Here in the UK, "coloured" is not considered a racist term. In my experience it refers exclusively to black people, and whilst not strictly PC, it's not considered indicative of a person's opinions towards people of another race. Considering the relative concentrations of melanin, it's not exactly inaccurate either. And whilst it is used by racists, it's used by those who are smart enough to realise that being considered racist is bad, but not smart enough to realise why.nut777 said:
Is this racist, does my teacher have a right to punish me for this?
- Thread starter renegade7
- Start date
Well if I'm honest I don't find non-white girls attractive, never have done and probably never will. I ain't racist since I'll be friends with any person regardless of colour or religion etc. And its not because me dad will probably not speak to me ever again until I dumped a girl if she was non-white, I jst do not find them attractive sure they can look nice but I do not find them personally attractive.
You're definietely not racist. And you should show here some of the responses here to support your arguement.
I personally like white & asian chicks. Does that make me racist because i don't prefer any others?
Didn't think so.
I personally like white & asian chicks. Does that make me racist because i don't prefer any others?
Didn't think so.
From the sound of it, it's a highschool class. It's much less of a stretch to have a lousy highschool teacher than a university professor. I once had an English teacher who spoke English as a second language with a rather heavy accent. It's an anecdote, I know, but still.2xDouble said:
Not really. He listed white skin as a trait that he found personally more attractive. There was nothing about racial superiority in there, just as saying that he preferred sex with ladies wouldn't be misogynistic against men.2xDouble said:
"Race is the primary determinant of human traits..." attractiveness is a human trait, is it not?Char-Nobyl said:
"...and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority..." being considered more attractive is an inherent superiority, is it not?
Granted, that's attributing more thought to the problem than is probably warranted (as is the entire thread, for that matter).
On the other hand, a recent column of Love FAQ [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/lovefaq/9133-Love-FAQ-Beauty-Isn-t-Just-Pixel-Deep.2], dealing with this exact issue, opens with:
I'm glad to see that this story has a happy ending, personally I think that teacher was overreacting. That said, the OP made an extremely poor choice of words, he probably should have said "pale skin", or just not mentioned skin color at all. Probably would have dodged this particular situation.
But please point me to the part where the OP said that race is the primary determinant of human traits. Also, attractiveness is not a human trait as it's not objective. People differ in opinion over the attractiveness of person X. People don't differ in opinion over the skin color of person X.
Again, attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore a race cannot be objectively superior in terms of attractiveness.
Great to hear the OP did not write the paper! I think your analysis of the situation is spot on.
I honestly cannot find attraction in black men. I'm not sure why, but I've met guys of every other race, and that's the only one which I can't find one which I would honestly date. So am I racist? I don't think so. I've still been friends with black guys.
I revealed this in class today. Hopefully I'm not sent to the principal or something and get the same deal as you.
I say do what everybody else says. Don't do it, and tell your parents and teacher that you don't feel this is fair. You have a right to say your preferences, and so long as it is not with malicious intent, it is NOT racist.
I revealed this in class today. Hopefully I'm not sent to the principal or something and get the same deal as you.
I say do what everybody else says. Don't do it, and tell your parents and teacher that you don't feel this is fair. You have a right to say your preferences, and so long as it is not with malicious intent, it is NOT racist.
You are imagining there is just some random Asian baby in a tribe of white people. Instead imagine a tribe of all the same race (which is how it was for the most part). Remember: I said "during hunter-gatherer days". So imagine shotty huts, people starving, and a broken ankle being a death sentence. Back in those days races were very isolated since they weren't concerned with trading or traveling beyond where food is. These are also the days were people were more concerned with passing their genes off to the most suited person. The "most suited" person was the most "normal" looking. "Normal" at this point being "of your race". Granted the "lets fuck normal people" thing probably goes back farther than 20,000 BCE, but that isn't the point.i7omahawki said:
This pisses me off when people paint any use of the word black as racist.
Say you claim, "White skin, because dark skinned people were designed by satan" is racist. But that is not the case, so you are not racist. Racism is about hatred of other races, not noting certain trends or using a certain word. "That person is Black" is not racist. It's an easy way of determining between people and after hair colour is the most easy thing to distinguish a person by.
I think Eddie Murphy said it best, "Black people have big lips. It's not racist, it's fact" in his stand up show show "Raw". Just like white dudes have no rhythm (also completely true).
What really drives up the wall is when I chose Pokemon White over black (Don't judge me. Pokemon red came out when I was young and naive and stands as the pinnacle of my childhood) and a friend claimed "that's a bit racist isn't it?"
NO! It's racist when there is genuine hate behind it, and my decision was regarding the fact that White version features a black robot dragon with glowing red eyes that breathes lightning.
Half the time the term comes from people who are so desperate not to be painted as racist that they blow the term out of context. If a black kid had written "prefers dark skin" I doubt the teacher would have battered an eye. And so the matter does become racist towards white kids, who aren't allowed to use certain words because they are white.
Bottom line, an arsehole is an arsehole, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or beliefs and your teacher is a bigoted jerk for claiming otherwise.
Sorry about the rant. I blame the the booze.
Say you claim, "White skin, because dark skinned people were designed by satan" is racist. But that is not the case, so you are not racist. Racism is about hatred of other races, not noting certain trends or using a certain word. "That person is Black" is not racist. It's an easy way of determining between people and after hair colour is the most easy thing to distinguish a person by.
I think Eddie Murphy said it best, "Black people have big lips. It's not racist, it's fact" in his stand up show show "Raw". Just like white dudes have no rhythm (also completely true).
What really drives up the wall is when I chose Pokemon White over black (Don't judge me. Pokemon red came out when I was young and naive and stands as the pinnacle of my childhood) and a friend claimed "that's a bit racist isn't it?"
NO! It's racist when there is genuine hate behind it, and my decision was regarding the fact that White version features a black robot dragon with glowing red eyes that breathes lightning.
Half the time the term comes from people who are so desperate not to be painted as racist that they blow the term out of context. If a black kid had written "prefers dark skin" I doubt the teacher would have battered an eye. And so the matter does become racist towards white kids, who aren't allowed to use certain words because they are white.
Bottom line, an arsehole is an arsehole, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or beliefs and your teacher is a bigoted jerk for claiming otherwise.
Sorry about the rant. I blame the the booze.
I think it's pretty funny that we've had the "We're all the same!" talk so many times that people get aggressive when you mention a difference.
There is a difference between black people and white people, there's a difference between asians and 'ol whitey...it's the skin colour. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's not racist if you're stating the difference...You naturally like a lighter skin tone, does that mean you don't like the others? No.
and the tens of people that argue with me on this can go suck the [use your imagination] of political correctness.
There is a difference between black people and white people, there's a difference between asians and 'ol whitey...it's the skin colour. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's not racist if you're stating the difference...You naturally like a lighter skin tone, does that mean you don't like the others? No.
and the tens of people that argue with me on this can go suck the [use your imagination] of political correctness.
It seems like the OP just made unintended implications, words can carry meaning even though the words themselves don't always expressly imply them.
It's fine to prefer lighter skin tone, like lighter hair, or a certain colour of eyes, but saying "white" skin is very politically incorrect as it drags up the whole race issue.
It's not a problem to find a caucasian girl more attractive than a latina one, it is a problem to like a caucasian girl because she's caucasian, not latina, if you get what I mean.
It's fine to prefer lighter skin tone, like lighter hair, or a certain colour of eyes, but saying "white" skin is very politically incorrect as it drags up the whole race issue.
It's not a problem to find a caucasian girl more attractive than a latina one, it is a problem to like a caucasian girl because she's caucasian, not latina, if you get what I mean.
Even if you did find that you were more attracted to X race rather than others more often, that doesn't make you a racist (or a fetishist). It isn't racist, not giving you a chance to explain is always a terrible choice that many adults seem to make when dealing with anyone who they consider a child (anyone under 18), and you deserve a chance to explain yourself rather than simply being punished outright.
Haha, I asure you, I wasn't thinking about a random Asian baby...crudus said:
I was thinking of tribes which were for the most part isolated. But they would obviously come into contact with other tribes from time to time. When this happened it would be natural for there to be separations from one tribe to another, as we can see in animal 'tribes' today.
Your point about wanting to shack up with the most 'normal' member of the tribe makes little sense to me precisely because you paint a picture of there being no alternative, especially if normal simply means 'of your race'. In fact, if you were destined to shack up with the most familiar member of your tribe, you would be with your brother or sister. Now, I'm not saying that never happened, but we all seem to be a little too varied to have an ancestral trail which was almost exclusively incestual.
You're discussing something completely different, dude. If you can't see the large difference between "large amounts of people of all racial backgrounds are exclusively attracted to white people," and "people of X minority are only attracted to people like themselves," I can't fucking help you.Kendarik said:
That'd apply if he'd listed white skin as being better looking than other colored skin, which he didn't. The teacher's entire argument is undone by the word 'preference' in the instruction: it naturally disarms any answer because it outright says that it's merely...well, preference. You can like chocolate more than vanilla, but that doesn't make you a chocolate supremacist, nor does it degrade vanilla.2xDouble said:
Pretty much, yeah. If not for the reaction the teacher had, this thread would be rather stupid.2xDouble said: