The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: daverobev on November 23, 2016, 08:38:18 AM
-
Spurred by this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/costume-party-photos-queen-s-university-1.3863522
I can't grasp that this is racism.
I can just about understand how the.. what was it, hockey? Baseball? team called the Braves or Indians or whatever (I don't 'do' sports, I just remember hearing about it).. could be taken as not politically correct (it got changed to the Red Blacks I think), though I don't really "get it".
There was a thing last month in Montreal, native people going round defacing "Pocahottie" (lol) Hallowe'en outfits (I'm mostly in the camp that says All Hallowed's Eve and All Saints Day are Christian; if you want to dress up as a ghost, sure, but as the Grinch? Well - whatever - not my culture, it's really odd but sure) because they were culturally insensitive.
I *don't* understand. I do get stereotyping. I do get that, as a white male (but a foreigner, ha), my 'neutral' (do your best not to put someone else out - ie, don't stand chatting at the checkout if there is a queue behind) is not 'actual' neutral, just my own cultural norm. "Lazy black person" is a bad stereotype, because it is negative. "Hard working Polish person" is equally bad (or, not equally *bad*, but equally unfair - a Polish person shouldn't get the job over a black person because they are Polish not black, nor should they get a job over a non-black person for the same reason).
But calling a costume party racist for having people dress up in Arabian, Mexican, whatever, costumes seems overblown. Nazi outfits? Insensitive/stupid (illegal in Germany, of course). But a party with a load of people, with small groups all in different costumes? There's no discrimination here. There is cultural stereotyping, for fun. It's a costume.
*Edit* The Viet Cong I find distasteful, but not racist. If this is racist, every film depicting war should be classified as racist, too.
-
I like sports so I'll help you out:
Really not racist but considered to be just because OMG NATIVE AMERICAN/FIRST NATIONS: Any team that calls itself the Indians, Chiefs, Braves or any Native American/First Nations tribe name (e.g. Florida State University Seminoles). It also depends on how cartoonish the team's mascot is.
Racist: Washington Redskins, which has always been a slur.
Universities are just finding it easier to ban any sort of ethnic costumes to ward off potential snowflake triggers. And seriously, guys, just don't even make blackface an option. Just don't.
-
I like sports so I'll help you out:
Really not racist but considered to be just because OMG NATIVE AMERICAN/FIRST NATIONS: Any team that calls itself the Indians, Chiefs, Braves or any Native American/First Nations tribe name (e.g. Florida State University Seminoles). It also depends on how cartoonish the team's mascot is.
Racist: Washington Redskins, which has always been a slur.
Universities are just finding it easier to ban any sort of ethnic costumes to ward off potential snowflake triggers. And seriously, guys, just don't even make blackface an option. Just don't.
So, I agree that Redskins is just flat-out racist, no question about it.
But as for the implication that the others ones are just hand-wringing: How would your reaction be if a team proposed a name like "The Atlanta Blacks" or "The Minneapolis Mexicans"? Is there a difference? If so, why?
What if their team name was accompanied by a caricatural mascot? Is there any way for a mascot not to be a caricature?
-
From my sociology class, I remember that racism is about the oppression of someone based on their ethnicity/culture or perceived ethnicity or culture
Many times things are racially insensitive but get labeled racist.
Washington Redskins is racially insensitive
Racist? I don't believe so by my definition
-
Redskin is racist because of how it was used historically, right (I'm not from North America)? Don't Indians refer to themselves as "red"?
Is it like now "nigger" is ok from black to black, but otherwise verboten? I mostly see how nigger is bad because of the *intent* and past use.
I mean, it all seems like symptom not root. The root is hate. Denigration. Etc. Humans should all be treated respectfully until showing that they should not be. Surely that is the 'answer'. Teach everyone that any other human should be treated respectfully. Regardless of *everything*. I don't see that wearing fancy dress is disrespectful or racist. Wearing KKK robes, well, yeah, that's stupid as it's only done as a statement of racism. Ditto Nazi. The whole point of the organisations represented is something bad.
But arab dress? WTF does that have to do with racism?
MOD NOTE: We have received several reports of this post. I am posting this to acknowledge them, and note that we do not intend to edit this post. While it uses language we personally wouldn't use, it is not using the word as a slur to attack a person, but rather to discuss the word in question. We feel that censoring it in this context is not appropriate, even if we do not care for the use personally. Please PM a mod, or start a new thread, if you would like to discuss this meta-moderation topic. Cheers!
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
-
Spurred by this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/costume-party-photos-queen-s-university-1.3863522
I can't grasp that this is racism.
I can just about understand how the.. what was it, hockey? Baseball? team called the Braves or Indians or whatever (I don't 'do' sports, I just remember hearing about it).. could be taken as not politically correct (it got changed to the Red Blacks I think), though I don't really "get it".
There was a thing last month in Montreal, native people going round defacing "Pocahottie" (lol) Hallowe'en outfits (I'm mostly in the camp that says All Hallowed's Eve and All Saints Day are Christian; if you want to dress up as a ghost, sure, but as the Grinch? Well - whatever - not my culture, it's really odd but sure) because they were culturally insensitive.
I *don't* understand. I do get stereotyping. I do get that, as a white male (but a foreigner, ha), my 'neutral' (do your best not to put someone else out - ie, don't stand chatting at the checkout if there is a queue behind) is not 'actual' neutral, just my own cultural norm. "Lazy black person" is a bad stereotype, because it is negative. "Hard working Polish person" is equally bad (or, not equally *bad*, but equally unfair - a Polish person shouldn't get the job over a black person because they are Polish not black, nor should they get a job over a non-black person for the same reason).
But calling a costume party racist for having people dress up in Arabian, Mexican, whatever, costumes seems overblown. Nazi outfits? Insensitive/stupid (illegal in Germany, of course). But a party with a load of people, with small groups all in different costumes? There's no discrimination here. There is cultural stereotyping, for fun. It's a costume.
*Edit* The Viet Cong I find distasteful, but not racist. If this is racist, every film depicting war should be classified as racist, too.
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's racist per se, but more cultural stereotyping. I can see where it would be potentially insulting to some people though the issue about whether it was a private party vs something sanctioned is probably the most relevant detail. People having a private party, even if others would think it's in poor taste, is still part of freedom of expression (I'm assuming Canadian law supports the sentiment of freedom of expression/speech). People using University funds to have a party that makes fun of different cultures is a University issue and probably deserves some sort of response from the University. Not a big ditch to die in, IMO, compared to other issues, and a good example of what folks have been complaining about re: PC/the leftist "thought police".
Now, Texas A&M inviting Richard Spencer to give a lecture on campus is another matter.
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
I'll have to do some research on what blackface is, as I don't get the reference. I don't get a difference between dressing up as a pirate vs a colonialist vs a Bedouin vs a bull fighter vs a fire fighter vs a Buddhist monk. I honestly don't.
-
OK, read the wiki on blackface. A bit different in the UK, I guess, but before my time.
Difficult, and obviously not good. But it then begs the question: should all examples of stereotyping be aggressively stamped out? I mean, what about the evil Englishman villain in film? Ha ha, Arabs ride camels: look, there's one, on a camel. Where do you go from tourism/positive to stereotyping/negative? Do you have to be 'authentic'? Due example, if I choose to wear a kilt, am I stereotyping Scots? Or drawing on my heritage?
But, sure, a black person in a kilt is fine; a black person with white makeup on yelling "AYE SEE YOU JIMMY!" is questionable. Or is it comedy? It's be pretty ducking funny... I'm so confused.
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
I'll have to do some research on what blackface is, as I don't get the reference. I don't get a difference between dressing up as a pirate vs a colonialist vs a Bedouin vs a bull fighter vs a fire fighter vs a Buddhist monk. I honestly don't.
There are some distinctions, though. And they do become important.
Pirate: the version of pirate people dress up as is a parody of a historical figure. Those "pirates" don't exist today, except in movies. Almost as made up as Tinker Bell.
Colonialist: white, also a historical figure so not dressing up as anything that exists today. A caricature that's not likely to offend white descendants of the colonials.
Bedouin: A contemporary culture, albeit not one you are likely to run into in North America, so you're basically playing dress-up pretending to be someone from another culture, perhaps in a simplistic way that implies they are on the same level as a "pirate" (see above) instead of an actual people potentially deserving of respect. Your call on whether you think that's insensitive.
Bull fighter: An occupation. Specific to certain cultures, but not particularly "about" those cultures.
Fire fighter. An occupation. Not in any way tied to race.
Buddhist monk: Again, an "occupation" of sorts. Not one you are so likely to run into on the street. Playing dress-up. Your call on whether that's insensitive.
Indian: A caricaturized version of a culture that actually exists. Dressing up like some past version of them. Kind of erasing the present reality of Native Americans with a generally inaccurate and, many would say demeaning, silly costume.
Blackface: I'll let you look up blackface and its history and draw your own conclusions about why black people would consider this highly offensive.
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
I'll have to do some research on what blackface is, as I don't get the reference. I don't get a difference between dressing up as a pirate vs a colonialist vs a Bedouin vs a bull fighter vs a fire fighter vs a Buddhist monk. I honestly don't.
Is ' ' a real race, religion, or culture that people identify as? Does stereotyping a ' ' marginalize that group of people?
-
Here's another way to look at it:
Imagine you go to a costume party and a bunch of people at that party dress up in one of those costumes. Then an actual member of that "group" shows up at the party. Do you think that person might feel mocked, demeaned, and uncomfortable? Go down the list, and think about each one.
Then, for good measure, add a few others. Jew. Muslim. Mexican. Chinese person. Homosexual.
-
Are you being respectful? Is there hate in your heart? Are you prepared to stop and apologize if it becomes clear you went to far?
There's a comedian in Houston a few years ago that went around in a costume that went like so:
Pants around his ankles, boxer shorts. Texas A&M jersey. And a sheep strapped to his waist, head facing out.
And he would get out on the dance floor and dance around pretending he was a sheep-fucking aggie.
Now, this is an offensive costume. It is also hilarious. He clearly was trying (and succeeding) at being funny. He was in 18+ clubs that were holding costume contests, and he was just having a good time. He didn't show up at an Aggie funeral wearing it, and he didn't show up at an Aggie alum Halloween mixer wearing it.
So with regards to offensive behavior, context is relevant, audience is relevant, and despite all arguments to the contrary, intent is relevant.
There's a kid that gave a presentation on MLK, this kid is super young, and he wore blackface for it as part of his costume.
Every adult involved should feel embarrassed by it. And certainly you keep a video and make fun of that kid on his wedding day for it. But he shouldn't have been made to feel ashamed when it happened. That kid was too young for the fallout that descended upon him and his community. It was a non-event, but he was briefly an internet poster child for why you should never wear blackface. That was a teacher-crying-laughing in the breakroom moment, not a make a kid feel like shit because of your over-sensitivity moment.
With regards to the Minnesota Mexicans, I would object to that name because it is stupid. The same way I objected (and still object!) to the Houston Texans. Damn dumbest name for a team ever. The Minnesota Mexicans wouldn't be a racist name however, nationalistic sure, but Mexican isn't a race. And that's some weird nationalism too, because Minnesota is the southernmost outpost of Canada, as we all know.
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
I'll have to do some research on what blackface is, as I don't get the reference. I don't get a difference between dressing up as a pirate vs a colonialist vs a Bedouin vs a bull fighter vs a fire fighter vs a Buddhist monk. I honestly don't.
There are some distinctions, though. And they do become important.
Pirate: the version of pirate people dress up as is a parody of a historical figure. Those "pirates" don't exist today, except in movies. Almost as made up as Tinker Bell.
Colonialist: white, also a historical figure so not dressing up as anything that exists today. A caricature that's not likely to offend white descendants of the colonials.
Bedouin: A contemporary culture, albeit not one you are likely to run into in North America, so you're basically playing dress-up pretending to be someone from another culture, perhaps in a simplistic way that implies they are on the same level as a "pirate" (see above) instead of an actual people potentially deserving of respect. Your call on whether you think that's insensitive.
Bull fighter: An occupation. Specific to certain cultures, but not particularly "about" those cultures.
Fire fighter. An occupation. Not in any way tied to race.
Buddhist monk: Again, an "occupation" of sorts. Not one you are so likely to run into on the street. Playing dress-up. Your call on whether that's insensitive.
Indian: A caricaturized version of a culture that actually exists. Dressing up like some past version of them. Kind of erasing the present reality of Native Americans with a generally inaccurate and, many would say demeaning, silly costume.
Blackface: I'll let you look up blackface and its history and draw your own conclusions about why black people would consider this highly offensive.
OK, so it's continuity/current use of that culture that is relevant. If current living people can draw a direct line from their current culture to the costume, it is an infringement. If there is no line, is probably OK.
If you went as a coal miner (with a different kind of black face, but ignore that) to certain parts of England, it could be insulting because people bear massive grudges against Margaret Thatcher. If you went as an Indian in the UK, it is very unlikely anyone would be offended.
I guess dressing as a bull fighter in Spain could get you in trouble.
So, going back to the CBC link - what are people's opinions on whether that party was *racist*?
-
So, going back to the CBC link - what are people's opinions on whether that party was *racist*?
Racist - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3863586.1479907898!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/original_620/queen-s-university-racist-student-party-facebook-nov-19-2016.JPG)
I see images of a bunch of white people wearing sombreros and prison outfits. That seems like they're trying to show their belief that a particular group of people is inferior (more likely to be incarcerated). It's hard to say for sure given the lack of context . . .
-
White people dressing up as other ethnicity has a history - blackface. Many of the people who attended blackface minstrelsy shows were probably not thinking 'Fuck those black people', but just going for fun. The issue is that by participating in these events they legitimized a type of thinking/reasoning and reinforced stereotypes that are harmful. Racism doesn't always come from a place of hate . . . it can be oppression that is ingrained in casual behavior.
Personally, my motto is to try to avoid doing harm. Dressing up as a stereotype of an ethnicity (and then acting in a manner that reinforces that stereotype) has a reasonable chance of being hurtful to someone. What fun motivation is possibly worth that?
You can certainly argue that dressing up in that way isn't racist, but given the above . . . does it even matter?
I think it matters because you end up being very one-sided: You are saying, in effect, anything that can offend anyone should be avoided. That's terrible. You end up with the terrible Rupert Murdoch type media that is extremely careful to not say "fuck the Muslims", without the ability to satirize or otherwise demolish that type of media.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger - no, I don't believe that (chopping off a leg or two) - but you don't want to go too far either - too much cotton wool, helicopter parenting just leads to wishy-washy people.
So - while I agree with avoiding doing harm - and I agree that we want to avoid passive, ingrained behaviour (relying on stereotypes), I don't know that a blanket ban on dress up is healthy.
What I'm not saying is that you have to agree with me, or do what I do. You're free to dress up in as much blackface as you want. If you get a lot of pushback from the rest of society when you do so though, don't be surprised. It's totally your choice to make though.
I'll have to do some research on what blackface is, as I don't get the reference. I don't get a difference between dressing up as a pirate vs a colonialist vs a Bedouin vs a bull fighter vs a fire fighter vs a Buddhist monk. I honestly don't.
Probably because they are not dressing up as a bedouin or a monk but as their stereotyped opinion of what those should be.
-
So, going back to the CBC link - what are people's opinions on whether that party was *racist*?
Racist - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3863586.1479907898!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/original_620/queen-s-university-racist-student-party-facebook-nov-19-2016.JPG)
I see images of a bunch of white people wearing sombreros and prison outfits. That seems like they're trying to show their belief that a particular group of people is inferior (more likely to be incarcerated). It's hard to say for sure given the lack of context . . .
Ah, OK, I missed that one. Orange doesn't mean prison to me, without it being pointed out. Yeah, that's pretty stupid.
-
Sombraros and jumpsuits is pretty racist.
A Buddhist monk? I don't really think so. Same a fire-fighter.
As a martial artist, I've often felt a bit racist in some classes - dressing up in gi, bowing to an instructor; it felt very much like it was appropriating culture that wasn't mine. What's wrong with gym shorts and a reinforced shirt? (Nothing. The answer is nothing.)
-
Sombraros and jumpsuits is pretty racist.
A Buddhist monk? I don't really think so. Same a fire-fighter.
As a martial artist, I've often felt a bit racist in some classes - dressing up in gi, bowing to an instructor; it felt very much like it was appropriating culture that wasn't mine. What's wrong with gym shorts and a reinforced shirt? (Nothing. The answer is nothing.)
I wish. Those gis can be way too hot.
-
As a martial artist, I've often felt a bit racist in some classes - dressing up in gi, bowing to an instructor; it felt very much like it was appropriating culture that wasn't mine. What's wrong with gym shorts and a reinforced shirt? (Nothing. The answer is nothing.)
Really? Surely the 'outfit' is part of the 'art' rather than the race?
My wife has a friend who literally lives in a teepee in the woods and wears leather clothing made from his he gets from a local butcher. Um. In the same way, if I was to live in the Arctic (low tech) is wear clothing like the Inuit.
Generally I dress how I've dressed since I was a teenager, but since moving to Canada (and losing my hair), I wear a hat pretty much all the time when outside, and wear winter clothes in the winter. I don't think that in any way is disrespectful towards Canadians. If I was to judo, I'd wear judo gear. If I took up fencing, same. If I go to work, I wear office clothes.
-
As a martial artist, I've often felt a bit racist in some classes - dressing up in gi, bowing to an instructor; it felt very much like it was appropriating culture that wasn't mine. What's wrong with gym shorts and a reinforced shirt? (Nothing. The answer is nothing.)
That's not even something I've considered before.
Wearing a gi to practice a Japanese based martial art is typically done out of respect for tradition (although in Jiu-Jitsu and Judo manipulating the gi is fundamental to your strategy so it's necessary equipment and highly regulated for tournaments). Learning to bow, count to ten in Japanese/Korean/Chinese, learning the Wai Kru dance in Muay Thai, and the like is really just part of paying homage to the roots of the culture that started the art you're studying.
People rarely take offense at an honest attempt to learn about their culture, so I'm reasonably sure that you have nothing to be concerned about on that front.
-
Are you being respectful? Is there hate in your heart? Are you prepared to stop and apologize if it becomes clear you went to far?
There's a comedian in Houston a few years ago that went around in a costume that went like so:
Pants around his ankles, boxer shorts. Texas A&M jersey. And a sheep strapped to his waist, head facing out.
And he would get out on the dance floor and dance around pretending he was a sheep-fucking aggie.
Now, this is an offensive costume. It is also hilarious. He clearly was trying (and succeeding) at being funny. He was in 18+ clubs that were holding costume contests, and he was just having a good time. He didn't show up at an Aggie funeral wearing it, and he didn't show up at an Aggie alum Halloween mixer wearing it.
So with regards to offensive behavior, context is relevant, audience is relevant, and despite all arguments to the contrary, intent is relevant.
There's a kid that gave a presentation on MLK, this kid is super young, and he wore blackface for it as part of his costume.
Every adult involved should feel embarrassed by it. And certainly you keep a video and make fun of that kid on his wedding day for it. But he shouldn't have been made to feel ashamed when it happened. That kid was too young for the fallout that descended upon him and his community. It was a non-event, but he was briefly an internet poster child for why you should never wear blackface. That was a teacher-crying-laughing in the breakroom moment, not a make a kid feel like shit because of your over-sensitivity moment.
With regards to the Minnesota Mexicans, I would object to that name because it is stupid. The same way I objected (and still object!) to the Houston Texans. Damn dumbest name for a team ever. The Minnesota Mexicans wouldn't be a racist name however, nationalistic sure, but Mexican isn't a race. And that's some weird nationalism too, because Minnesota is the southernmost outpost of Canada, as we all know.
How about the Cleveland Jews? Granted, not race but religion, there. The Louisville Arabs?
-
Nothing to add really, for the most part think are too easily offended. And on that note, prescribe to much meaning to the word offended. You're offended? So what? I think it was a past Canadian prime minister who said something like "If you live in a country where you're never offended, you probably don't live in a very free country."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbsvKCOVik
-
As a martial artist, I've often felt a bit racist in some classes - dressing up in gi, bowing to an instructor; it felt very much like it was appropriating culture that wasn't mine. What's wrong with gym shorts and a reinforced shirt? (Nothing. The answer is nothing.)
That's not even something I've considered before.
Wearing a gi to practice a Japanese based martial art is typically done out of respect for tradition (although in Jiu-Jitsu and Judo manipulating the gi is fundamental to your strategy so it's necessary equipment and highly regulated for tournaments). Learning to bow, count to ten in Japanese/Korean/Chinese, learning the Wai Kru dance in Muay Thai, and the like is really just part of paying homage to the roots of the culture that started the art you're studying.
People rarely take offense at an honest attempt to learn about their culture, so I'm reasonably sure that you have nothing to be concerned about on that front.
I guess this is just how I've felt at times watching a bunch of white guys dressed like ninjas yelling kiais while whacking at each other with wooden replicas of traditional weapons and tossing each other on the mats; even while participating it didn't really pass the smell test with me. While some (mainly instructors) were there to 'study the culture', most were there for stress relief, relaxation and physical fitness. As a degree of terribleness, it's not the most insensitive thing one can do, obviously. But even if the intent to harm isn't there, an action can still be insensitive.
-
Are you being respectful? Is there hate in your heart? Are you prepared to stop and apologize if it becomes clear you went to far?
There's a comedian in Houston a few years ago that went around in a costume that went like so:
Pants around his ankles, boxer shorts. Texas A&M jersey. And a sheep strapped to his waist, head facing out.
And he would get out on the dance floor and dance around pretending he was a sheep-fucking aggie.
Now, this is an offensive costume. It is also hilarious. He clearly was trying (and succeeding) at being funny. He was in 18+ clubs that were holding costume contests, and he was just having a good time. He didn't show up at an Aggie funeral wearing it, and he didn't show up at an Aggie alum Halloween mixer wearing it.
So with regards to offensive behavior, context is relevant, audience is relevant, and despite all arguments to the contrary, intent is relevant.
There's a kid that gave a presentation on MLK, this kid is super young, and he wore blackface for it as part of his costume.
Every adult involved should feel embarrassed by it. And certainly you keep a video and make fun of that kid on his wedding day for it. But he shouldn't have been made to feel ashamed when it happened. That kid was too young for the fallout that descended upon him and his community. It was a non-event, but he was briefly an internet poster child for why you should never wear blackface. That was a teacher-crying-laughing in the breakroom moment, not a make a kid feel like shit because of your over-sensitivity moment.
With regards to the Minnesota Mexicans, I would object to that name because it is stupid. The same way I objected (and still object!) to the Houston Texans. Damn dumbest name for a team ever. The Minnesota Mexicans wouldn't be a racist name however, nationalistic sure, but Mexican isn't a race. And that's some weird nationalism too, because Minnesota is the southernmost outpost of Canada, as we all know.
How about the Cleveland Jews? Granted, not race but religion, there. The Louisville Arabs?
How about the new York Yankees? Northeastern Americans
New York Knicks - knickerbocker is a family name that actually refers to a Dutch family from new York that was appropriated
Boston Celtics - Irish (comparable to using Arabs in identifying a culture)
New Orleans Saints - Christian homage - its religion
New Jersey Devils - Christian reference
At lower levels we have Crusaders and Saints- people who would fight in holy wars, people elevated by the catholic pope
And the reference to this post:
L.A. Lakers - refers to Minnesota - land of 10,000 lakes (similar to saying Minnesota Mexicans isn't it? In that an area identification is used by another region. They kept the name after moving).
I'm stirring the pot, but Its a curious thing. Why are some names celebrated, Yankees, while others are terrible, Braves (similar to Vikings in referring to a warrior class). I get that Redskins is a slur, slurs are bad I agree, its not really something that can be discussed (since I'll agree that its bad it ends the conversation). I read Braves though as a celebratory homage to a job, that was used by many nations across North America.
-
Are you being respectful? Is there hate in your heart? Are you prepared to stop and apologize if it becomes clear you went to far?
There's a comedian in Houston a few years ago that went around in a costume that went like so:
Pants around his ankles, boxer shorts. Texas A&M jersey. And a sheep strapped to his waist, head facing out.
And he would get out on the dance floor and dance around pretending he was a sheep-fucking aggie.
Now, this is an offensive costume. It is also hilarious. He clearly was trying (and succeeding) at being funny. He was in 18+ clubs that were holding costume contests, and he was just having a good time. He didn't show up at an Aggie funeral wearing it, and he didn't show up at an Aggie alum Halloween mixer wearing it.
So with regards to offensive behavior, context is relevant, audience is relevant, and despite all arguments to the contrary, intent is relevant.
There's a kid that gave a presentation on MLK, this kid is super young, and he wore blackface for it as part of his costume.
Every adult involved should feel embarrassed by it. And certainly you keep a video and make fun of that kid on his wedding day for it. But he shouldn't have been made to feel ashamed when it happened. That kid was too young for the fallout that descended upon him and his community. It was a non-event, but he was briefly an internet poster child for why you should never wear blackface. That was a teacher-crying-laughing in the breakroom moment, not a make a kid feel like shit because of your over-sensitivity moment.
With regards to the Minnesota Mexicans, I would object to that name because it is stupid. The same way I objected (and still object!) to the Houston Texans. Damn dumbest name for a team ever. The Minnesota Mexicans wouldn't be a racist name however, nationalistic sure, but Mexican isn't a race. And that's some weird nationalism too, because Minnesota is the southernmost outpost of Canada, as we all know.
How about the Cleveland Jews? Granted, not race but religion, there. The Louisville Arabs?
How about the new York Yankees? Northeastern Americans
New York Knicks - knickerbocker is a family name that actually refers to a Dutch family from new York that was appropriated
Boston Celtics - Irish (comparable to using Arabs in identifying a culture)
New Orleans Saints - Christian homage - its religion
New Jersey Devils - Christian reference
At lower levels we have Crusaders and Saints- people who would fight in holy wars, people elevated by the catholic pope
And the reference to this post:
L.A. Lakers - refers to Minnesota - land of 10,000 lakes (similar to saying Minnesota Mexicans isn't it? In that an area identification is used by another region. They kept the name after moving).
I'm stirring the pot, but Its a curious thing. Why are some names celebrated, Yankees, while others are terrible, Braves (similar to Vikings in referring to a warrior class). I get that Redskins is a slur, slurs are bad I agree, its not really something that can be discussed (since I'll agree that its bad it ends the conversation). I read Braves though as a celebratory homage to a job, that was used by many nations across North America.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/dC9dujPVeAfIY/200.gif)
-
How about the Cleveland Jews? Granted, not race but religion, there. The Louisville Arabs?
I'm stirring the pot, but Its a curious thing. Why are some names celebrated, Yankees, while others are terrible, Braves (similar to Vikings in referring to a warrior class). I get that Redskins is a slur, slurs are bad I agree, its not really something that can be discussed (since I'll agree that its bad it ends the conversation). I read Braves though as a celebratory homage to a job, that was used by many nations across North America.
[/quote]
Again, as mentioned above; it's a mater of degrees: degrees of intent and context and perception. "Braves" celebrates a positive part of culture- now the mascot caricature is another matter. Could still be racist, but as you mentioned, not to the degree "Redskins" is.
-
What if we let, oh I don't know, the ACTUAL natives decide what is offensive to them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Because honestly, deciding FOR another group is so disrespectful!
-
What if we let, oh I don't know, the ACTUAL natives decide what is offensive to them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Because honestly, deciding FOR another group is so disrespectful!
That statement is offensive in itself. Lumping natives into one group is akin to saying African, European or Asian. If I lump Japan and China together I get 9 out of 10, would a Japanese descent individual be cool with being told that he has to do something because Asians are cool with it?
I realize the insensitivity of counting all of China and Japan as one culture, do you realize that in the Americas there is more than one culture of Natives?
If you read your link you'll see 5 (did I miss some?) cultures quoted. Each belong to a different nation with different heritage and culture:
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Native Americans are resilient and have not allowed the NFL’s decades-long denigration of us to define our own self-image,” wrote Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter
“I’m proud of being Native American and of the Redskins,” said Barbara Bruce, a Chippewa
“I really don’t mind it. I like it. . . . We call other natives ‘skins,’ too,” said Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo
“For me, it doesn’t make any difference,” said Charles Moore, a 73-year-old Oneida
So if one culture decides its disrespectful, can they decide for themselves or do they have to go along with all natives are the same?
-
I can just about understand how the.. what was it, hockey? Baseball? team called the Braves or Indians or whatever (I don't 'do' sports, I just remember hearing about it).. could be taken as not politically correct (it got changed to the Red Blacks I think), though I don't really "get it".
Its funny you mention the Red Blacks. Does anyone think this is racist? Can you explain how the RedBlacks is racist?
-
What if we let, oh I don't know, the ACTUAL natives decide what is offensive to them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Because honestly, deciding FOR another group is so disrespectful!
That statement is offensive in itself. Lumping natives into one group is akin to saying African, European or Asian. If I lump Japan and China together I get 9 out of 10, would a Japanese descent individual be cool with being told that he has to do something because Asians are cool with it?
I realize the insensitivity of counting all of China and Japan as one culture, do you realize that in the Americas there is more than one culture of Natives?
If you read your link you'll see 5 (did I miss some?) cultures quoted. Each belong to a different nation with different heritage and culture:
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Native Americans are resilient and have not allowed the NFL’s decades-long denigration of us to define our own self-image,” wrote Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter
“I’m proud of being Native American and of the Redskins,” said Barbara Bruce, a Chippewa
“I really don’t mind it. I like it. . . . We call other natives ‘skins,’ too,” said Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo
“For me, it doesn’t make any difference,” said Charles Moore, a 73-year-old Oneida
So if one culture decides its disrespectful, can they decide for themselves or do they have to go along with all natives are the same?
I am speaking of native Americans, or whatever the current PC title is for the folks Europeans encountered when they landed in America. The article stated that the Indians aren't actually offended by the Washington Redskins. It should have been obvious which natives I was referring to.
As a white Irish/English/Scotch lady, I don't get to decide what is offensive to Germans or Italians or Native Americans or anyone else. I only get to decide what offends me. Speaking for another group is disrespectful.
-
What if we let, oh I don't know, the ACTUAL natives decide what is offensive to them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Because honestly, deciding FOR another group is so disrespectful!
That statement is offensive in itself. Lumping natives into one group is akin to saying African, European or Asian. If I lump Japan and China together I get 9 out of 10, would a Japanese descent individual be cool with being told that he has to do something because Asians are cool with it?
I realize the insensitivity of counting all of China and Japan as one culture, do you realize that in the Americas there is more than one culture of Natives?
If you read your link you'll see 5 (did I miss some?) cultures quoted. Each belong to a different nation with different heritage and culture:
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Native Americans are resilient and have not allowed the NFL’s decades-long denigration of us to define our own self-image,” wrote Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter
“I’m proud of being Native American and of the Redskins,” said Barbara Bruce, a Chippewa
“I really don’t mind it. I like it. . . . We call other natives ‘skins,’ too,” said Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo
“For me, it doesn’t make any difference,” said Charles Moore, a 73-year-old Oneida
So if one culture decides its disrespectful, can they decide for themselves or do they have to go along with all natives are the same?
I am speaking of native Americans, or whatever the current PC title is for the folks Europeans encountered when they landed in America. The article stated that the Indians aren't actually offended by the Washington Redskins. It should have been obvious which natives I was referring to.
As a white Irish/English/Scotch lady, I don't get to decide what is offensive to Germans or Italians or Native Americans or anyone else. I only get to decide what offends me. Speaking for another group is disrespectful.
OP, this is what racism looks like. A person who takes time to proclaim their heritage but doesn't want to take the time to learn about anyone else's. "Whatever the current PC title is" is a not so subtle dig. People want themselves recognized and white ladies think its just PC. I doubt you would say the African American Civil Rights movement was also just PC noise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy
"In the 20th and 21st centuries, indigenous peoples in the Americas have been more vocal about the ways they wish to be referred to, pressing for the elimination of terms widely considered to be obsolete, inaccurate, or racist. During the latter half of the 20th century and the rise of the Indian rights movement, the United States government responded by proposing the use of the term "Native American", to recognize the primacy of indigenous peoples' tenure in the nation. The term has met with only partial acceptance. Other naming conventions have been proposed and used, but none are accepted by all indigenous groups. Typically, each name has a particular audience and political or cultural connotation, and regional usage varies.
In Canada, while Status Indian remains a legal designation due to the Indian Act, the term "Indian" is generally considered offensive when used by non-Natives with the term First Nations being preferred for peoples covered by the Indian Act and Aboriginal or Indigenous peoples preferred for Native peoples generally."
Happy Thanksgiving
-
See, this is where it gets too much - I know, personally, no First Nations people (oh, maybe I do - one of my wife's friends is somewhat, but not very much). If I knew any Navajo, I would probably call them Navajo. As I don't, the distinction is - *to me* - completely irrelevant. I can't carry the distinction of every race and religion and sect - because, let's be honest, "Buddhist monk" is pretty general. "Indian" is pretty stupid as you could be talking about First Nations or Indian-from-India (which is what I, coming from the UK, tend to think - and even then, Indian-Indian vs British-with-Indian-ancestry?).
So, for First Nations, fine. For Metis and Inuit and Native American and (legal status) Indian. I can understand... not wishing to get into it. It's just not relevant on a daily basis - person X is person X, not "an (Indian/Aboriginal/FN/etc). Is it *racist* of me to not care about someone's ethnicity (race, I suppose)? I either know them as a person, and they are X, or I read about them in the news.
I mean... "Chinese" is bad. It should be Han Chinese vs Mongol, etc, etc, etc. Does grouping necessarily mean an -ism? I really don't think so - we stereotype because our brains simply cannot make decisions on 100% of the info, but try to whittle it down to the salient parts. Which, yes, leads to some bad things, but most of the time is helpful.
The (logical but not practical) ideal would, of course, for there to be no 'them'. It's all individuals, who have equal rights (not "are equal", I know that term is shorthand but incorrect).
Pretty sure calling others racist isn't helpful. I'm racist, no doubt about it - not intentionally. That's sort've what this thread is about, to try and poke at my biases and figure out which are blindly something-ist, which are logical.
-
What if we let, oh I don't know, the ACTUAL natives decide what is offensive to them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html
Because honestly, deciding FOR another group is so disrespectful!
That statement is offensive in itself. Lumping natives into one group is akin to saying African, European or Asian. If I lump Japan and China together I get 9 out of 10, would a Japanese descent individual be cool with being told that he has to do something because Asians are cool with it?
I realize the insensitivity of counting all of China and Japan as one culture, do you realize that in the Americas there is more than one culture of Natives?
If you read your link you'll see 5 (did I miss some?) cultures quoted. Each belong to a different nation with different heritage and culture:
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Native Americans are resilient and have not allowed the NFL’s decades-long denigration of us to define our own self-image,” wrote Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter
“I’m proud of being Native American and of the Redskins,” said Barbara Bruce, a Chippewa
“I really don’t mind it. I like it. . . . We call other natives ‘skins,’ too,” said Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo
“For me, it doesn’t make any difference,” said Charles Moore, a 73-year-old Oneida
So if one culture decides its disrespectful, can they decide for themselves or do they have to go along with all natives are the same?
I am speaking of native Americans, or whatever the current PC title is for the folks Europeans encountered when they landed in America. The article stated that the Indians aren't actually offended by the Washington Redskins. It should have been obvious which natives I was referring to.
As a white Irish/English/Scotch lady, I don't get to decide what is offensive to Germans or Italians or Native Americans or anyone else. I only get to decide what offends me. Speaking for another group is disrespectful.
Yes but I think what they are saying is just cause Gabriel Nez, a 29-year-old Navajo doesnt find it offensive doesnt mean other Navajo people dont, or even if all Navajo people don't find it offensive doesnt mean that all Native Americans dont. Same as you said before, if we polled some English, Italians and Spanish people and then said 9 out of 10 Europeans dont find this offensive it wouldnt be correct, because we havent asked French, Austrian, German ect. There are many different Native American Groups just like there are many different European nations. One cant speak for the other
-
I think that it is perfectly okay to call something racist or prejudiced if you think it is. The person should be tough enough to defend themselves if they think they are being unfairly treated.
The more I think about racism, the more I think the problem is less with calling it out, and more with the fact that society sees it as an irredeemable moral failing. In my opinion, we all have cultural blind spots and ignorance, and someone pointing that out doesn't offend me, it educates me.
I am a bit racist. It took me 40 years to realize it, and I am working to remedy it. I likely will never be completely rid of bias, because all humans are biased in some way. I can just spend my life trying to judge people at face value and not by stereotypes.
-
See, this is where it gets too much - I know, personally, no First Nations people (oh, maybe I do - one of my wife's friends is somewhat, but not very much). If I knew any Navajo, I would probably call them Navajo. As I don't, the distinction is - *to me* - completely irrelevant. I can't carry the distinction of every race and religion and sect - because, let's be honest, "Buddhist monk" is pretty general. "Indian" is pretty stupid as you could be talking about First Nations or Indian-from-India (which is what I, coming from the UK, tend to think - and even then, Indian-Indian vs British-with-Indian-ancestry?).
So, for First Nations, fine. For Metis and Inuit and Native American and (legal status) Indian. I can understand... not wishing to get into it. It's just not relevant on a daily basis - person X is person X, not "an (Indian/Aboriginal/FN/etc). Is it *racist* of me to not care about someone's ethnicity (race, I suppose)? I either know them as a person, and they are X, or I read about them in the news.
I mean... "Chinese" is bad. It should be Han Chinese vs Mongol, etc, etc, etc. Does grouping necessarily mean an -ism? I really don't think so - we stereotype because our brains simply cannot make decisions on 100% of the info, but try to whittle it down to the salient parts. Which, yes, leads to some bad things, but most of the time is helpful.
The (logical but not practical) ideal would, of course, for there to be no 'them'. It's all individuals, who have equal rights (not "are equal", I know that term is shorthand but incorrect).
Pretty sure calling others racist isn't helpful. I'm racist, no doubt about it - not intentionally. That's sort've what this thread is about, to try and poke at my biases and figure out which are blindly something-ist, which are logical.
Indian in Canada has racist tones like the N-word. Just don't use it to refer to indigenous people, it's been appropriated in the same way, usage of the word is only done by the group. It's easy rules, don't use racial slurs unless you belong to that group.
The PC comment is a well worn slur. It's a shot saying that the group is being sensitive, they should get over it, basically it's a belittling jab. It reads sarcastically, just because of how it's been used. When Native American was first used people mocked natives, kinda like how African Americans fought to stop being called certain terms. Why even say something is PC, just leave it alone and accept it.
I get grouping, the problem arises when you stereotype a group and assign them homogeneity in all your dealings. You still need to treat people as individual, as you mention. The racist part is saying all people of a certain background must be the same, it steals a persons individuality. It's about respecting each person you meet, not lumping them into a preset judgement. I think we agree on this, I'm paraphrasing you.
With the poll, 10% were offended. A white lady (she brought it up, it shouldn't be important but she felt it should be mentioned) dismissed them as being unimportant, that's the disrespect. Why does she even care? Why seek to stifle people when it won't harm you at all? If 10% find it offensive that's 500,000 people in the USA, that's a poll conducted by the redskin owners so I suspect it might be biased low. If the name changed what's the downside?
Nnls - great summary.
-
The documentary, Slavery By Another Name, may interest you
-
I think that it is perfectly okay to call something racist or prejudiced if you think it is. The person should be tough enough to defend themselves if they think they are being unfairly treated.
The more I think about racism, the more I think the problem is less with calling it out, and more with the fact that society sees it as an irredeemable moral failing. In my opinion, we all have cultural blind spots and ignorance, and someone pointing that out doesn't offend me, it educates me.
I am a bit racist. It took me 40 years to realize it, and I am working to remedy it. I likely will never be completely rid of bias, because all humans are biased in some way. I can just spend my life trying to judge people at face value and not by stereotypes.
This is a great point. I'm never quite sure how to bring this up without sounding like some kind of left-wing social juatice warrior. It's not the end of the world to have a bias; often it is formed by that person's experience, but I think it can be helpful to point out when someone is obviously biased, or stereotypical, in a positive way to help them think about how their wirds might affect others and how they could consider that not all people of a certain demographic can be characterized by the actions of the few, and even if the bias is based on experience it is still rude and wrong to judge individuals on the actions of others.
Just not sure how to do that respectfully.
-
I think that it is perfectly okay to call something racist or prejudiced if you think it is. The person should be tough enough to defend themselves if they think they are being unfairly treated.
The more I think about racism, the more I think the problem is less with calling it out, and more with the fact that society sees it as an irredeemable moral failing. In my opinion, we all have cultural blind spots and ignorance, and someone pointing that out doesn't offend me, it educates me.
I am a bit racist. It took me 40 years to realize it, and I am working to remedy it. I likely will never be completely rid of bias, because all humans are biased in some way. I can just spend my life trying to judge people at face value and not by stereotypes.
This is a great point. I'm never quite sure how to bring this up without sounding like sime kind of left-wing social juatice warrior. It's not the end of the world to have a bias; often it is formed by that person's experience, but I think it can be helpful to point out when someone is obviously biased, or stereotypical, in a positive way to help them think about how their wirds might affect others and how they could consider that not all people of a certain demographic can be characterized by the actions of the few, and even if the bias is based on experience it is still rude and wrong to judge individuals on the actions of others.
Just nit sure how to do that respectfully.
I would recommend not calling them racist as people get defensive straight away and wont listen. Say something along the lines of "Those comments are overly stereotypical and I don't think that you should characterise a whole group by the actions of some, imagine how you would feel if everyone said all (what ever nationality or gender or whatever you want to use and then some stereotype) "
though it depends on how well you know the person as to what you can say I suppose
-
If you are interested in understanding the very real effects of racial and cultural stereotyping I can give some insights. If this is more of a "look at this PC crowd running amok" because you are not part of the impacted group, I'll save my virtual breath.
It's pretty interesting to read this thread and hear from the perspective of people who DON'T have to deal little constant subtle or unsubtle prejudices and just 'be'.
In my view, realizing that, yes, racism is a thing is the first step to becoming less racist. A person can unknowingly hold racial stereotypes without being a Bad and Racist person.
-
If you are interested in understanding the very real effects of racial and cultural stereotyping I can give some insights. If this is more of a "look at this PC crowd running amok" because you are not part of the impacted group, I'll save my virtual breath.
It's pretty interesting to read this thread and hear from the perspective of people who DON'T have to deal little constant subtle or unsubtle prejudices and just 'be'.
In my view, realizing that, yes, racism is a thing is the first step to becoming less racist. A person can unknowingly hold racial stereotypes without being a Bad and Racist person.
I'm very interested in understanding. I do also think there is an "I'm offended on their behalf" crowd that generally don't help. Much like the tabloid media, getting upset over something taken out of context.
I can take both sides of: person walks into a bar, gets ignored or muttered epithets - bad; vs, person walks into shop, who statistically (as in, actual factual, not made up statistics) show someone "who looks like that" has a significantly higher chance of thieving. So security perks up and follows him. Not *fair* but understandable.
It's like.. insurance. Males of 18-25 are statistically more likely to wrap their car around something it wasn't meant to be wrapped around. So their rates are higher. Is that fair on the majority of young men that don't have accidents? No. Is it fair on the poor sods who get "looked at" because they are wearing (x, or y, or z) when everyone else tends to wear (a, b, and c)? No.
We're a fucking nightmare. I'm really just trying to get a handle on when something is *racist* vs, oh, silly, or thoughtless, or not a problem at all. Until someone mentioned the prison outfit along with the sombreros, I couldn't see what was actually *racist* in that CBC article. Other people have implied that perhaps *racist* is not necessarily a "strong" word - it's a spectrum - that you can be very slightly racist, by wearing a Buddhist monk outfit (perhaps? I'm still not convinced on that one), or very very racist, by wearing a sign that says "niggers go back to Africa". You can suggest that someone is being a little bit racist. We're all, always, being judgemental on something. Appearance, manner, tone, accent.. Is that as bad as being racist? It's no different, is it? Except it's on an individual rather than group level.
-
1. Someone else's culture is not an appropriate costume. Period.
2. It's great that you want to be educated and learn more. There are excellent resources available, especially things that tell you how to be a good ally or how to understand the history and development of systematic and institutionalized racism. Part of dismantling this system is taking responsibility for educating yourself (instead of foisting it on people who have been/are oppressed and disadvantaged). So it is cool that OP is asking and trying to understand - but it also means - for everyone - opening your mind and heart to what's out there, instead of thinking that one person can give you the Racism 101 course.
3. White fragility is the concept that because we've equated racism with bad person and bad morals, many white people can't handle examining the unconscious biases and structures of society that were built upon these systems. Google white fragility and happy reading.
4. Your example of security following around people who look a certain way is not analogous to car insurance rates that are based on actual reports of car incidents, payouts and actuarial tables. If someone doesn't report an accident, it doesn't make their chart. So it's not 100% accurate, but it does reflect a more reliable sense of which drivers make claims or have claims filed against them.
The idea that it is ok to harass and profile people who look a certain way in a store because they belong to a group that you think has higher rates of criminality is borne of ignorance about how law enforcement and security have targeted groups of people in the past & how racism has informed and spread these beliefs in society. It is only "understandable" to you because society is accepting of casual racism and stereotyping, not because there is actual evidence that a person's racial or ethnic make-up makes them more likely to be a thief. (Helpful resources on the relationship between racism and criminalizing a group of people include Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow & Ava Duvernay's documentary 13th).
-
But calling a costume party racist for having people dress up in Arabian, Mexican, whatever, costumes seems overblown. Nazi outfits? Insensitive/stupid (illegal in Germany, of course). But a party with a load of people, with small groups all in different costumes? There's no discrimination here. There is cultural stereotyping, for fun. It's a costume.
Fun for who? For you maybe, but what about the race being stereotyped, especially if the they are in the minority and is (or was) discriminated against by the dominate race, the one now having fun at their expense again.
I've never considered myself a racist, at least not in the overt sense, so I initially thought unconscious bias (https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/avoiding-unconscious-bias.htm) was something invented to make white people feel guilty. However, after doing a few experiments/tests (such as https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) it was clear that, indeed, I do have my own deep seated biases, ones I don't even think about. My understanding of it is that our brains are not nearly as rational as we like to believe. Activating the logical/rational part of the brain takes a great deal of effort, even requiring increased physical energy, so our brains evolved to conserve energy by relying on a low-effort intuition built on patterns of experience. This is why you will likely get excited when visiting an area of a lake where you previously caught a big fish, or a slot machine where you once won, or a place where you had an auto accident or near accident. Pop culture, news media, racial stereotypes...everything we experience shapes our intuitive brain. Having "fun" by stereotyping people reenforces these unconscious biases.
Biases go beyond racism. Here in ultra-liberal and so-called progressive California, racism is still alive and well though often under the surface, but elitism and classism are far bigger issues (these often involve race and culture). The all too common response to any effort to build low-income housing in affluent neighborhoods (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-a-wealthy-SF-neighborhood-residents-fight-10617213.php), people who think of themselves as shining examples of compassion and enlightenment, is sadly predictable.
-
But calling a costume party racist for having people dress up in Arabian, Mexican, whatever, costumes seems overblown. Nazi outfits? Insensitive/stupid (illegal in Germany, of course). But a party with a load of people, with small groups all in different costumes? There's no discrimination here. There is cultural stereotyping, for fun. It's a costume.
Fun for who? For you maybe, but what about the race being stereotyped, especially if the they are in the minority and is (or was) discriminated against by the dominate race, the one now having fun at their expense again.
I've never considered myself a racist, at least not in the overt sense, so I initially thought unconscious bias (https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/avoiding-unconscious-bias.htm) was something invented to make white people feel guilty. However, after doing a few experiments/tests (such as https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) it was clear that, indeed, I do have my own deep seated biases, ones I don't even think about. My understanding of it is that our brains are not nearly as rational as we like to believe. Activating the logical/rational part of the brain takes a great deal of effort, even requiring increased physical energy, so our brains evolved to conserve energy by relying on a low-effort intuition built on patterns of experience. This is why you will likely get excited when visiting an area of a lake where you previously caught a big fish, or a slot machine where you once won, or a place where you had an auto accident or near accident. Pop culture, news media, racial stereotypes...everything we experience shapes our intuitive brain. Having "fun" by stereotyping people reenforces these unconscious biases.
Biases go beyond racism. Here in ultra-liberal and so-called progressive California, racism is still alive and well though often under the surface, but elitism and classism are far bigger issues (these often involve race and culture). The all too common response to any effort to build low-income housing in affluent neighborhoods (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-a-wealthy-SF-neighborhood-residents-fight-10617213.php), people who think of themselves as shining examples of compassion and enlightenment, is sadly predictable.
I did the race IAT and, while I'm sure it's somewhat valid, doing "white+ good" then "black+ good" is going to skew the results - vs starting with "black+ good". Doing the opposite of what you were doing thirty seconds ago is hard. I wonder if they take that into account. But I'm not at all surprised I have implicit bias.
For the costume thing - I don't see wearing Arab dress as being a non-dominant race. Let's flip it: how could a non-white person dress up as a white person, and would that be racist? Or is there no white culture to borrow?
Part of the thing here is that I'm not north American, I guess.
Edit: the other thing is that, lately, I just don't come into contact with non white people. I live in a tiny town in Canada, and there are... well, I don't know. In the places I go, I might literally not see a non white person in a week.
I'm also not, in this thread, particularly specifically interested in African American stuff. I'm not in America. It's just not relevant. I have fairly neutral feelings towards Mexico, too - I don't have the cultural input that Americans may have, have never worked at a company employing Mexican cleaners and therefore have a grudge because "they're talking our jobs" or anything like that, so the example just don't work for me. Perhaps that's why this is so head scratching.
-
If you are interested in understanding the very real effects of racial and cultural stereotyping I can give some insights. If this is more of a "look at this PC crowd running amok" because you are not part of the impacted group, I'll save my virtual breath.
It's pretty interesting to read this thread and hear from the perspective of people who DON'T have to deal little constant subtle or unsubtle prejudices and just 'be'.
In my view, realizing that, yes, racism is a thing is the first step to becoming less racist. A person can unknowingly hold racial stereotypes without being a Bad and Racist person.
I'm very interested in understanding. I do also think there is an "I'm offended on their behalf" crowd that generally don't help. Much like the tabloid media, getting upset over something taken out of context.
I can take both sides of: person walks into a bar, gets ignored or muttered epithets - bad; vs, person walks into shop, who statistically (as in, actual factual, not made up statistics) show someone "who looks like that" has a significantly higher chance of thieving. So security perks up and follows him. Not *fair* but understandable.
It's like.. insurance. Males of 18-25 are statistically more likely to wrap their car around something it wasn't meant to be wrapped around. So their rates are higher. Is that fair on the majority of young men that don't have accidents? No. Is it fair on the poor sods who get "looked at" because they are wearing (x, or y, or z) when everyone else tends to wear (a, b, and c)? No.
We're a fucking nightmare. I'm really just trying to get a handle on when something is *racist* vs, oh, silly, or thoughtless, or not a problem at all. Until someone mentioned the prison outfit along with the sombreros, I couldn't see what was actually *racist* in that CBC article. Other people have implied that perhaps *racist* is not necessarily a "strong" word - it's a spectrum - that you can be very slightly racist, by wearing a Buddhist monk outfit (perhaps? I'm still not convinced on that one), or very very racist, by wearing a sign that says "niggers go back to Africa". You can suggest that someone is being a little bit racist. We're all, always, being judgemental on something. Appearance, manner, tone, accent.. Is that as bad as being racist? It's no different, is it? Except it's on an individual rather than group level.
Except that group does help. As a white woman, when I say something is racist to others, I get believed. When the Hispanic man said it, it was not believed. When I as a woman say something is sexist, I don't get believed, yet the man who says it for the same action, get believed. Because of us being racist and sexist, as a culture, that group is very important.
-
Since this is a question about racism in America, one place to look if one really cares to learn about this topic is the excellent book entitled Racism without Racists by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.
-
A white guy and a black guy are both walking down a dark alleyway in a big U.S. city late at night.
They both look up and see each other at the same time. Is it racist for the white guy to be a little scared to see a black person approaching him? Is it equally racist for the black person to relax when he realizes that the person approaching him is white?
Or are both of them just reacting rationally based on statistics they read on Wikipedia?
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2002, the black arrest rate for robbery was 8.55 times higher than whites, and blacks were 16 times more likely to be incarcerated for robbery than non-Hispanic whites. Robberies with white victims and black offenders were more than 12 times more common than the reverse.[46][47]
-
It's not rational at all . . . it's unconscious implicit bias.
Then again, I am wary of just about everyone when I am walking alone in a big city late at night.
-
I confess that I didn't read the entire thread, but I've read a lot of threads like this and I know how they are typically argued. In general, people are not seeing the big picture.
Over the last couple of decades there has been an increasing broadening of the meaning of "racism." Back in the 50s and 60s, I'm petty sure that no one saw anything wrong with naming a baseball team the "Braves." This cultural shift can be traced back to the rise of identity politics in humanities departments in academia in the 1980s and 90s. Since then identity potilitics has taken over parts of the internet, large parts of campus life, parts of actual political discourse and generally seeped into every day life.
What is identity politics all about? It is all about power. Ideally, it is about empowering those groups who have been historically disempowered, or ideally not disempowering in the first place by swiping their culture or pretending members of the group are all the same way or what have you. This is why it doesn't matter if, say, someone in a minority group dresses up as a stereotypical white American -- how about as a cowboy. It's because, at least in our country, whites have been the dominant race -- they have had the power, therefore stereotyping is fine.
Well, that is the theory. In practice, it often boils down to upper middle class white adolescents empowering themselves through good-doing, or campus diversity offices empowering themselves by guaranteeing their paycheck.
Then, thee are also many ways to criticize identity politics. But I'm at 2% power on my iPad, so I'm going to post now before my screen goes blank. I might post some of the criticisms of identity politics when I get it re-charged.
-
I did the race IAT and, while I'm sure it's somewhat valid, doing "white+ good" then "black+ good" is going to skew the results - vs starting with "black+ good". Doing the opposite of what you were doing thirty seconds ago is hard. I wonder if they take that into account. But I'm not at all surprised I have implicit bias.
The priming effect is well known so well designed psych tests have built-in controls for this, such as asking the same or similar questions in different order, or randomly varying the order of questions per participants (your responses almost certainly became part of their research data).
For the costume thing - I don't see wearing Arab dress as being a non-dominant race. Let's flip it: how could a non-white person dress up as a white person, and would that be racist? Or is there no white culture to borrow?
Dominance is relative to the individual context. An Arab in the Middle East has a different view of their social standing vs. an Arab in the US or Europe.
I'm white. I grew up rural and relatively poor and we are "Okies" - a pejorative term for poor people from Oklahoma who migrated to California during the Great Depression/Dust Bowl. I'm wealthy but still, I don't particularly appreciate it when wealthy elite whites dress up as "hillbillies," "rednecks," or "white trash" and/or when they act out their stereotypes in other ways such as accents and behavior. It's only "fun" for them because of the novelty of pretending to lower their social status. It's like the rich guy who thinks is fun to go "slumming" by hanging out in dive bars with people he considers beneath him. It's really comes down to the intent behind it. I don't have a problem with a rich person going to a dive bar if the sincere goal is to meet and get to know different types of people - this is admirable. But it's extremely demeaning if they're doing it just for the novelty of it, as a way of asserting their dominance ("glad I'm not like these people!"). I have a very hard time believing people dressing up as other cultures/races for the purpose of having fun are doing so because they seek a better understanding.
Let's take white vs. non-white out of the equation for a bit, since I think it's difficult to be totally objective in viewing our own context. Consider for a moment the Uyghur, an ethnic and religious minority in Western China. How do you think they would feel if the dominant Han Chinese stereotyped them for "fun" at parties? This boils down to dominant groups having fun at the expense of others. Going back to the idea of the wealthy going slumming, it's interesting to note that the poor cannot do the opposite. The policies and prices of a high-end bar effectively exclude the poor from their establishments. It all boils down to a lack of sensitivity to the asymmetry of the relationship on the part of the dominant group. And if you rarely see someone outside of your own group then you are almost certainly part of the dominant group.
Part of the thing here is that I'm not north American, I guess.
Edit: the other thing is that, lately, I just don't come into contact with non white people. I live in a tiny town in Canada, and there are... well, I don't know. In the places I go, I might literally not see a non white person in a week.
I'm also not, in this thread, particularly specifically interested in African American stuff. I'm not in America. It's just not relevant. I have fairly neutral feelings towards Mexico, too - I don't have the cultural input that Americans may have, have never worked at a company employing Mexican cleaners and therefore have a grudge because "they're talking our jobs" or anything like that, so the example just don't work for me. Perhaps that's why this is so head scratching.
This is not about you. You may not understand it, but all you need to understand is that people don't like their culture appropriated as a play thing by other groups. There are plenty of other non-offensive ways to have fun.
-
I did the race IAT and, while I'm sure it's somewhat valid, doing "white+ good" then "black+ good" is going to skew the results - vs starting with "black+ good". Doing the opposite of what you were doing thirty seconds ago is hard. I wonder if they take that into account. But I'm not at all surprised I have implicit bias.
The priming effect is well known so well designed psych tests have built-in controls for this, such as asking the same or similar questions in different order, or randomly varying the order of questions per participants (your responses almost certainly became part of their research data).
For the costume thing - I don't see wearing Arab dress as being a non-dominant race. Let's flip it: how could a non-white person dress up as a white person, and would that be racist? Or is there no white culture to borrow?
Dominance is relative to the individual context. An Arab in the Middle East has a different view of their social standing vs. an Arab in the US or Europe.
I'm white. I grew up rural and relatively poor and we are "Okies" - a pejorative term for poor people from Oklahoma who migrated to California during the Great Depression/Dust Bowl. I'm wealthy but still, I don't particularly appreciate it when wealthy elite whites dress up as "hillbillies," "rednecks," or "white trash" and/or when they act out their stereotypes in other ways such as accents and behavior. It's only "fun" for them because of the novelty of pretending to lower their social status. It's like the rich guy who thinks is fun to go "slumming" by hanging out in dive bars with people he considers beneath him. It's really comes down to the intent behind it. I don't have a problem with a rich person going to a dive bar if the sincere goal is to meet and get to know different types of people - this is admirable. But it's extremely demeaning if they're doing it just for the novelty of it, as a way of asserting their dominance ("glad I'm not like these people!"). I have a very hard time believing people dressing up as other cultures/races for the purpose of having fun are doing so because they seek a better understanding.
Let's take white vs. non-white out of the equation for a bit, since I think it's difficult to be totally objective in viewing our own context. Consider for a moment the Uyghur, an ethnic and religious minority in Western China. How do you think they would feel if the dominant Han Chinese stereotyped them for "fun" at parties? This boils down to dominant groups having fun at the expense of others. Going back to the idea of the wealthy going slumming, it's interesting to note that the poor cannot do the opposite. The policies and prices of a high-end bar effectively exclude the poor from their establishments. It all boils down to a lack of sensitivity to the asymmetry of the relationship on the part of the dominant group. And if you rarely see someone outside of your own group then you are almost certainly part of the dominant group.
Part of the thing here is that I'm not north American, I guess.
Edit: the other thing is that, lately, I just don't come into contact with non white people. I live in a tiny town in Canada, and there are... well, I don't know. In the places I go, I might literally not see a non white person in a week.
I'm also not, in this thread, particularly specifically interested in African American stuff. I'm not in America. It's just not relevant. I have fairly neutral feelings towards Mexico, too - I don't have the cultural input that Americans may have, have never worked at a company employing Mexican cleaners and therefore have a grudge because "they're talking our jobs" or anything like that, so the example just don't work for me. Perhaps that's why this is so head scratching.
This is not about you. You may not understand it, but all you need to understand is that people don't like their culture appropriated as a play thing by other groups. There are plenty of other non-offensive ways to have fun.
Right. So, Pulp's "Common People". There are a lot of "ists". The right thing to do is treat each person individually, and not as part of any grouping. But, there are lots of people that don't like lots of things. Cultural appropriation is normal - it's how things pass from one group to another. Internet speak is doing that, globally, extremely quickly in terms of speech patterns (or, typing patterns).
It's like... it's ok for a group to get offended/'own' something... but on the other hand, another group can't take that thing.
Whenever we see *anything* different, we're interested. I think the "looking down" thing is key. The intent. I guess that's what I don't get; how can people be so *mean*? Because if the mean people weren't mean, we'd all be able to do pretty much as we pleased without the suspicion of -isms. Oh, they like wearing (whatever). Ok. The end.
-
The intent. I guess that's what I don't get; how can people be so *mean*? Because if the mean people weren't mean, we'd all be able to do pretty much as we pleased without the suspicion of -isms. Oh, they like wearing (whatever). Ok. The end.
What's the motivation? That's easy.
People are social critters. One of the easiest ways to form cohesiveness in a group is to focus negative feelings at a particular person/group of people/thing that has some sort of difference and then let human behaviour take over. People receive social capital (and enhance group inclusiveness) by professing and demonstrating a dislike of others. There are countless examples of this throughout history, enough that I suspect that this trait was enforced by evolution.
-
The intent. I guess that's what I don't get; how can people be so *mean*? Because if the mean people weren't mean, we'd all be able to do pretty much as we pleased without the suspicion of -isms. Oh, they like wearing (whatever). Ok. The end.
What's the motivation? That's easy.
People are social critters. One of the easiest ways to form cohesiveness in a group is to focus negative feelings at a particular person/group of people/thing that has some sort of difference and then let human behaviour take over. People receive social capital (and enhance group inclusiveness) by professing and demonstrating a dislike of others. There are countless examples of this throughout history, enough that I suspect that this trait was enforced by evolution.
Sigh, yes, the tribe. Monkeysphere (the idea that you "can't" care directly about more than ~100 actual people - most people can't). Protect ourselves. So evident in what we're doing to the environment.
-
The First Nations thing is one of those sort of smile and look up things. We invaded, attacked, warred against, defeated, and ultimately conquered, a selection of, call them migrant nation states. They lost the clash of culture, they lost the war. It's very important that we respect their culture.
Smiles and nods all around, yes yes, this is all very proper.
But don't fly the confederate flag you southern racist...you lost the war and should damn well act like it.
This is weird to me! I mean I get it! But this is weird? Objectively, sitting outside, this is strange yes? No? just me? OK I'll go.
-
The First Nations thing is one of those sort of smile and look up things. We invaded, attacked, warred against, defeated, and ultimately conquered, a selection of, call them migrant nation states. They lost the clash of culture, they lost the war. It's very important that we respect their culture.
Smiles and nods all around, yes yes, this is all very proper.
But don't fly the confederate flag you southern racist...you lost the war and should damn well act like it.
This is weird to me! I mean I get it! But this is weird? Objectively, sitting outside, this is strange yes? No? just me? OK I'll go.
I've thought a bit about 'white fragility' and I think that factors a lot.
My prior thinking was: nobody gave me the 'choice' to have lost the 'culture' of my group of people from 200, 500, 1000 years ago. It's just not a thing. The world has changed; that's how it is now. I don't quite understand how that is different. Particularly for *this* generation.
Now - in Canada there was the residential schools thing, which is completely abhorrent, so that's separate. Reparation should be/should have been made for that.
If the government made an agreement with a group of people that that group of people owned certain lands, that's cool. Canada's a big country, tons of room for lots of FN people to have vast, vast areas; that should be set. Then, those bands should make the money they need from that land. They should be somewhat protected from nasty modern 'sell us your land' stuff (in fact, it should be prohibited). But, it should be possible to transition for a non-FN person to live the FN life. The bands should be responsible for their own finances, and should be treated equally - an individual should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other Canadian. That's 'fair'.
Sure, parts of that brief southern culture that weren't about slavery are fine. But seeing as the rallying cry of the confed. flag was specifically about keeping slavery (no?) it's hard for the rest of the world to not associate the two. Same with naziism - I'm sure there were good things under Hitler's regime (busses ran on time?!). But you can't separate the (theoretical) good things from the horrors.
*Edit* The big difference of course, between my situation and that of the FN, is that the FN's way of life was removed forcibly, where my history has been abandoned voluntarily with western progress. I don't want to live in a stone cottage with a life expectancy of 40, no electricity, doing backbreaking farm work all day, etc. If FN people want to live in their traditional way, they should of course be able to.
-
The First Nations thing is one of those sort of smile and look up things. We invaded, attacked, warred against, defeated, and ultimately conquered, a selection of, call them migrant nation states. They lost the clash of culture, they lost the war. It's very important that we respect their culture.
Smiles and nods all around, yes yes, this is all very proper.
But don't fly the confederate flag you southern racist...you lost the war and should damn well act like it.
This is weird to me! I mean I get it! But this is weird? Objectively, sitting outside, this is strange yes? No? just me? OK I'll go.
The situations are totally different.
The confederate states were fighting to protect slavery. The upshot of the civil war was that they lost the right to keep slaves. Flying a confederate flag is a tacit approval of the southern cause of the civil war . . . which was oppression of people. This is why it's not generally seen as a good thing to do.
The Native Americans were fighting to protect their land and way of life from invaders. The invaders won, and then oppressed the Native Americans for many years. Allowing Natives to maintain their culture doesn't harm anyone else, it simply reverses some of the injustice that was perpetrated. This is why it's generally seen as a good thing to do.
-
I find it odd that this even has to be explained
-
I find it odd that this even has to be explained
Which bit?
-
I find it odd that this even has to be explained
Which bit?
Any and all of it
-
I think that it is perfectly okay to call something racist or prejudiced if you think it is. The person should be tough enough to defend themselves if they think they are being unfairly treated.
The more I think about racism, the more I think the problem is less with calling it out, and more with the fact that society sees it as an irredeemable moral failing. In my opinion, we all have cultural blind spots and ignorance, and someone pointing that out doesn't offend me, it educates me.
I am a bit racist. It took me 40 years to realize it, and I am working to remedy it. I likely will never be completely rid of bias, because all humans are biased in some way. I can just spend my life trying to judge people at face value and not by stereotypes.
I probably am going to regret joining this thread (Internet thread about racism, what could go wrong?)...but this is a really, really good point.
I think the reason it is so stigmatized to where it feels like an irredeemable moral failing--well, besides the fact that it has been responsible for a ton of really evil shit--is because, on a subconscious level, people realize that they are a little bit racist, and they have internalized that it's wrong. (Because it's been responsible for a ton of really evil shit.) There are two responses, I think: the more right wing response is to differentiate between themselves and, say, the KKK. "Whoa, racist?? I'm not a hateful guy like them!" The response more common on the left is to project, and respond by doubling down on the outrage when someone sees a bias in others that they are maybe a bit aware of within themselves. (And that they maybe have worked hard to stamp out in themselves, to their credit.)
Either way, I think it's basically the equivalent of the religious person who believes that sex of some kind is wrong, and also wants some themselves. The response is either "Well my indulgence isn't nearly as bad as that guy" or it's the Puritanical impulse to stamp it out. (Or, they go full alt-right and decide it's not wrong at all, go crazy! Like a repressed homeschooled kid when he gets to college.)
-
The more I think about racism, the more I think the problem is less with calling it out, and more with the fact that society sees it as an irredeemable moral failing.
I think this is an important point and can be applied to more than racism.
-
[
If the government made an agreement with a group of people that that group of people owned certain lands, that's cool. Canada's a big country, tons of room for lots of FN people to have vast, vast areas; that should be set. Then, those bands should make the money they need from that land. They should be somewhat protected from nasty modern 'sell us your land' stuff (in fact, it should be prohibited). But, it should be possible to transition for a non-FN person to live the FN life. The bands should be responsible for their own finances, and should be treated equally - an individual should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other Canadian. That's 'fair'.
"If"? The British crown made an agreement that is still legally binding in Canada. In Canada every person is impacted by these treaties, they are legal living peace accords. I highly encourage you to look up the treaties, every Canadian should. There's conjecture everything west of Ontario would be part of the USA without the treaties. B.C was on its way to being independent until the prairies were settled (rail line connection was part of agreeing to join) that only happened when the treaties were signed.
Some of those treaties made land allowances that were never granted, some of that land was appropriated for hydro projects. We have the treaty land entitlements TLE ongoing today. Reserve lands are prohibited from selling, it makes them worthless to use as collateral. Imagine trying to get a mortgage when you can't use the house as collateral. How would you get a loan? It helps to understand the housing crisis when you see the problems with financing.
-
Watching "A Slavery By Another Name" (PBS) was an eye-opener.
Over my life, I've definitely harbored some vague sense that black people are more prone to criminality.
Before you scream at me - let me explain.
I'm saying this was sort of a background association that, as far as I could tell, bloomed in my brain due to cultural influences - movies, family discussions, public discussions. Of course, upon inspection, it would always be easy for me to use my frontal lobes and dismiss this association as silly, and tell myself - with rational thought - that I didn't actually believe that. But it was still there, just suppressed.
This PBS documentary revealed the convict lease system that flourished post civil-war reconstruction. Small town governments passed bogus loitering laws which the police used to arrest black people and put them into the prison population. There, they were leased out as unpaid labor. This was made possible by the exception clause in the 13th amendment, and a retreat by the federal government.
As a result, by the 1940s, there was an alarmingly high number of black people in prisons. That was the birth (or perhaps solidification) of the idea that black people are more prone to criminality. Historians noted that if you went back to pre-civil war days, and looked at how white people regarded black people, you'd read words like 'hard working', 'honest', even 'loyal' (IIRC). The convict lease system totally changed perceptions, and we're STILL living with these skewed and racist perceptions today. Even me - a person born WAY after convict lease ended. A person who, outside of messaging from popular culture, has never had a reason to think any differently of black people.
It seems that echoes of past injustices and conflicts fade slowly. In my opinion, many go through periods of amplification.* I wonder - how many people who are honest enough to recognize in themselves any latent racism, know from where it came?
*The other past conflict that I believe is having amplified effects today: cold war anti-communism efforts. Our government consciously pushed nationalism, patriotism, the supremacy of the individual, and religion - all in an effort to fight communism. We aided rebels, supported assassination attempts, and ousted democratically elected leaders in sovereign nations, all due to our fear of communism. The results are still with us: my extended family is so vehemently anti-communist/ anti-socialist that many sop up the rhetoric from bogus think tanks. They HATE "liberals". They think environmentalists are secret commies. I don't think they'd be so easily influenced by this messaging if they hadn't lived through the cold war propaganda. But this is off topic - just another example of the vestiges of past policy echoing loudly today. (IMO).
-
Watching "A Slavery By Another Name" (PBS) was an eye-opener.
Over my life, I've definitely harbored some vague sense that black people are more prone to criminality.
Before you scream at me - let me explain.
I'm saying this was sort of a background association that, as far as I could tell, bloomed in my brain due to cultural influences - movies, family discussions, public discussions. Of course, upon inspection, it would always be easy for me to use my frontal lobes and dismiss this association as silly, and tell myself - with rational thought - that I didn't actually believe that. But it was still there, just suppressed.
This PBS documentary revealed the convict lease system that flourished post civil-war reconstruction. Small town governments passed bogus loitering laws which the police used to arrest black people and put them into the prison population. There, they were leased out as unpaid labor. This was made possible by to the exception clause in the 13th amendment, and a retreat by the federal government.
As a result, by the 1940s, there was an alarmingly high number of black people in prisons. That was the birth (or perhaps solidification) of the idea that black people are more prone to criminality. Historians noted that if you went back to pre-civil war days, and looked at how white people regarded black people, you'd read words like 'hard working', 'honest', even 'loyal' (IIRC). The convict lease system totally changed perceptions, and we're STILL living with these skewed and racist perceptions today. Even me - a person born WAY after convict lease ended. A person who, outside of messaging from popular culture, has never had a reason to think any differently of black people.
It seems that echoes of past injustices and conflicts fade slowly. In my opinion, many go through periods of amplification.* I wonder - how many people who are honest enough to recognize in themselves any latent racism, know from where it came?
*The other past conflict that I believe is having amplified effects today: cold war anti-communism efforts. Our government consciously pushed nationalism, patriotism, the supremacy of the individual, and religion - all in an effort to fight communism. We aided rebels, supported assassination attempts, and ousted democratically elected leaders in sovereign nations, all due to our fear of communism. The results are still with us: my extended family is so vehemently anti-communist/ anti-socialist that many sop up the rhetoric from bogus think tanks. They HATE "liberals". They think environmentalists are secret commies. I don't think they'd be so easily influenced by this messaging if they hadn't lived through the cold war propaganda. But this is off topic - just another example of the vestiges of past policy echoing loudly today. (IMO).
Yes. I would almost say this should be essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand race relations and institutionalized racism in the U.S.
-
I've thought a bit about 'white fragility' and I think that factors a lot.
My prior thinking was: nobody gave me the 'choice' to have lost the 'culture' of my group of people from 200, 500, 1000 years ago. It's just not a thing. The world has changed; that's how it is now. I don't quite understand how that is different. Particularly for *this* generation.
Now - in Canada there was the residential schools thing, which is completely abhorrent, so that's separate. Reparation should be/should have been made for that.
If the government made an agreement with a group of people that that group of people owned certain lands, that's cool. Canada's a big country, tons of room for lots of FN people to have vast, vast areas; that should be set. Then, those bands should make the money they need from that land. They should be somewhat protected from nasty modern 'sell us your land' stuff (in fact, it should be prohibited). But, it should be possible to transition for a non-FN person to live the FN life. The bands should be responsible for their own finances, and should be treated equally - an individual should have the same rights and responsibilities as any other Canadian. That's 'fair'.
Sure, parts of that brief southern culture that weren't about slavery are fine. But seeing as the rallying cry of the confed. flag was specifically about keeping slavery (no?) it's hard for the rest of the world to not associate the two. Same with naziism - I'm sure there were good things under Hitler's regime (busses ran on time?!). But you can't separate the (theoretical) good things from the horrors.
*Edit* The big difference of course, between my situation and that of the FN, is that the FN's way of life was removed forcibly, where my history has been abandoned voluntarily with western progress. I don't want to live in a stone cottage with a life expectancy of 40, no electricity, doing backbreaking farm work all day, etc. If FN people want to live in their traditional way, they should of course be able to.
I don't get the same feeling seeing the Confederate flag as I do the Nazi flag. I'd never considered that some people might feel that way; its an interesting perspective I may have to explore more. Thank you for pointing this out.
-
Watching "A Slavery By Another Name" (PBS) was an eye-opener.
Over my life, I've definitely harbored some vague sense that black people are more prone to criminality.
Before you scream at me - let me explain.
I'm saying this was sort of a background association that, as far as I could tell, bloomed in my brain due to cultural influences - movies, family discussions, public discussions. Of course, upon inspection, it would always be easy for me to use my frontal lobes and dismiss this association as silly, and tell myself - with rational thought - that I didn't actually believe that. But it was still there, just suppressed.
This PBS documentary revealed the convict lease system that flourished post civil-war reconstruction. Small town governments passed bogus loitering laws which the police used to arrest black people and put them into the prison population. There, they were leased out as unpaid labor. This was made possible by to the exception clause in the 13th amendment, and a retreat by the federal government.
As a result, by the 1940s, there was an alarmingly high number of black people in prisons. That was the birth (or perhaps solidification) of the idea that black people are more prone to criminality. Historians noted that if you went back to pre-civil war days, and looked at how white people regarded black people, you'd read words like 'hard working', 'honest', even 'loyal' (IIRC). The convict lease system totally changed perceptions, and we're STILL living with these skewed and racist perceptions today. Even me - a person born WAY after convict lease ended. A person who, outside of messaging from popular culture, has never had a reason to think any differently of black people.
It seems that echoes of past injustices and conflicts fade slowly. In my opinion, many go through periods of amplification.* I wonder - how many people who are honest enough to recognize in themselves any latent racism, know from where it came?
*The other past conflict that I believe is having amplified effects today: cold war anti-communism efforts. Our government consciously pushed nationalism, patriotism, the supremacy of the individual, and religion - all in an effort to fight communism. We aided rebels, supported assassination attempts, and ousted democratically elected leaders in sovereign nations, all due to our fear of communism. The results are still with us: my extended family is so vehemently anti-communist/ anti-socialist that many sop up the rhetoric from bogus think tanks. They HATE "liberals". They think environmentalists are secret commies. I don't think they'd be so easily influenced by this messaging if they hadn't lived through the cold war propaganda. But this is off topic - just another example of the vestiges of past policy echoing loudly today. (IMO).
Yes. I would almost say this should be essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand race relations and institutionalized racism in the U.S.
What was helpful to me was to understand the history around race relations in the USA (from the northern perspective and the southern perspective), how jobs and poverty and education figured in, and how crime is distributed through some of the big cities of the nation.
Not ALL African Americans fit the stereotypes I learned (obvious now but I was young and dumb). I knew AA guys in the military that were using the exact same route to get started in their lives as I was. We had the same opportunities available to us. And it was obvious that the guys (any race) who got too heavy with the tattoos and could not present themselves well in an interview were going to have fewer opportunities to choose from.
I still believe that there are opportunities in our country for everyone. A person needs to culturally fit in, clean up nice for an interview, build their skillsets, get an education, etc. I recognize that women and minorities still face hurdles but I don't believe the hurdles are as great as they are presented to be by some people. I've met plenty of white guys who couldn't get a good career foothold b/c they weren't competitive in one way or another. And they complain about fairness.
I think the biggest hurdles a person faces is whether they come form people (families) that value and encourage education. How easily they are distracted and influenced by outsiders who would lead them to value being "cool" and having "fun" over the hard work it takes to educate one's self.
-
How about the new York Yankees? Northeastern Americans
New York Knicks - knickerbocker is a family name that actually refers to a Dutch family from new York that was appropriated
Boston Celtics - Irish (comparable to using Arabs in identifying a culture)
New Orleans Saints - Christian homage - its religion
New Jersey Devils - Christian reference
At lower levels we have Crusaders and Saints- people who would fight in holy wars, people elevated by the catholic pope
For the record, the NJ Devils hockey team is named after the Jersey Devil -- a mythical figure that lives in the Pine Barrens in NJ. I grew up near there and boy were we scared of it. Nothing to do with Christianity, other than when a scary creature emerges in folklore, it almost always is "part devil". Honestly, I was just as scared of the "Pinies". People who lived there but didn't go to school and rarely wore clothes and sometimes ate their own young. I'm pretty sure the only person who ever heard of them was my brother who made them up to scare me.
-
1. Someone else's culture is not an appropriate costume. Period.
I once went to a costume party as a geisha. It was the year that "Memoir of a Geisha" was out.
I've seen other people dressed up as Asian rice-pickers, wearing the straw hats, with plastic glasses that have asian eyes, and wearing buck teeth.
I'm positive that the second example is offensive, but I'm not sure whether the first one (Geisha) is. I don't think I'd wear a Geisha outfit in Kyoto, but unsure whether it would be just another historical figure, comparable to a costume of Marie Antoinett
-
I'm positive that the second example is offensive, but I'm not sure whether the first one (Geisha) is. I don't think I'd wear a Geisha outfit in Kyoto, but unsure whether it would be just another historical figure, comparable to a costume of Marie Antoinett
I don't think wearing kimono or yukata (or other such garments) is offensive, but dressing as a geisha (or geiko, or maiko) can be simply because the Western perception of what a geisha is and does (and even looks like, in terms of makeup and hair styling) is totally off. Real geisha train for years in various cultural arts and wear their garments in extremely specific ways (coordinating colors in a certain manner, wearing particular kinds of knots on their obi, etc). I think if you are willing to study hard - places like Immortal Geisha (http://www.immortalgeisha.com/) are devoted to such information - then it would be acceptable to "dress as a geisha" for events like a Japanese culture festival, or a fashion show devoted to multicultural outfits, or other such events, if you are wearing the kind of super fancy garments they would or buying vintage kimono to wear.
And I'd say if you're dressing as a specific geisha, yes, that would be more like dressing like Marie Antoinette - but even then, if you're throwing on a cheap satin-y kimono and not even bothering to tie an obi correctly and being a generic geisha, that's pretty disrespectful to the artistry that real geisha aim to cultivate. Even an inexpensive kimono ideally requires some research to put it on correctly - if you wrap the front pieces the wrong way, that's how bodies are dressed for funerals. So unless you are pretending to be an undead spirit (which those could be a thing, for a costume party - there are lots of undead spirits in Japanese mythology), best to double-check you're doing it right! Also, my impression is that dressing as a samurai could be acceptable, as it would be like someone dressing like a medieval European knight. Geisha actually still exist and still spend years training to do what they do.
Caveat: I am a white person, but I have heard many Japanese people express the idea that they don't mind others wearing kimono/similar garments if they are worn properly/with respectful intent.
-
1. Someone else's culture is not an appropriate costume. Period.
I once went to a costume party as a geisha. It was the year that "Memoir of a Geisha" was out.
I've seen other people dressed up as Asian rice-pickers, wearing the straw hats, with plastic glasses that have asian eyes, and wearing buck teeth.
I'm positive that the second example is offensive, but I'm not sure whether the first one (Geisha) is. I don't think I'd wear a Geisha outfit in Kyoto, but unsure whether it would be just another historical figure, comparable to a costume of Marie Antoinett
So according to FIFoFum's rules these are all inappropriate, insensitive stereotypes?
- tweed and bowler hat British tea-drinking royalty
- German "octoberfest", lederhosen etc outfit
- Kilt
- swedish blond hair wigs (something else stereotypical scandianvian?)
Somehow I find it hard to believe the outcry would have been huge with any of these.. We wouldn't have time for much beyond condemning people dressing up in lederhosen! Certainly some of the costumes in OP were dumb and legitimately insensitive, but is simply dressing up as another culture offensive?
-
So, for First Nations, fine. For Metis and Inuit and Native American and (legal status) Indian. I can understand... not wishing to get into it. It's just not relevant on a daily basis - person X is person X, not "an (Indian/Aboriginal/FN/etc). Is it *racist* of me to not care about someone's ethnicity (race, I suppose)? I either know them as a person, and they are X, or I read about them in the news.
A hopefully quick point about the bolded part. I don't know if it is racist, per se, to not care about somebodies race, but it is a little racist to tell someone else that their race doesn't or shouldn't matter. As a white person, my race 'doesn't matter' in the sense that it is considered normal and has no impact on my day to day life. But if I were Black or another visibly non-white ethnicity, that would have a much bigger impact on my day to day life and it would be shitty if the people around me refused to acknowledge that. I'm not very eloquent with these things, but a lot of folks have written about how 'colorblindness' can be really hurtful when it means people refuse to acknowledge how things can be different for different groups, if that's something you are interested in reading about.
And a general note on offensiveness/racist-ness: I try to think about punching up vs punching down. Punching up means if I paint myself orange and wear and Donald Trump mask, I don't think its offensive. Not many wealthy old white men have been systematically punished for decades/centuries for bad fake(???) tans. Punching down means that if I put on blackface and an Obama name tag, it's offensive because of the history of blackface and racism in America. If I wear an Obama mask and imitate his oration style and don't paint myself black, I think it's probably ok because I'm imitating one of the most powerful men on earth without invoking racist stereotypes about Black people.
-
So, for First Nations, fine. For Metis and Inuit and Native American and (legal status) Indian. I can understand... not wishing to get into it. It's just not relevant on a daily basis - person X is person X, not "an (Indian/Aboriginal/FN/etc). Is it *racist* of me to not care about someone's ethnicity (race, I suppose)? I either know them as a person, and they are X, or I read about them in the news.
A hopefully quick point about the bolded part. I don't know if it is racist, per se, to not care about somebodies race, but it is a little racist to tell someone else that their race doesn't or shouldn't matter. As a white person, my race 'doesn't matter' in the sense that it is considered normal and has no impact on my day to day life. But if I were Black or another visibly non-white ethnicity, that would have a much bigger impact on my day to day life and it would be shitty if the people around me refused to acknowledge that. I'm not very eloquent with these things, but a lot of folks have written about how 'colorblindness' can be really hurtful when it means people refuse to acknowledge how things can be different for different groups, if that's something you are interested in reading about.
And a general note on offensiveness/racist-ness: I try to think about punching up vs punching down. Punching up means if I paint myself orange and wear and Donald Trump mask, I don't think its offensive. Not many wealthy old white men have been systematically punished for decades/centuries for bad fake(???) tans. Punching down means that if I put on blackface and an Obama name tag, it's offensive because of the history of blackface and racism in America. If I wear an Obama mask and imitate his oration style and don't paint myself black, I think it's probably ok because I'm imitating one of the most powerful men on earth without invoking racist stereotypes about Black people.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Not quite sure I follow on the first part. I think you're saying, for example, if a person was a Muslim, and then wanted to take breaks at work to go and pray, I should not deny them that. I absolutely agree. That's... not race though. There are Christian Asians, Muslim Caucasians, Athiest um... anything. First Nations. How do you.. Hmm.. go between an ethnicity (theoretical) that wants a different part of the bus for itself? That's no good (ie, Indian caste system - in my mind that is clearly a Bad Thing).
I also don't quite get Trump/Obama. Purely on the 'blackface' bit. It's costume. Probably you have two options as a white person - confuse everyone, by being white Obama; or offend 50+%, by being black Obama. A guy dressing up as HR Clinton, no problem though, right? I mean, unless you're being really mean on her because she's a woman; I don't know. Then it comes down to intent I guess. I mean, I'm an Obama fan, so I would want to be authentic/funny not hateful. I'd probably not choose him at a fancy dress party. Though, of course, 'technically' he is of mixed race, does that make it even more confusing? I don't know.
-
So, for First Nations, fine. For Metis and Inuit and Native American and (legal status) Indian. I can understand... not wishing to get into it. It's just not relevant on a daily basis - person X is person X, not "an (Indian/Aboriginal/FN/etc). Is it *racist* of me to not care about someone's ethnicity (race, I suppose)? I either know them as a person, and they are X, or I read about them in the news.
A hopefully quick point about the bolded part. I don't know if it is racist, per se, to not care about somebodies race, but it is a little racist to tell someone else that their race doesn't or shouldn't matter. As a white person, my race 'doesn't matter' in the sense that it is considered normal and has no impact on my day to day life. But if I were Black or another visibly non-white ethnicity, that would have a much bigger impact on my day to day life and it would be shitty if the people around me refused to acknowledge that. I'm not very eloquent with these things, but a lot of folks have written about how 'colorblindness' can be really hurtful when it means people refuse to acknowledge how things can be different for different groups, if that's something you are interested in reading about.
And a general note on offensiveness/racist-ness: I try to think about punching up vs punching down. Punching up means if I paint myself orange and wear and Donald Trump mask, I don't think its offensive. Not many wealthy old white men have been systematically punished for decades/centuries for bad fake(???) tans. Punching down means that if I put on blackface and an Obama name tag, it's offensive because of the history of blackface and racism in America. If I wear an Obama mask and imitate his oration style and don't paint myself black, I think it's probably ok because I'm imitating one of the most powerful men on earth without invoking racist stereotypes about Black people.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Not quite sure I follow on the first part. I think you're saying, for example, if a person was a Muslim, and then wanted to take breaks at work to go and pray, I should not deny them that. I absolutely agree. That's... not race though. There are Christian Asians, Muslim Caucasians, Athiest um... anything. First Nations. How do you.. Hmm.. go between an ethnicity (theoretical) that wants a different part of the bus for itself? That's no good (ie, Indian caste system - in my mind that is clearly a Bad Thing).
I also don't quite get Trump/Obama. Purely on the 'blackface' bit. It's costume. Probably you have two options as a white person - confuse everyone, by being white Obama; or offend 50+%, by being black Obama. A guy dressing up as HR Clinton, no problem though, right? I mean, unless you're being really mean on her because she's a woman; I don't know. Then it comes down to intent I guess. I mean, I'm an Obama fan, so I would want to be authentic/funny not hateful. I'd probably not choose him at a fancy dress party. Though, of course, 'technically' he is of mixed race, does that make it even more confusing? I don't know.
For the first part, I'm trying to say that is can be disrespectful to ignore differences that arise from differences in race or ethnicity or skin color or religion or culture. All these differences lead to different life experiences. My experience in life would be completely different if I was a Black woman (I am a white woman), even if nothing else changed about my starting point in life except my skin color, and to ignore that is unfair (and rude). When I have friends with different backgrounds, especially backgrounds that have a history of oppression or discrimination, I shouldn't ignore that and act like those differences aren't a potentially important part of their life and how they relate to the world. The idea is that you don't want to erase or ignore their experiences. I'm sorry, I really don't understand the thing with the bus???
Re: costumes. Yes, I was trying to make a point about negative stereotypes and power dynamics and when costumes become offensive or racist. Though I don't get why dressing as Obama would be confusing if someone was white, you'd just wear a mask (there's one for pretty much every president) or do a really good job with the rest of the costume or wear a name tag. I also would not chose that as a costume, but I also don't like costume parties at all!
-
1. Someone else's culture is not an appropriate costume. Period.
I once went to a costume party as a geisha. It was the year that "Memoir of a Geisha" was out.
I've seen other people dressed up as Asian rice-pickers, wearing the straw hats, with plastic glasses that have asian eyes, and wearing buck teeth.
I'm positive that the second example is offensive, but I'm not sure whether the first one (Geisha) is. I don't think I'd wear a Geisha outfit in Kyoto, but unsure whether it would be just another historical figure, comparable to a costume of Marie Antoinett
So according to FIFoFum's rules these are all inappropriate, insensitive stereotypes?
- tweed and bowler hat British tea-drinking royalty
- German "octoberfest", lederhosen etc outfit
- Kilt
- swedish blond hair wigs (something else stereotypical scandianvian?)
Somehow I find it hard to believe the outcry would have been huge with any of these.. We wouldn't have time for much beyond condemning people dressing up in lederhosen! Certainly some of the costumes in OP were dumb and legitimately insensitive, but is simply dressing up as another culture offensive?
You should see the outcry aimed at people who wear their hair in cornrows or dreadlocks.
-
For the first part, I'm trying to say that is can be disrespectful to ignore differences that arise from differences in race or ethnicity or skin color or religion or culture. All these differences lead to different life experiences. My experience in life would be completely different if I was a Black woman (I am a white woman), even if nothing else changed about my starting point in life except my skin color, and to ignore that is unfair (and rude). When I have friends with different backgrounds, especially backgrounds that have a history of oppression or discrimination, I shouldn't ignore that and act like those differences aren't a potentially important part of their life and how they relate to the world. The idea is that you don't want to erase or ignore their experiences. I'm sorry, I really don't understand the thing with the bus???
Re: costumes. Yes, I was trying to make a point about negative stereotypes and power dynamics and when costumes become offensive or racist. Though I don't get why dressing as Obama would be confusing if someone was white, you'd just wear a mask (there's one for pretty much every president) or do a really good job with the rest of the costume or wear a name tag. I also would not chose that as a costume, but I also don't like costume parties at all!
Right, but until you know a person, you don't know their background. A black American, black Brit, or black African will... well, no, let's be correct here, every single person will have had a different set of experiences. Are there commonalities? Of course. But you seem to be saying that you should try and make accommodations for someone before you know if they need or want them.
The bus, I think I was just trying to work out the difference between custom and segregation. You can't, in the West, say "all people of type X go here; others go there". There are probably examples I'm missing (apart from: public toilets for m/f, disabled toilets as well as reserved seating, etc). So a person whose theoretical religion segregates... Where do you say, no, your custom is not compatible? I guess that's the question with hijabs and oath taking/giving evidence/etc. If (pre existing) rules said no balaclavas in shops/banks, is it reasonable to enforce that with religious headwear as well? If the alternative was fingerprinting, or retina scans?!
It reminds me of the fact (?) that in the UK, Sikhs are or were exempt from wearing crash helmets on motorcycles because of their turbans. I'm sure the number of motorcycle riding sikhs is fairly small. You are (mostly) only affecting yourself if you fall off and hurt yourself.
Good point on the mask. But, still weird - why can I put a black mask on, but not black paint? If I wore the black mask, would I also put paint on my neck, hands?
-
Good point on the mask. But, still weird - why can I put a black mask on, but not black paint? If I wore the black mask, would I also put paint on my neck, hands?
This would be due to the lingering effects of the history of blackface minstrelsy in the United States, as has already been discussed in this thread. It's in bad taste and a dick thing to do because of that history.
It's not really any different than a group of three friends, two of whom dress up as the WTC buildings and one of whom dress up as a plane . . . then they spend the rest of the evening pretending to bump into each other and knocking each other over. You live in a society with others. You are responsible for learning what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Yeah, you're free to dress the way that you want. No, you're not free from the scorn, judgement, and ridicule of others for being a dick.
It seems like you're trying to make this much more complicated than it really is.
-
Good point on the mask. But, still weird - why can I put a black mask on, but not black paint? If I wore the black mask, would I also put paint on my neck, hands?
This would be due to the lingering effects of the history of blackface minstrelsy in the United States, as has already been discussed in this thread. It's in bad taste and a dick thing to do because of that history.
It's not really any different than a group of three friends, two of whom dress up as the WTC buildings and one of whom dress up as a plane . . . then they spend the rest of the evening pretending to bump into each other and knocking each other over. You live in a society with others. You are responsible for learning what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Yeah, you're free to dress the way that you want. No, you're not free from the scorn, judgement, and ridicule of others for being a dick.
It seems like you're trying to make this much more complicated than it really is.
I'm curious/trying to get a broader understanding. I am also not in, or from, the US (nor, from your forum location, are you).
So you're saying the WTC is 'beyond the pale' at the moment? Not sure I agree with that. Of *course* there is sensitivity required. Reminds me of a time when I was young, one guy made some joke that ended with something about cancer... right next to a girl who's grandma had just died of cancer.
One of the largest differences between here (Canada) and home (UK) is the darkness of humour, I think. Perhaps I just haven't come across any dark Canadian humour yet.
-
Good point on the mask. But, still weird - why can I put a black mask on, but not black paint? If I wore the black mask, would I also put paint on my neck, hands?
This would be due to the lingering effects of the history of blackface minstrelsy in the United States, as has already been discussed in this thread. It's in bad taste and a dick thing to do because of that history.
It's not really any different than a group of three friends, two of whom dress up as the WTC buildings and one of whom dress up as a plane . . . then they spend the rest of the evening pretending to bump into each other and knocking each other over. You live in a society with others. You are responsible for learning what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Yeah, you're free to dress the way that you want. No, you're not free from the scorn, judgement, and ridicule of others for being a dick.
It seems like you're trying to make this much more complicated than it really is.
I'm curious/trying to get a broader understanding. I am also not in, or from, the US (nor, from your forum location, are you).
So you're saying the WTC is 'beyond the pale' at the moment? Not sure I agree with that. Of *course* there is sensitivity required. Reminds me of a time when I was young, one guy made some joke that ended with something about cancer... right next to a girl who's grandma had just died of cancer.
One of the largest differences between here (Canada) and home (UK) is the darkness of humour, I think. Perhaps I just haven't come across any dark Canadian humour yet.
I'm saying that you live in an interconnected society. You are responsible for your own actions. You are responsible for judging if your behaviour is acceptable or not. If it's not, others will likely let you know.
Personally, sure . . . I love to crack jokes and enjoy humour that's off colour. I'm aware that not everyone does. This is why I try to choose my audience and my words carefully (not always successfully). Humour is also difficult because context dramatically changes how something said is interpreted. Chris Rock making a joke about how much black people like fried chicken and grape soda has a totally different context and will not be understood the same way were Hilary Clinton to say it. The background and history of the person delivering a joke changes how the joke is received.
Words can be addressed by volume and location . . . but it's very easy these days to catch actions on camera even if you're at a private party. There were enough people affected by 9/11 who feel strongly about it, that I wouldn't personally dress up as the world trade center and pretend to crash planes into it. The same can be said of dressing up like a nazi. Or of doing any kind of blackface. If a picture of me doing this became public, it's not unreasonable to expect many people to be outraged. If you feel that these things are OK to do, then by all means . . . do them. Own your actions though. Don't be surprised if you get some push back.
-
So you're saying the WTC is 'beyond the pale' at the moment? Not sure I agree with that. Of *course* there is sensitivity required. Reminds me of a time when I was young, one guy made some joke that ended with something about cancer... right next to a girl who's grandma had just died of cancer.
I think the two keys things I keep seeing in this conversation are that:
-No one is saying you can't do things (wear blackface, dress up like the WTC, etc). They are saying you should understand that doing so may have consequences (people thinking you are a dick, getting fired for bad PR for your company, etc). You are free to make the choice. Others are free to disagree with your choice.
-Context matters. Using your example about the cancer joke: It matters whether it was a comedy show (where people might reasonably expect that kind of thing). It matters whether he knew beforehand about her grandmother. It matters whether, when he found out, he apologized or doubled down with more cancer jokes. If he made more jokes, it matters whether she was laughing, silent, or crying.
-
For the first part, I'm trying to say that is can be disrespectful to ignore differences that arise from differences in race or ethnicity or skin color or religion or culture. All these differences lead to different life experiences. My experience in life would be completely different if I was a Black woman (I am a white woman), even if nothing else changed about my starting point in life except my skin color, and to ignore that is unfair (and rude). When I have friends with different backgrounds, especially backgrounds that have a history of oppression or discrimination, I shouldn't ignore that and act like those differences aren't a potentially important part of their life and how they relate to the world. The idea is that you don't want to erase or ignore their experiences. I'm sorry, I really don't understand the thing with the bus???
Re: costumes. Yes, I was trying to make a point about negative stereotypes and power dynamics and when costumes become offensive or racist. Though I don't get why dressing as Obama would be confusing if someone was white, you'd just wear a mask (there's one for pretty much every president) or do a really good job with the rest of the costume or wear a name tag. I also would not chose that as a costume, but I also don't like costume parties at all!
Right, but until you know a person, you don't know their background. A black American, black Brit, or black African will... well, no, let's be correct here, every single person will have had a different set of experiences. Are there commonalities? Of course. But you seem to be saying that you should try and make accommodations for someone before you know if they need or want them.
The bus, I think I was just trying to work out the difference between custom and segregation. You can't, in the West, say "all people of type X go here; others go there". There are probably examples I'm missing (apart from: public toilets for m/f, disabled toilets as well as reserved seating, etc). So a person whose theoretical religion segregates... Where do you say, no, your custom is not compatible? I guess that's the question with hijabs and oath taking/giving evidence/etc. If (pre existing) rules said no balaclavas in shops/banks, is it reasonable to enforce that with religious headwear as well? If the alternative was fingerprinting, or retina scans?!
It reminds me of the fact (?) that in the UK, Sikhs are or were exempt from wearing crash helmets on motorcycles because of their turbans. I'm sure the number of motorcycle riding sikhs is fairly small. You are (mostly) only affecting yourself if you fall off and hurt yourself.
Good point on the mask. But, still weird - why can I put a black mask on, but not black paint? If I wore the black mask, would I also put paint on my neck, hands?
I don't think I'm saying that you have to make 'accommodations' before you know someone. You just have to acknowledge that other people's experiences will be different from yours, especially if they have lived as a visible minority. This was in response to a comment of yours that was trending in a 'colorblindness is the ideal' direction, and I was trying to point out that, in addition to discriminating based on differences, ignoring differences can also be unkind verging on discriminatory.
Coming from a US perspective, I'm very confused about your leap from respecting customs to segregation. For the USA, respecting religious liberty is one of our founding principles. People can do all kind of wacky shit if they claim a religious basis.
As for where to draw the line, I think that depends on the situation. Obviously my perspective is very western and informed by US law, but generally, as long as some cultural tradition is voluntary and not affecting anyone else, it seems like it ought to be ok. And I don't know that I've ever heard of someone showing up somewhere and expecting the existing dominant culture to conform to their requirements (colonialism aside, which I realize is a very big aside).
In the case of Muslim head covering, it's not like western cultures don't have a long history of women covering their head/hair, especially for religious reasons. As I was educated in a Catholic environment, nuns spring to mind. There is a big difference between religious gear and balaclavas, so I'm also not understanding this point either, sorry.
re: mask vs paint. In the US, there is a reasonably long tradition of wearing presidential masks. There is an even longer and incredibly racist tradition of white people painting themselves black and mocking black stereotypes. One is racist, one is not. I'm not sure how to explain it more clearly? Presidents are not exactly a group that has been discriminated against. So if you are treating the Black President the same way you treat white presidents, it's legit. If you do blackface while dressing up as the Black President, it's racist, because blackface is racist.
-
This might help.
https://www.facebook.com/thecosmicteacher/videos/1268072186536324/
-
Why are cultures sacrosanct? There are aspects of every culture that are ridiculous. Some cultures have very dangerous aspects. Both ridiculous and dangerous aspects should be mocked and caracitured whenever possible, including via costumes.
Some cultures and languages fade away, it's not always in our interest to preserve them.
This thread is about racism though, making fun of or treating people differently due to physical properties they have and cannot control is my definition of racism, anything else is whining.
-
Wow, are we over thinking this or what?
If the consensus opinion from the members of a particular race is that they would not appreciate it if you wore a specific costume, used a specific word to address them by etc.. then just don't do it. Respect them as human beings and don't do it. On the flip side, if someone screws up and does something that offends your culture, don't immediately judge them as an irredeemable or deplorable. Attempt to educate them if they are receptive to it, and move on.
-
Isn't racism simply, judging people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character?
-
Why are cultures sacrosanct? There are aspects of every culture that are ridiculous. Some cultures have very dangerous aspects. Both ridiculous and dangerous aspects should be mocked and caracitured whenever possible, including via costumes.
Dangerous for who? And there's a big difference between actively mocking or trying to scrub away a culture, and simply allowing it to fade away by not preserving it. I'm not sure that the former is preferable to the latter.
-
Why are cultures sacrosanct? There are aspects of every culture that are ridiculous. Some cultures have very dangerous aspects. Both ridiculous and dangerous aspects should be mocked and caracitured whenever possible, including via costumes.
Dangerous for who? And there's a big difference between actively mocking or trying to scrub away a culture, and simply allowing it to fade away by not preserving it. I'm not sure that the former is preferable to the latter.
Female circumcision. Male circumcision, if you come down to it. Chinese foot binding.
And etc.
-
Male circumcision, if you come down to it.
I'll agree wholeheartedly with female circumcision and Chinese foot binding, these confer no health benefit to a person.
Last I checked, the evidence seems to point to there being a slight health advantage to having a male child circumcised (reduced risk of penile cancer, evidence pointing to reduced UTI infection risk for boys under 1 year old, reduced risk of contracting syphilis/HIV/HPV/herpes). There is certainly a medical case to be made in favour of having a child circumcised, so I don't think it's comparable to the other two you listed. (Like I said, the health benefit is slight so it doesn't seem unreasonable to not have it done either.)
-
Why are cultures sacrosanct? There are aspects of every culture that are ridiculous. Some cultures have very dangerous aspects. Both ridiculous and dangerous aspects should be mocked and caracitured whenever possible, including via costumes.
Dangerous for who? And there's a big difference between actively mocking or trying to scrub away a culture, and simply allowing it to fade away by not preserving it. I'm not sure that the former is preferable to the latter.
No, some cultures must be "scrubbed away". Some are dangerous and should be eliminated as quickly as possible. If the ISIS culture which, among other things: stone women for nothing, light people on fire for punishment, sell people in to slavery and does all sorts of other crazy crap, then I'm all for pushing that culture out of existence.
I'm also for scrubbing away:
- pretty much all of tribal pakistani culture
- taliban afghan culture
- saudi culture
- cultures that involve human sacrifice and/or cannibalism (this still exists believe it or not )
- kkk, nazi, neonazi, white supremacist culture
I also believe we should try as hard as possible to change many more cultures, including our own western ones, for the better.
My point here is that cultures don't deserve to be respected or preserved just for the fact that they exist, and there are many cultures we should be working to eliminate or change as quickly as possible (including some aspects of our own western culture).
-
Why are cultures sacrosanct? There are aspects of every culture that are ridiculous. Some cultures have very dangerous aspects. Both ridiculous and dangerous aspects should be mocked and caracitured whenever possible, including via costumes.
Dangerous for who? And there's a big difference between actively mocking or trying to scrub away a culture, and simply allowing it to fade away by not preserving it. I'm not sure that the former is preferable to the latter.
No, some cultures must be "scrubbed away". Some are dangerous and should be eliminated as quickly as possible. If the ISIS culture which, among other things: stone women for nothing, light people on fire for punishment, sell people in to slavery and does all sorts of other crazy crap, then I'm all for pushing that culture out of existence.
Literally everything in your list could have been applied to Christianity during history. Are you advocating for the 'scrubbing away' of all Christian culture too? If not, is it because you've realized that no matter how reprehensible the roots of a particular culture may be . . . it can hold on to some of the good and get rid of some of the bad?
I'm also for scrubbing away:
- pretty much all of tribal pakistani culture
- taliban afghan culture
- saudi culture
- cultures that involve human sacrifice and/or cannibalism (this still exists believe it or not )
- kkk, nazi, neonazi, white supremacist culture
I also believe we should try as hard as possible to change many more cultures, including our own western ones, for the better.
You say this, but it's telling that you couldn't find a single one to list . . . when there are so many problems with things that we do in the Western world. Just looking at the US:
- The culture of constant surveillance of the populace in the guise of 'protection'.
- The culture of legitimizing murder via drones around the world.
- The culture of regularly performing torture against innocents, and denying due process.
- The culture of creating ridiculous laws and rules to purposely incarcerate a maximum number of citizens.
- The culture of purposely creating military conflicts around the world, suppressing democracy, and supporting dictators.
This list can go on and on.
My point here is that cultures don't deserve to be respected or preserved just for the fact that they exist, and there are many cultures we should be working to eliminate or change as quickly as possible (including some aspects of our own western culture).
There is no group of people on Earth who are truly perfect. There's also no group of people on Earth who are purely evil. Arguing for change is certainly a valid way to advocate for a better tomorrow. When you start suggesting the elimination of a particular culture and way of life, that's not going to go over well. Intentionally or not, you're getting dangerously close to 'advocating genocide' territory. It shuts down any avenue for slow and incremental improvement, and entrenches/escalates distrust and differences.
-
No, some cultures must be "scrubbed away". Some are dangerous and should be eliminated as quickly as possible. If the ISIS culture which, among other things: stone women for nothing, light people on fire for punishment, sell people in to slavery and does all sorts of other crazy crap, then I'm all for pushing that culture out of existence.
I'm also for scrubbing away:
- pretty much all of tribal pakistani culture
- taliban afghan culture
- saudi culture
- cultures that involve human sacrifice and/or cannibalism (this still exists believe it or not )
- kkk, nazi, neonazi, white supremacist culture
I also believe we should try as hard as possible to change many more cultures, including our own western ones, for the better.
