they somehow have become kind of a 'separate section' in our populace. There's a lot of resentment and racism directed at them, especially after 9/11 and the subsequent discussion of terrorism, which doesn't make it easier for them to become integrated in our country - but on the other side there is a minority in the minority that seemingly doesn't want to be part of Germany, anyway. It's a major social and political issue, since some people confuse Muslims with islamic fundamentalists and are scared, we still have some neo-Nazis around (stupidity dies last, right?) and then there are a few very traditional families that hold a view on women's rights which sometimes threatens to violate our civil rights, so we find ourselves in some kind of catch-22: we want to accept other cultures and religions, but we can't accept forced marriages. It really is an explosive topic and we are struggling to find a word that encompasses this part of society without being derogative, just so we can start a neutral discussion. As I stated earlier, this is becoming increasingly difficult due to all the resentment that's being carried - no matter how we 'label' them, every word will sooner or later be viewed like something negative, because we think of the people as negative. And while I agree that words with a history behind it should be put aside, I really wish we could stop debating about language. It annoys me because there are some people out there who try to derail every constructive discussion by pulling out the 'Aha! you are racist because you aren't using the latest non-racist politically correct terms, now your argument is moot!' - card. If I could, I'd sign all those guys up for a linguistics course and meanwhile the others can try and do something about this field of controversy before the whole situation blows up in our face. Edit: I just re-read my post and thought I should probably add to the paragraph above that the debate about 'correct language' is mostly led by white, middle-class people, or in other words - those who aren't actually concerned by the problem. Edited May 6, 2013 by Digital Decay Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Y'know, as I type this, someone about 3 floors below me- in a garden of a house just a stone's throw away from my flat, in fact- is blasting music so loud I can hear every word like it was playing right next to me. Why I'm posting this here is that the music's a rap song with repeated use of the n-word and various other slurs and insults, mostly aimed at... promiscuous women, shall I say. I dunno the race of the owner of the radio, but the singer sounds like a black/coloured/POC/insert-today's-polite-word-here male, which makes me wonder... Why is this acceptable from some people but not others? I know about reclaiming words and n-word privileges, but it still doesn't change the fact that if I sung that song and someone heard me, I'd be branded a racist scumbag because I'm a white female. It just seems... I just think it would be better if nobody used the word. Maybe I'm just being your typical insensitive, ignorant and racist white person again. (Turning down their music would be nice, too. I've got three essays due in within the next week and it's distracting me. I mean, c'mon! Everyone's trying to work, everything due in now!) Edited May 7, 2013 by Ruins Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 I've lived in largely Hispanic neighborhoods for years, and one thing I cannot stand, is the loud blasting of mariachi music so the whole damn neighborhood can hear. I can even hear it loudly thru closed windows. It seems to be a cultural thing, although, why it would be acceptable is confusing me. What if someone wants to watch telenovas? They wouldn't be able to with that racket. So, I understand the music thing. Just don't know why they do it? This isn't racist, hell, my sister in law and neice are Hispanic. It's the cultural aspect I have an issue with. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Well, mainly I was complaining about the fact that EVERY song they play has swear-words and slurs in it, but the sheer volume of it is equally horrible. I want to have a nap and then do some work, but I can do neither! D: Edited May 7, 2013 by Ruins Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 Honestly, if it were me, I'd go to a cheap electronic store, buy a cheap radio, then wait til 1am, put it underneath their bedroom window, or on the ledge of it, turn up the volumn, turn it on and go back to your apt. Leave a note on it saying, this is what it's like during the day. Not fun, is it. or something to the effect. They'll get the message. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Honestly, if it were me, I'd go to a cheap electronic store, buy a cheap radio, then wait til 1am, put it underneath their bedroom window, or on the ledge of it, turn up the volumn, turn it on and go back to your apt. Leave a note on it saying, this is what it's like during the day. Not fun, is it. or something to the effect. They'll get the message. The problem there is that they can get you for breaking the 'noise ordinance' law (depending on the location), if they can prove it was you. But yeah, I don't get the need to have the music playing extremely loud either (no matter what race they are). They are just going to ruin their hearing. Hell, we often mutter when we see a car go by baring their stereo 'well, there's someone that will be deaf by the time they are 30'. It seems to me that they don't appreciate their hearing and will no doubt regret it when they lose it. My dad has hearing loss from working with printing presses for many years (prior to being required to wear hearing protection), my younger brother has partial hearing loss in one ear from an incident in military training. Myself, I have tinnitus in one ear (the livable kind, thankfully). But this is getting way off topic.... Edited May 7, 2013 by Slaskia Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) To be honest, my original post was more about the fact that I'm hearing ** (or is it **?), , and * every few seconds, and how people can get away with using those words in songs, than it was the volume itself; but since everyone replied to my comments about the volume than anything else, I guess it is off topic now. Edit by kiffren: Censor evasion removed. Edited May 8, 2013 by kiffren Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) To be honest, my original post was more about the fact that I'm hearing ** (or is it **?), , and every few seconds, and how people can get away with using those words in songs, than it was the volume itself; but since everyone replied to my comments about the volume than anything else, I guess it is off topic now. Oh I hear you about the choice of 'words' in Rap music: Rap as a genre in general seems to have gone downhill after the gangs essentially took it over. The use of those words in everyday speech by PoC is a bit of a double standard IMO as well. Edit by kiffren: Censor evasion in quote removed. Please do not quote posts containing censor evasion, or if you do edit the words out. Edited May 8, 2013 by kiffren Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 Funny...the first recorded 'rap' style, was a white woman...Blondie. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 7, 2013 I don't really care about the double standard, but it does really throws me off when I'm singing along with the music and racist words come up. I don't want to make anyone around me uncomfortable. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 10, 2013 Just wondering what your response to this would be?: warning for lots of language [possible tw for apartheid, racism, poverty, rape] http://25.media.tumblr.com/8ef5c4a02fd6509...igv4o1_1280.png and http://24.media.tumblr.com/544e891659200d8...igv4o2_1280.png And someone else commented: "70% of South Africa’s wealth is still in the hands of white people, in a population that is 90% black (i.e the blacks, Indians, coloureds & chinese)." I'm North American, I haven't studied or been to South Africa (or Africa in general), so I can't really comment myself, only weigh the experiences of people who are speaking up. I will say, though, that I do not think whites can experience racism. They can certainly experience discrimination, prejudice, bullying, and harassment, but due to the global powers and structures that have held up a white supremacy, they can't experience racism. I do prescribe to the definition of racism that it is discrimination and prejudice backed by large institutionalized social structure. I know not everyone does, but that's the circle I lie in. This is not to say things can't differ locally (for example, most the world is patriarchal, but there are some matriarchal societies in history and I think still today), but on average globally, no I don't agree whites can experience racism. With all due respect, because I realise you are commenting from an ignorant and, dare I say it, privileged "politically correct" position, but how dare you? How is it merely discrimination when I've been told on at least three separate occassions "You are the best candidate for the position, but you're TOO WHITE - sorry!". How is it just prejudice when large chain stores specify "WHITES need not apply" in their want-ads (scroll down to "Controversy" section)? Oh and while you're on that link, take note of what the PC-correction was - "In accordance with Woolworths' Employment Equity approach, preference will be given to candidates from designated groups". "Employment equity" strives to, in very general terms, have the employee "population" mirror the country's demographics. If companies (ANY COMPANY) not adhere to this idealogical rethoric, they are penalised. They care more about getting the ratios right than actually appointing competent, efficient encumbents. How dare you imply that this does not imply "institutionalised racism", if not pure, simple RACISM in it's basest form? As for the comments you linked to. This person, by their own admission was a child when they "travelled through Africa". I would like to remind you, that "the Natives" have been running things around here for the past 18 years. So let's do a fun word game with the comment you linked to and add some informative links: Blacks don't care that a rape occurs every FOURTEEN MINUTES (see VIOLENT CRIME). Blacks don't care about the AIDS pandemic (see 2nd paragraph) and giving South Africans proper medical care, education (note how kids are coerced into "joining the strike") and social services like they had when Apartheid was still on and popping. See how sucky it is when you generalise? Now why would it be "okay" to say this if the Blacks were substituted by Whites? Because whites are big meanies who deserve to be pummeled? Your question about wealth distribution - I'm always baffled by this question. What does it matter? How about I tell you that 5 million tax payers have to carry the financial burden of 45 million people on the dole because it suits our "Native Government" to keep people dumb and poor in order to remain in power? Would you become offended? Anyway, I don't have the exact numbers but this paper might be a good starting point. Again, in very general terms, the black middle class is growing and in all likelihood exceeds the white middle class in number. Proportionally, most of the black population still live in squatter camps though - reliant on government handouts - BUT it would be grossly incorrect to say ALL black people are poor and all white people are rich. I identify primarily as "South African", secondarily as "White" and veeeeery distantly, if at all, as "a Dutch colonizer descendant". To feel unwelcome in the country I love with every fibre of my being is...really, really horrible. I am doing my best to take the ideological challenges in my stride, but when my experiences are marginalised to "just discrimination", it gets to me. Apartheid was abolished while I was in school still. I had no part in it, yet I am being punished for the wrongs of the past. Do two wrongs make a right? Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 Here in North America, horrible things were done to the Native American population. I am "white" (half black but that doesn't show). I married into a Cherokee tribe, and was "adopted". My children are half Cherokee, tho they look "white". When we go to powwows, and other Native American events, we are looked at with suspision, and outright disgust and anger. I did nothing to these Native Peoples. My family were Irish who came here in the early 1900's looking for work. And the black part were slaves. We did nothing. But we are repeatedly "punished" for being white at Native American events. This is not racism? Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 Thanks for the links, Blue Nadir - I shall have to read them over the course of time I have this week, though I may not be able to finish before I leave. I'm not sure about your point on switching white -> black, though, because those statements are backed up by different actions and so would mean different things. But, again, I'll have to read the links before fully replying. because it suits our "Native Government" to keep people dumb and poor in order to remain in power? Would you become offended? Yes, I would, because classism is a thing here (USA), too (though I wonder if we're not offended over different things here - again, I'll have to go read those links). (Mainly here POC were forced into poverty and then there are basically regulations to keep them there and by now it's encapsulated really the whole working class. It's a whole mess of economics that just sucks and is controlled by politicians in the pocket of the wealthy. =\ ) Proportionally, most of the black population still live in squatter camps though - reliant on government handouts - BUT it would be grossly incorrect to say ALL black people are poor and all white people are rich. There are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't change the rule. Again, I did ask, so thank you for the honest reply and the links. I'll check them out as I have time. Here in North America, horrible things were done to the Native American population. I am "white" (half black but that doesn't show). I married into a Cherokee tribe, and was "adopted". My children are half Cherokee, tho they look "white". When we go to powwows, and other Native American events, we are looked at with suspision, and outright disgust and anger. I did nothing to these Native Peoples. My family were Irish who came here in the early 1900's looking for work. And the black part were slaves. We did nothing. But we are repeatedly "punished" for being white at Native American events. This is not racism? Like I said last time something like this was brought up, no, this sounds more like colorism to me, which, as I said, yes, is a problem in all communities - mostly relating back to white privilege and the fact that POC with lighter skin will face issues and problems that may be unique as compared to POC with darker skins. And, as I said, it doesn't make it right - as prejudice against whites isn't right - but I do believe that's colorism rather than racism. ~ Fuzz, will throw my reply to you in here - I'm not even sure what the other thread was. Gun control/rights/ownership? But on 'black' being considered degrading - is this in relation to calling them "blacks" or calling them "black folk"? Again, perhaps a cultural difference, but here, anyway, the problem is when we revert people to their skin color and ignore that they are people. And the complaint comes because usually they are being called "blacks" by people who don't call "whites" "whites" but "white people" or (even more offensive) just "people". I am learning everyday, so that is a question up there. :3 Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 Like I said last time something like this was brought up, no, this sounds more like colorism to me, which, as I said, yes, is a problem in all communities - mostly relating back to white privilege and the fact that POC with lighter skin will face issues and problems that may be unique as compared to POC with darker skins. And, as I said, it doesn't make it right - as prejudice against whites isn't right - but I do believe that's colorism rather than racism. Just... what? What you are describing meets every criteria for racism except the one you seem to have added about governmental backing. There is *already* a term to describe racism with power-structure backing and that is institutional racism. I don't think it's doing anyone any favours attempting to hijack the umbrella term to cover one very specific part of it. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 Except for that language is a wonderfully expressive thing and when we limit words, we limit our understanding and knowledge. Also, colorism isn't the same as racism. The color of someone's skin and their race are two different things. Light-skinned POC will have certain 'privilege' over dark-skinned POC in the same way that transmen will have certain 'privilege' over transwomen. It's not equal to white privilege or cisgender privilege, but issues are intersectional and wildly so. I don't think it's doing anyone any favours attempting to hijack the umbrella term to cover one very specific part of it. Except I am harming people by not evolving my understanding of the word. Society changes words. Times and technology change and meanings of words are lost. I really don't think it hurts anyone by evolving with the word so that a better understanding of prejudice against POC can be reached. Kyriarchy hurts everyone, but it does so by demonizing certain groups and devaluing certain lives all based on specific attributes. It doesn't hurt everyone equally, and I'm simply acknowledging that. Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Sock, you've just directly contradicted yourself. In one sentance "when we limit words, we limit our understanding and knowledge" and in the next proposing that we should do precisely that by narrowing our current understanding of the word racism. Racism, to most people, means any discrimination based on a persons race. Limiting that to a very anrrow definition by pulling in the (hard to understand in some cases!) nuanced politics of power and history doesn't help to grow the word, or broaden people's understanding. It narrows it, changes it, restricts it's useage to, put bluntly, those with a political axe to grind. If you wish to use it that way yourself, fine. But I, for one, and I suspect many others, am not going to accept a word being redefined so some people can play more-opressed-than-thou. I will not accept racism of any kind. And when I say that I mean I will not accept anyone discriminating against anyone else based on their race - whatever that races history, and where ever they sit in the current balence of power. I, for one, will not accept my language being redefined whenever politics change. Edit to add: And, no, POC are *not* harmed by calling racism what it is. You wanna beat on people just because they are white? Then you are just as much of a racist as the people that treated your own ancestors so badly. Ignoring the problem, and using PC words to muddle it in the minds of the general population only harms race relations more. Because those people that have suffered from racist acts at the hands of POC (and, yes, those people do exist, however much you may like them not to) are only going to feel hurt and marginalised themselves if they are told that what they've experienced isn't real. That perpetuates hurt, it doesn't heal it. Edited May 11, 2013 by TikindiDragon Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 (edited) Sock, you've just directly contradicted yourself. In one sentance "when we limit words, we limit our understanding and knowledge" and in the next proposing that we should do precisely that by narrowing our current understanding of the word racism. Racism, to most people, means any discrimination based on a persons race. Limiting that to a very anrrow definition by pulling in the (hard to understand in some cases!) nuanced politics of power and history doesn't help to grow the word, or broaden people's understanding. It narrows it, changes it, restricts it's useage to, put bluntly, those with a political axe to grind. If you wish to use it that way yourself, fine. But I, for one, and I suspect many others, am not going to accept a word being redefined so some people can play more-opressed-than-thou. I will not accept racism of any kind. And when I say that I mean I will not accept anyone discriminating against anyone else based on their race - whatever that races history, and where ever they sit in the current balence of power. I, for one, will not accept my language being redefined whenever politics change. Edit to add: And, no, POC are *not* harmed by calling racism what it is. You wanna beat on people just because they are white? Then you are just as much of a racist as the people that treated your own ancestors so badly. Ignoring the problem, and using PC words to muddle it in the minds of the general population only harms race relations more. Because those people that have suffered from racist acts at the hands of POC (and, yes, those people do exist, however much you may like them not to) are only going to feel hurt and marginalised themselves if they are told that what they've experienced isn't real. That perpetuates hurt, it doesn't heal it. *applauds* Sorry, sock, but she's absolutely right. Racism against whites very much exists, for a start. And no-one has mentioned - careful fuzz; puts on tiptoe shoes - people - no, PERSONS - with yellow skin, PALE brown skin that has nothing to do with Africa or the Caribbean, or the fact that some brown-skinned Italians, for instance, get called filthy Pakis by people who can't tell that they are actually Italian with Italian ancestors going back to Marco Polo ! And don't get me started on North American First Nations people. A friend of mine of that origin (tasteful pale brown skin) was called a dirty black witch by a POLICEMAN not long ago. For some reason the word racism is increasingly being narrowed down to suggest that ONLY black people have suffered this way and that their tragic history is the important thing. But it isn't all in the past and it isn't only black people; it never was (look at the racism against the Jew Shylock, in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.) It even happens to white people. Truly it does. ETA and - shock horror - there are BLACK RACISTS, too. Don't let THEM get away with that. They are every bit as as racist and thoroughly nasty as the KKK is to black people. Edited May 11, 2013 by fuzzbucket Share this post Link to post
Posted May 11, 2013 I gotta agree on the narrowing of racism by including politics being a bad thing. Language does grow and adapt--and that's why we don't always change a word but add qualifiers to it to express how it's subtly different from a related concept. That's why we have the terms institutionalized or systematic racism to express the specific brand of system-backed race-based discrimination--it's a qualifier that takes a term and puts it into a specific light so that people can understand how it's harmful when discussing a specific TYPE of racism. Words do get changed and redefined all the time, but not every word needs to undergo a change when the word itself is still relevant as-is. I mean, people fight against using "the r word" and gay as words that mean "stupid" because they realize that redefining those words hurts people currently associated with those words. (Though with the passing of enough time, the words could be properly removed from their current meanings in the public mind and have thus undergone a full shift in meaning--until then, though, it's hurtful--and after, if you cling to outdated meanings that most people no longer associate with the words). Redefining racism to ignore the problem of people who aren't being oppressed by their government (yes, generally whites, but not everywhere) doesn't fix the problem. It just makes people feel like they can't talk about their experience because it's not real. Do PoC experience racism worse? In general, absolutely (at least in America, I can't talk for anywhere else). Individual situations may be worse for a white or better for a PoC than is the average, but in general yes we can agree that PoC suffer racism worse (and MUCH more frequently/constantly) than whites. Racism needs to be stomped out as much as possible for EVERYBODY, not just removing it against PoC while making it A-okay to treat whites like dirt. Because, as I've said, shifting the target of the hate doesn't remove the hate--it just makes more people suffer. And then those people use that suffering as justification to lash out at those who made them suffer, creating a cycle of hate that needs to be broken instead of fed. Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts