Racism Discussion - what is race? what is racism?

[The Coup]

Racism is a difficult issue for some people to understand, including me. You see, as has been pointed out here by some of our more enthusiastic posters, you can't be "racist" towards someone if what they are (Muslim, Jew etc) isn't a "race". I'm not sure about that.

We could come up with an agreed upon list of races that most of the SRP posters can agree upon. This is where things get hard, because scientists have repeatedly stated that race does not exist at all, and that calling Islam a race is just as valid as calling Arab a race, because they both have no basis in science.

So really, there is no race, so there can't be racism.

But obviously that's not true.

Racism does exist, even if race does not. We've observed and continue to observe racism at multiple points throughout history and today. We can therefore state that the establishment or understanding of the victim's race is not a prerequisite for racist behaviour to occur. Likewise, someone can be a racist without having any understanding of the fact that race itself does not exist.

So where does that leave the use of the term racist, race or racism?

Do we try in vain to come up with some bullshit list of races? White, Black, Latino, Brown, East Asian, SE Asian, Slavic, East African, East African, South African, Aboriginal, Native American, Innuit?

I would wager a reasonable sum of money that nobody on this forum is stupid enough to try and come up with a conclusive list of what the races are. This is because even many right wingers understand that there is only really one race: human.

Some people, however, abuse this and try and use the excuse of "Judaism isn't a race, therefore its not racist to call someone a greedy Jew" (even though Jews are shown to be more generous than white people overall) or some variation of such.

The point I'm making is, the intent is what is important, and using any grouping like race, religion, ethnicity as an excuse for demonising or seperating (fear politics, basically) is a tried and true conservative and far right tactic - it doesn't matter if you see Islam as a race (its not) or Arab as a race (its not). The behaviour of discrimination against someone on any of these basis' has a colloquial use of racism.

So much so, that we've made the term interchangeable with religious bigotry, ethnic bigotry, place of origin bigotry. This has happened at a grassroots level and at a legislative level. Lawmakers understand that there is no such thing as race, but right wingers have built an entire political ideology on white supremacy/privelige - hence the gigantic disconnect between reality and the right when it comes to issues of race - racial harmony is the antithesis of what the right stand for.

Therefore, a sentence like "Muslims are prone to terrorism" is racist. Its most accurately said as "religious bigotry" but its also accurate to call the person saying it a racist.

 

[Jiska]

All posters be warned; if people try and derail this thread with anti-Muslim attacks instead of sticking to the topic of conversation, I'll infract and remove the posts.

 

[Maggie5]

Interesting thread title, I too am confused but then I am still trying to work out what 'un-Australian' is.

 

[_007_]

Racism is a difficult issue for some people to understand, including me. You see, as has been pointed out here by some of our more enthusiastic posters, you can't be "racist" towards someone if what they are (Muslim, Jew etc) isn't a "race". I'm not sure about that.

We could come up with an agreed upon list of races that most of the SRP posters can agree upon. This is where things get hard, because scientists have repeatedly stated that race does not exist at all, and that calling Islam a race is just as valid as calling Arab a race, because they both have no basis in science.

So really, there is no race, so there can't be racism.

But obviously that's not true.

Racism does exist, even if race does not. We've observed and continue to observe racism at multiple points throughout history and today. We can therefore state that the establishment or understanding of the victim's race is not a prerequisite for racist behaviour to occur. Likewise, someone can be a racist without having any understanding of the fact that race itself does not exist.

So where does that leave the use of the term racist, race or racism?

Do we try in vain to come up with some bullshit list of races? White, Black, Latino, Brown, East Asian, SE Asian, Slavic, East African, East African, South African, Aboriginal, Native American, Innuit?

I would wager a reasonable sum of money that nobody on this forum is stupid enough to try and come up with a conclusive list of what the races are. This is because even many right wingers understand that there is only really one race: human.

Some people, however, abuse this and try and use the excuse of "Judaism isn't a race, therefore its not racist to call someone a greedy Jew" (even though Jews are shown to be more generous than white people overall) or some variation of such.

The point I'm making is, the intent is what is important, and using any grouping like race, religion, ethnicity as an excuse for demonising or seperating (fear politics, basically) is a tried and true conservative and far right tactic - it doesn't matter if you see Islam as a race (its not) or Arab as a race (its not). The behaviour of discrimination against someone on any of these basis' has a colloquial use of racism.

So much so, that we've made the term interchangeable with religious bigotry, ethnic bigotry, place of origin bigotry. This has happened at a grassroots level and at a legislative level. Lawmakers understand that there is no such thing as race, but right wingers have built an entire political ideology on white supremacy/privelige - hence the gigantic disconnect between reality and the right when it comes to issues of race - racial harmony is the antithesis of what the right stand for.

Therefore, a sentence like "Muslims are prone to terrorism" is racist. Its most accurately said as "religious bigotry" but its also accurate to call the person saying it a racist.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment overall, are you able to provide proof of the bolded please.

(2nd bolded was for lol's)

 

[little graham]

scientists have repeatedly stated that race does not exist at all, and that calling Islam a race is just as valid as calling Arab a race, because they both have no basis in science.

So really, there is no race, so there can't be racism.

Scientists are amongst the most racial discriminatory groups on earth. If only they would study themselves. They're human after all. Take Einstein, what he did, in attempting to justify his move to America, was very racist.

 

[mottrain]

The thing is the left groups and some organisations referred to play th racism game to try to garner support for them. Fact is that they often melt when people reject that line. Just look at the Muslims last week with their protest and how quickly their claims were refuted. The overlap you talk about is generally in existence because of groups I referred to trying to have this occur.

 

[The Coup]

Sure:

"scientists have repeatedly stated that race does not exist at all"

This is tricky in the sense that you have to define 'race' first before trying to disprove it. The gist of the argument against race is that all humans are genetically identical, with variation between individuals from the same "race", far greater than any variation between groups of individuals. There is something called "alleles" which might show shared history and geographic locations though but nothing suggests humans are anything other than one identical race with a number of groups that have shared histories, yet so insignificant that any two individuals are likely to have greater variation than any two groups. There's heaps of stuff written on it but scientists are unlikely to gain much of anything by researching medicine based on race, for example - precisely due to the fact that 'race' is so inexact and such a useless factor from a scientific point of view.

And of course, even though you were joking with the second bolding, its a good point. Who in their right mind would be ambitious enough to actually try and list all the "races" in the world? We'd fail the minute we opened our mouths.

(even though Jews are shown to be more generous than white people overall)

Haha this is just from some goofy article I read recently. It says that Jewish people are particularly more generous in relation to non Jewish charities i.e. they are less likely to just donate to charities that support only other Jews. They are the least "racist" when it comes to charity, I guess.

at a legislative level

This is taken from the Racial discrimination Act 1975, quoting the UN charter on human rights and it being applicable to Australia:

"The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action, in co‑operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion"

 

[Lester Burnham]

scientists have repeatedly stated that race does not exist at all

Geelong_Sicko posted this interesting article previously

why both sides are wrong in the race debate

 

[The Coup]

Geelong_Sicko posted this interesting article previously

why both sides are wrong in the race debate

That's a good read. It's like I said in my follow up post, the science is definitely complicated but the overarching narrative from every reasonable article (i.e. anything that has conclusions that are actually referenced) is that the concept of race in the sense of how society uses it, is completely off base and largely meaningless.

 

[Malifice]

Whilst I agree with your sentiment overall, are you able to provide proof of the bolded please.

Race is a social construct. Like religions or nations. There arent biologically discreet 'races'.

Despite what most people think.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Racism is the hatred of someone based on their race and the hatred of a race. Racial insensitivity, xenophobia, racial patronisation, racially based paranoia and general douchebaggery tend to get lumped into the one thing. Generally they're all as each other though making it more a semantic thing.

Racism destroys any discussion of race because racists co-opt SO many different arguments and studies and make them primarily associated with racism, making them off limits to discussion, even if the arguments themselves aren't inherently racist. Racists know racism is bad now so they try and dress up as other things and ruin that thing by association (which is unfair to that thing).

Overt racists are less damaging to society than the "covert" racists who make people who are against racism paranoid of casual racism.

 

[Malifice]

Racism is the hatred of someone based on their race and the hatred of a race. .

I go with: Racism is the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially (but not necessarily) so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Religion is a choice. Living in Western Sydney I've been made to feel discriminated against because I think AFL (influenced from the culture I grew up in Melbourne) is better then Rugby League. Doesn't mean that I was "racially" abused.

 

[The Coup]

Religion is a choice. Living in Western Sydney I've been made to feel discriminated against because I think AFL (influenced from the culture I grew up in Melbourne) is better then Rugby League. Doesn't mean that I was "racially" abused.

So its ok to discriminate against someone based on anything, as long as its a choice?

 

[Raz0r6ack]

So its ok to discriminate against someone based on anything, as long as its a choice?

No it's not as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, but it's not as bad as discriminating against someone for something they can't control.

 

[Power Raid]

what is race? like all things, humans like to categorise things to help simplify communication and understanding.

what is racism? we all know what type of racism is simply not tolerated in society but we all have different understanding of the shades of grey. Some guys might like asian girls and actively pursue them and the expense of other women. Is that racist or just being honest with one's preferences? At the end of the day, people have an obligation to themselves to be tolerant of other peoples behaviour and should also be considerate of others. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen.

 

[Moo]

So its ok to discriminate against someone based on anything, as long as its a choice?

He doesn't go for Collingwood, so no it's not OK

 

[Aed0s]

Sorry OP but social constructivism isn't a real science, it's liberal creationism disguised as science and it offers us nothing but myths.

We can identify races long after decomposition merely by the shape of the skull, and a number of other bone features. This same process when performed on other species is a clear indication of sub-categories of species, which would immediately warrant a new name be applied to the species with a slight difference from the other.

Simply saying "that's not so" doesn't make it any less reality.

The issue with anti-racists is they have their entire message wrong. Race exists, it is measurable, can be plotted, and scientifically categorical. Claiming reality doesn't exist just to save your feelings will never end well, as it presents the opposition with all the arguments they need to utterly destroy your opinion.

The correct message is that race exists, but the individual is not to be pre-judged by it, as the individual is responsible for his/her own actions, not the actions of the race itself.

For instance, I am white. I recognise there are obvious physiological differences that make me white.

Anyway, the real debate on eugenics and genetics is just about to begin. It is no longer possible to be a thinking person and seriously believe in the 'race is a social construct' claptrap.

 

[Malifice]

The issue with anti-racists is they have their entire message wrong. Race exists, it is measurable, can be plotted, and scientifically categorical.

That latter bit isnt true at all.

And neither is your 'they can tell race from bones' bunk':

Like some of the other questions, especially the one on bone marrow, we have to look at the assumption that is embedded in the question, which is the idea that forensic investigators actually are good at telling an individual's race from their bones or from a fragment of their DNA. I can very clearly say that this assumption is incorrect.

Initially there were a number of forensic studies in which they tried to separate individuals into different so-called races depending on what they were looking at in the bones - size and shapes of skulls mostly. And they thought they had it. But when any of these studies has been replicated, looking at individuals from a different area or a different time, the results, sadly, are little better than random assignment.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-01-09.htm

For instance, I am white. I recognise there are obvious physiological differences that make me white.

'White' is a race now? I thought it was a skin color.

How is a race? Are Slavs part of the 'white' race? How about Jews? They both look very white to me.

The people at Stormfront disagree of course. But for social reasons, not biological ones.

 

[The Coup]

Sorry OP but social constructivism isn't a real science, it's liberal creationism disguised as science and it offers us nothing but myths.

We can identify races long after decomposition merely by the shape of the skull, and a number of other bone features. This same process when performed on other species is a clear indication of sub-categories of species, which would immediately warrant a new name be applied to the species with a slight difference from the other.

Simply saying "that's not so" doesn't make it any less reality.

The issue with anti-racists is they have their entire message wrong. Race exists, it is measurable, can be plotted, and scientifically categorical. Claiming reality doesn't exist just to save your feelings will never end well, as it presents the opposition with all the arguments they need to utterly destroy your opinion.

The correct message is that race exists, but the individual is not to be pre-judged by it, as the individual is responsible for his/her own actions, not the actions of the race itself.

For instance, I am white. I recognise there are obvious physiological differences that make me white.

Anyway, the real debate on eugenics and genetics is just about to begin. It is no longer possible to be a thinking person and seriously believe in the 'race is a social construct' claptrap.

I would love to see your references Aed0s, this is groundbreaking, nay revolutionary stuff in fact.

 

[The Coup]

'White' is a race now? I thought it was a skin color.

How is a race? Are Slavs part of the 'white' race? How about Jews? They both look very white to me.

The people at Stormfront disagree of course. But for social reasons, not biological ones.

No way in hell is "white" a race.

I mean, I am down with the allelle differences and stuff, I get there are some variations (nothing like the bloke you quoted suggested though) but I'll be buggered if Slavs and Celts and Britons and Angles and Jutes and Normans and Scots and Picts and Galatians and Romans and Greeks and Hellenic and Phenician and.... are the same people. I mean they all had white skin but their cultures are/were very different. They even look different!

 

[Todman]

Racism is just a generic term. It's actually "Tribalism". People with the same genetic background can hate each other because of a different belief. These days in Australia the geat divide is over which code of football you follow. Fifty years ago it was more sectarian, Anglicians vs the Catholics , (I know it was in the town I grew up in.) but fortunately that died out. There were secret societies like the Freemasons, (open to a restricted few). What about the fights on the goldfields with the Chinese back in the 1860's.

I was told that in Aparteid South Africa you had to be careful where you recruited your labour force. Your black labour had to come from the same tribe otherwise you were guaranteed trouble and possibly murder.

 

[The Coup]

Todman most sectarian violence in Australia was between Presbyterians (Scots) and Catholics (Irish). Anglicans have taken a more neutral role (its kind of the point of Anglicanism actually) though individuals certainly can pick sides. Anglicans reserved their violence for "savages" and "brown people" and "communists", and they are historically one of the most bloodthirsty people, but they tend to go a bit soft on other white people, especially other protestants.

Of course, the Irish Anglicans and Catholics drove the "Australia First" movement, which could be considered the most important "Australian" cultural movement in our history.

As for murdering labour hirers, still happens on Aussie farms if they get it wrong.

 

[Chief]

Not a particularly scientific contribution - but there often seems to be this idea that "Islam (for instance) is not a race, so how can I be racist?"

It strikes me as one of those ridiculous rationalisations for bigotry.


Stephen Gould said there is no such thing as a "fish". The oft-quoted example is that, biologically speaking, a salmon is more related to a camel than a hagfish.

Point being that differences and similarities are often totally arbitrary and constructed by the observer where they do not actually exist.

 

[Malifice]

No way in hell is "white" a race.
!

'White' is as much of a race as 'tall' is.