My point here is that cultures don't deserve to be respected or preserved just for the fact that they exist, and there are many cultures we should be working to eliminate or change as quickly as possible (including some aspects of our own western culture).
Thank you for expanding upon these thoughts.
-
Literally everything in your list could have been applied to Christianity during history. Are you advocating for the 'scrubbing away' of all Christian culture too? If not, is it because you've realized that no matter how reprehensible the roots of a particular culture may be . . . it can hold on to some of the good and get rid of some of the bad?
No. Everything is relative. In the Dark Ages the world was a different place. Perhaps the Eastern cultures were more progressive than the Christian ones, in which case I would be arguing for them to be dominant. If the Christian cultures were more progressive at that time, I'd be arguing for them.
Cultures, or let's say the cultural values they embody, are not equal. Some create much more human suffering for their own populations than others. I'm simply advocating for the cultures that create the most equality, rights, and in the end a better condition for their populations, should be the ones that persist and we should facilitate that persistence whenever we can.
I'm not going to sit here and be like, "oh, well, the Pakistani tribesmen just stoned another women to death for walking around without a male relative. Who cares though, since their culture does hold some good like the new years dances are so nice and cute and we wouldn't want the world to lose out on those turbans so we shouldn't mock their culture."
You say this, but it's telling that you couldn't find a single one to list . . . when there are so many problems with things that we do in the Western world. Just looking at the US:
- The culture of constant surveillance of the populace in the guise of 'protection'.
- The culture of legitimizing murder via drones around the world.
- The culture of regularly performing torture against innocents, and denying due process.
- The culture of creating ridiculous laws and rules to purposely incarcerate a maximum number of citizens.
- The culture of purposely creating military conflicts around the world, suppressing democracy, and supporting dictators.
This list can go on and on.
I agree with all of this. This is all very bad. I still think it's better than the harsh suppression of females (amongst other groups) in large portions of the world.
As I said above, it's all relative.
There is no group of people on Earth who are truly perfect. There's also no group of people on Earth who are purely evil. Arguing for change is certainly a valid way to advocate for a better tomorrow. When you start suggesting the elimination of a particular culture and way of life, that's not going to go over well. Intentionally or not, you're getting dangerously close to 'advocating genocide' territory. It shuts down any avenue for slow and incremental improvement, and entrenches/escalates distrust and differences.
I agree, that nobody and no culture is perfect. However, some cultures are better than others when measured, and yes you can measure, by voluntary human suffering being imposed by cultural beliefs.
I am suggesting elimination of cultures and ways of life. How is this different than arguing against the way of life of a coal miner because coal causes pollution? We don't like that so we eliminate that way of life. I don't like women being brutally suppressed so I'd like to work against that and have my government do so as well.
I am not suggesting we carpet bomb or nuke half the planet to achieve this, since the means would be worse than the ends (measured again by human suffering). I am also not advocating for genocide. I don't really know how to hasten the change in these places, but I think we need to do more than we're doing now, and I don't think being "culturally sensitive" is helping anything.
-
Culture isn't static. Eliminating a culture eliminates all possible good that can come from it. As you said, back in the middle ages you would have been arguing for the elimination of all Christian culture due to the barbarous practices (particularly in comparison with the civilized and much more advanced Muslim Arabs). Would that have made the world of today a better place?
You are suggesting the elimination of cultures and ways of life that you're not a part of because they look scary to you. That's a slippery slope to head down.
Being 'culturally sensitive' is the key to changing someone's point of view. Arguing that "some (our) cultures are better than others when measured" is a surefire way to prevent your opposition from listening from the get go. If you want to hasten change for the better in places I can tell you what has been shown to work historically:
- educate the masses
- end hunger and reduce poverty
- provide stable government and rule of law.
It's a long, costly, and difficult process . . . but culture isn't what's holding people back. Culture that seems to have sprung up from the middle ages tends to evolve in places where life isn't much better than it was in medieval times.
-
I think eliminating the more barbarous Christian culture in the middle ages would have led to a better planet faster. The current liberal democracies may have had Islam as their majority religion but it doesn't really matter what religious banner oppression or more freedom are under.
I agree with your ways to change socities. I also agree that people are basically the same and if you out people in medieval conditions they will have medieval cultures.
I'm not opposed to giving shit loads of money/food to change the cultures in these places.
P.S. I'm from Toronto originally! Indian descent (3rd generation canadian). There are many things I loathe about the subcontinent's culture and perhaps that's influencing my views.
-
I've got nothing really to contribute about racism but somewhat about stereotypes. I'm black and East African and my first experience of knowing I belonged to a particular race was in South Africa, but not much, but in the U.S, I truly learned what racism was. You had to tick a box and you had to navigate this new strange territory of being "African" yet black. Stereotypes are especially a funny thing.
You have the black and "African" stereotypes applied to you.
As an "African, "I got complimented a lot for English I had spoken my whole life. I got asked if we read books in Africa, did we live in huts, ride elephants, walk around naked.
Then I would get, why do you act white? You don't sound black, you swim well, your very educated. The weirdest yet is when guys from other races show any interest in me, they try to speak in a very stereotypical token black person TV slang... Like "What's up ma?"
I realized that racism is really born out of ignorance. There are times, I think gosh, people are sensitive but I think because we don't have their experiences we never stop to think why they are sensitive about these things. Sometimes, it does get a bit silly, but I think the strange thing about the PC and anti PC culture is that they are two sides of the same coin. They are both offended by each other.
Anyway, stereotypes exist everywhere but often we marginalize people based on these stereotypes. Often it's the dominant group in power that has a say in these stereotypes.
PS. I put African in quotes because it's a very Western concept. When I first came to the U.S and almost all Africans I know have this experience, even those in Europe. People ask you where your from a lot because you have an accent, you'll list your country and they'll always follow up with where's that. You eventually just stop saying your country and you start saying you are African because the moment you mention your country is in Africa, everyone automatically refers to you as African and here come the "Do you speak African?" "You come from the motherland"
This thread also reminded me of the compliment I got yesterday that is an oldie but a goodie "Your English is really good." I was like "Well you know, I only speak it natively."
-
I don't think you need to entirely eliminate a culture in order to get rid of the worst parts of it. Sometimes, yes, that is necessary, as it was in the case of Nazi Germany, and that was also supported by pretty much everyone. There are other ways to transform a culture besides outright war.
-
I don't think you need to entirely eliminate a culture in order to get rid of the worst parts of it. Sometimes, yes, that is necessary, as it was in the case of Nazi Germany, and that was also supported by pretty much everyone. There are other ways to transform a culture besides outright war.
The culture of Nazi Germany was not eliminated, it just moved from the forefront to the fringes of society.
-
Eugenics was part of our science in the United States in the 1920's, these horrible concepts were not isolated to Germany.
-
Eugenics was part of our science in the United States in the 1920's, these horrible concepts were not isolated to Germany.
And neo-Nazism is on the rise in the US again.
-
I'm positive that the second example is offensive, but I'm not sure whether the first one (Geisha) is. I don't think I'd wear a Geisha outfit in Kyoto, but unsure whether it would be just another historical figure, comparable to a costume of Marie Antoinett
I don't think wearing kimono or yukata (or other such garments) is offensive, but dressing as a geisha (or geiko, or maiko) can be simply because the Western perception of what a geisha is and does (and even looks like, in terms of makeup and hair styling) is totally off. Real geisha train for years in various cultural arts and wear their garments in extremely specific ways (coordinating colors in a certain manner, wearing particular kinds of knots on their obi, etc). I think if you are willing to study hard - places like Immortal Geisha (http://www.immortalgeisha.com/) are devoted to such information - then it would be acceptable to "dress as a geisha" for events like a Japanese culture festival, or a fashion show devoted to multicultural outfits, or other such events, if you are wearing the kind of super fancy garments they would or buying vintage kimono to wear.
And I'd say if you're dressing as a specific geisha, yes, that would be more like dressing like Marie Antoinette - but even then, if you're throwing on a cheap satin-y kimono and not even bothering to tie an obi correctly and being a generic geisha, that's pretty disrespectful to the artistry that real geisha aim to cultivate. Even an inexpensive kimono ideally requires some research to put it on correctly - if you wrap the front pieces the wrong way, that's how bodies are dressed for funerals. So unless you are pretending to be an undead spirit (which those could be a thing, for a costume party - there are lots of undead spirits in Japanese mythology), best to double-check you're doing it right! Also, my impression is that dressing as a samurai could be acceptable, as it would be like someone dressing like a medieval European knight. Geisha actually still exist and still spend years training to do what they do.
Caveat: I am a white person, but I have heard many Japanese people express the idea that they don't mind others wearing kimono/similar garments if they are worn properly/with respectful intent.
I lived in Japan for a few years (and actually dressed up as a maiko in Kyoto haha) and honestly all of the Japanese people that I met loved it when foreigners took an interest in their culture. Many companies throughout Japan make money by giving foreigners a "geisha experience". When I did it, they taught me about geisha culture and loved it when I asked questions. I'm sure there are some Japanese people who don't like this, but the ones that I met love that people are interested in their culture as long as you are respectful about it and take care to do it correctly.
Side note: many Japanese people asked to take pictures of me in my maiko outfit because they thought it was awesome
-
You can wear anything you want and it doesn't make you racist.
The definition of racist is very specific. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
You can do or say anything you want if you don't believe your race is superior to someone else-es race then by definition you can't be racist.
I happen to be Hispanic and I can tell you by all the imperial evidence I have seen the superior race is Asian.
They have the highest average IQ's, make the most money, have the lowest incarceration rate, lowest divorce rates, less children out of wedlock, highest graduation rates in high school and college.
By definition I can say Asians are the superior race all day long and I'm not a racist because I'm not Asian.
In truthfulness other than the IQ part I think most of the above stats are do to cultural factors.
The most racist comments I have ever heard in my life were from black men when I was dating a black girl in college.
We as Americans are terrified to be called a racist because it is one of those things where you are in a position of trying to prove you aren't racist.
One of my fellow senior NCO's was turned in for racism by one of his Soldiers because he didn't let her get away with anything. Little did she know his wife was black and the Brigade Equal Opportunity Adviser.
Normally any allegation of racism by a Soldier results in a leader immediately being removed from their position and an investigation. Even if found unsubstantiated the leaders career is usually ruined and the Soldier is moved so their won't be any retaliation. It is a tool Soldiers use when you are pushing them hard or holding them accountable.
-
You can wear anything you want and it doesn't make you racist.
The definition of racist is very specific. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
You can do or say anything you want if you don't believe your race is superior to someone else-es race then by definition you can't be racist.
Well, sort of.
Following your logic, one could argue that Hitler wasn't racist . . . maybe he just wrote the things that he did, ordered the executions he did, and incited racial hate because he believed that they would bring him power and control. We can't peer into his mind to ever be sure, we are only able to judge him by his actions.
The problem with your definition of racist is that it depends on knowing what's going on in the mind of another person . . . which is impossible. If you strut down main street in full grand wizard KKK garb, you are behaving in a way that's antagonistic to people of a different race and you'll probably be seen by the average person as racist regardless of your personal feelings about blacks.
You life in the land of freedom. You're free to act however you want. Others are free to judge you by your actions.
-
Hitler was most definitely not a racist he killed other people of his same race.
Again that isn't my definition it is the definition straight out of the dictionary.
And yes you don't get to decide who is racist unless they tell you they are superior to other people who aren't their same race. Another thing the idea that anyone should modify their behavior because someone else might be offended is a slippery slope since everyone seems to be offended by something.
I come from the South and I have seen a few burning crosses and even the Klans-man magazine on the coffee table of a friends house. I wasn't antagonized and even if I was the man was in the comfort of his own home he can read whatever he wants. Ironically a black guy and myself are the only people he lets hunt or fish on his property.
"Hitler’s idea of Lebensraum–or, literally, creating more “living space” for Germany and the Germanic people by expanding to other areas of Europe and the Soviet Union through ethnic cleansing, deportation and genocide—was not original. This essentially colonialist concept had been around since the Middle Ages, while the term itself was coined in the early 1900’s by the German ethnographer Friedrich Ratzel. However, in his implementation of Lebensraum, Hitler transformed colonialism into a process of pillaging and mass murder of unprecedented proportions, with tragic consequences for humanity. Claiming that the Germanic people didn’t have enough room and natural resources to sustain their growing population, Hitler wanted to build an Aryan empire by conquering large parts of Europe and the Soviet Union, including Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. In order to achieve this goal, Hitler intended to kill hundreds of millions of their inhabitants and enslave the rest, annihilating and subjugating entire populations whom he considered “subhuman” or, at any rate, far inferior to the Aryan master race."
-
Hitler was most definitely not a racist
And yes you don't get to decide who is racist unless they tell you they are superior to other people who aren't their same race.
lol
-
Hitler was most definitely not a racist
And yes you don't get to decide who is racist unless they tell you they are superior to other people who aren't their same race.
lol
Hmmm... there may be some finer points of Adolf Hitler's personal beliefs that are missing here. ..
-
The definition of racist is very specific. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Ha! So you think that people who are racist just go around spouting that their race is superior? You don't think that maybe these groups have altered their tactics a bit in order to draw in more supporters? You don't think that some racists might present a positive public face in order to more discreetly push their agenda?
I'm sorry that's so naive.
-
The definition of racist is very specific. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Ha! So you think that people who are racist just go around spouting that their race is superior? You don't think that maybe these groups have altered their tactics a bit in order to draw in more supporters? You don't think that some racists might present a positive public face in order to more discreetly push their agenda?
I'm sorry that's so naive.
Even if thus is true, what is your point? That some members of racist groups have been duped by the changed tactics and positive images projected by these groups? Or that people that are racist can present a positive public face and provide measurable good to their community even while secretly harboring unpopular beliefs?
-
The definition of racist is very specific. "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
Ha! So you think that people who are racist just go around spouting that their race is superior? You don't think that maybe these groups have altered their tactics a bit in order to draw in more supporters? You don't think that some racists might present a positive public face in order to more discreetly push their agenda?
I'm sorry that's so naive.
Even if thus is true, what is your point? That some members of racist groups have been duped by the changed tactics and positive images projected by these groups? Or that people that are racist can present a positive public face and provide measurable good to their community even while secretly harboring unpopular beliefs?
- Racist doesn't equal stupid
- Racism presents itself in many forms
- It's important to examine actions because they're all that we have to judge someone by
I'd argue that someone who has racist views, but never acts on them is essentially a good person. I'd also argue that it's possible for someone to provide measurable good to a community that is then outweighed by racist acts that aren't obvious (denying employment to people, supporting public policies that target minorities, passing on their views to children, making people of a particular race feel uncomfortable/afraid in their community, etc.).
-
- Racist doesn't equal stupid
- Racism presents itself in many forms
- It's important to examine actions because they're all that we have to judge someone by
I'd argue that someone who has racist views, but never acts on them is essentially a good person. I'd also argue that it's possible for someone to provide measurable good to a community that is then outweighed by racist acts that aren't obvious (denying employment to people, supporting public policies that target minorities, passing on their views to children, making people of a particular race feel uncomfortable/afraid in their community, etc.).
Absolutely agree with these points. I'd even go so far as to say that someone could be racist, act upon it and still provide measurable good that outweighs their ill effects. It's a matter of degrees. I strive to hold people more accountable for their actions and the effects of their actions than I do for whatever inner belief they may choose to hold or not to hold.