So, racism.

[Jonluw]

The definition of racism is to believe that humans have races that are prone to different abilities. Me telling a joke about a black guy could be offensive and maybe insensitive, but as long as the point of the joke doesn't state anything about there being existence of different races it's not racist.

Racism is not the belief that there are different races of humans.
That's silly.
There are different races of humans. That's fact.

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."
-wikipedia

Humans are still animals just like any other, and there are definitely populations with different morphological traits.
Take Asians vs. Caucasians for example. If I put an Asian man next to a Caucasian man, are you going to tell me you can't tell which one is which?

Merriam-webster uses this definition of racism:
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups

Not exactly what I said, but what I was trying to say. That's the definition of it quoted form Wikipedia.

Now can you find one source that claims there are races within humans? The cloest things we got to a genetic race according to what I have heard is a chimpanzee because there's only 1% difference when we compare the complete DNA. For a reference that's a lot smaller difference than a cocker spaniel and Schaefer.

It might be that I have been taught wrong, but at least just don't dismiss it with more proof that using a quote taken from a place which does not mention humans at all. It mention bees and not a word about humans on that article.

Now you gave me a stupid question to top it off, I will return the favour. I place two white males next to each other. They have the same height and the same body type. One has blue eyes one has brown eyes. Are they of a different race?

Nope.
Eye colour can vary within phenotypes.
My point is that when there is a direct correspondence between ethnicity and things such as skeletal shape, hair colour and skin tone, that's pretty much the definition of different races right there.

Why should the article on biological classifications of race not apply to humans?

 

[lacktheknack]

The definition of racism is to believe that humans have races that are prone to different abilities. Me telling a joke about a black guy could be offensive and maybe insensitive, but as long as the point of the joke doesn't state anything about there being existence of different races it's not racist.

Racism is not the belief that there are different races of humans.
That's silly.
There are different races of humans. That's fact.

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."
-wikipedia

Humans are still animals just like any other, and there are definitely populations with different morphological traits.
Take Asians vs. Caucasians for example. If I put an Asian man next to a Caucasian man, are you going to tell me you can't tell which one is which?

Merriam-webster uses this definition of racism:
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups

Not exactly what I said, but what I was trying to say. That's the definition of it quoted form Wikipedia.

Now can you find one source that claims there are races within humans? The cloest things we got to a genetic race according to what I have heard is a chimpanzee because there's only 1% difference when we compare the complete DNA. For a reference that's a lot smaller difference than a cocker spaniel and Schaefer.

It might be that I have been taught wrong, but at least just don't dismiss it with more proof that using a quote taken from a place which does not mention humans at all. It mention bees and not a word about humans on that article.

Now you gave me a stupid question to top it off, I will return the favour. I place two white males next to each other. They have the same height and the same body type. One has blue eyes one has brown eyes. Are they of a different race?

Come on now. Two different dogs are not a "different race", they're "different breeds". Thus, I suppose you could say that humans and chimps are different breeds, if you wanted to.

Race is smaller than that. The two Caucasians you mentioned are remarkably similar in general height, body type, et al, with the only mentioned difference being eye color. They're extremely similar, and thus would be considered the same race.

Now, if you take the average "purebred" Caucasian and compare him to the average "purebred" Asian, you have different skin color, significant size difference, different eye shape, different body type, different bone structure, and even different movements for the same tasks. So they're undeniably a different race.

The difference is getting smaller since cultures are inter-breeding, and thus we have Eurasians, Mulatto, Half-Natives, etc. But a hundred years ago, the world could be divided into very distinctive races all sharing similar traits with themselves and no-one else.

(By the way, by "purebred", I mean "born of three or four generations of their own race with no racial mixing", such as myself. It has absolutely nothing to do with racial superiority, which doesn't exist.)

 

[Yopaz]

Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups

Not exactly what I said, but what I was trying to say. That's the definition of it quoted from Wikipedia.

Now can you find one source that claims there are races within humans? The cloest things we got to a genetic race according to what I have heard is a chimpanzee because there's only 1% difference when we compare the complete DNA. For a reference that's a lot smaller difference than a cocker spaniel and Schaefer.

It might be that I have been taught wrong, but at least just don't dismiss it with more proof that using a quote taken from a place which does not mention humans at all. It mention bees and not a word about humans on that article.

Now you gave me a stupid question to top it off, I will return the favour. I place two white males next to each other. They have the same height and the same body type. One has blue eyes one has brown eyes. Are they of a different race?

Nope.
Eye colour can vary within phenotypes.
My point is that when there is a direct correspondence between ethnicity and things such as skeletal shape, hair colour and skin tone, that's pretty much the definition of different races right there.

Why should the article on biological classifications of race not apply to humans?[/quote]

Well maybe because our genome is eerily similar no matter where we go? Because there's practically no way to tell the difference between the DNA of an Asian as a European person or an African person?
Beca8use scientists both on the biology side and the sociology side agrees on it?

Because the Wikipedia article on races in humans say the following:

Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

If you even bothered to read my last post you will see that I stated that there's less difference between two dog races than there is between a human and a chimp. What you reflect to as phenotype and what you reflect to as race is the same thing. There's not enough difference between humans to divide into races. Saying "It's a fact" doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Yopaz]

Come on now. Two different dogs are not a "different race", they're "different breeds". Thus, I suppose you could say that humans and chimps are different breeds, if you wanted to.

Race is smaller than that. The two Caucasians you mentioned are remarkably similar in general height, body type, et al, with the only mentioned difference being eye color. They're extremely similar, and thus would be considered the same race.

Now, if you take the average "purebred" Caucasian and compare him to the average "purebred" Asian, you have different skin color, significant size difference, different eye shape, different body type, different bone structure, and even different movements for the same tasks. So they're undeniably a different race.

The difference is getting smaller since cultures are inter-breeding, and thus we have Eurasians, Mulatto, Half-Natives, etc. But a hundred years ago, the world could be divided into very distinctive races all sharing similar traits with themselves and no-one else.

(By the way, by "purebred", I mean "born of three or four generations of their own race with no racial mixing", such as myself. It has absolutely nothing to do with racial superiority, which doesn't exist.)

Whatever you say. I see no reason to discuss this. Despite how many sources I quote, despite how many educated people I refer to who says something else than you I know this wont lead anywhere. Believe there are races within humans and classify different phenotypes as something else and race as something else than different phenotype. If you're happy believing this keep doing so. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[lacktheknack]

Come on now. Two different dogs are not a "different race", they're "different breeds". Thus, I suppose you could say that humans and chimps are different breeds, if you wanted to.

Race is smaller than that. The two Caucasians you mentioned are remarkably similar in general height, body type, et al, with the only mentioned difference being eye color. They're extremely similar, and thus would be considered the same race.

Now, if you take the average "purebred" Caucasian and compare him to the average "purebred" Asian, you have different skin color, significant size difference, different eye shape, different body type, different bone structure, and even different movements for the same tasks. So they're undeniably a different race.

The difference is getting smaller since cultures are inter-breeding, and thus we have Eurasians, Mulatto, Half-Natives, etc. But a hundred years ago, the world could be divided into very distinctive races all sharing similar traits with themselves and no-one else.

(By the way, by "purebred", I mean "born of three or four generations of their own race with no racial mixing", such as myself. It has absolutely nothing to do with racial superiority, which doesn't exist.)

Whatever you say. I see no reason to discuss this. Despite how many sources I quote, despite how many educated people I refer to who says something else than you I know this wont lead anywhere. Believe there are races within humans and classify different phenotypes as something else and race as something else than different phenotype. If you're happy believing this keep doing so. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I was totally willing to discuss race as a purely man-made construction if you were up to that instead, but if not, then OK. Enjoy your day too.

 

[DEAD34345]

Everything is offensive to someone. The difference to me is whether or not I think there's any genuine racist intent in there or not. I don't think... uh... what's-his-name from The Dictator and Borat is actually a racist person at all, and his material is intended as a joke, so that's what I take it as. I've also heard jokes by black comedians about white people at least once before, and I was fine with that. There's plenty of jokes about ginger people, and English people, and I'm fine with all of this stuff, because I know it's just a joke.

There's nothing wrong with being the butt of a joke, and if it offends you then... well, I'm just glad I'm not you, I guess. Unlucky. Don't ruin comedy for the rest of us.

 

[Yopaz]

Come on now. Two different dogs are not a "different race", they're "different breeds". Thus, I suppose you could say that humans and chimps are different breeds, if you wanted to.

Race is smaller than that. The two Caucasians you mentioned are remarkably similar in general height, body type, et al, with the only mentioned difference being eye color. They're extremely similar, and thus would be considered the same race.

Now, if you take the average "purebred" Caucasian and compare him to the average "purebred" Asian, you have different skin color, significant size difference, different eye shape, different body type, different bone structure, and even different movements for the same tasks. So they're undeniably a different race.

The difference is getting smaller since cultures are inter-breeding, and thus we have Eurasians, Mulatto, Half-Natives, etc. But a hundred years ago, the world could be divided into very distinctive races all sharing similar traits with themselves and no-one else.

(By the way, by "purebred", I mean "born of three or four generations of their own race with no racial mixing", such as myself. It has absolutely nothing to do with racial superiority, which doesn't exist.)

Whatever you say. I see no reason to discuss this. Despite how many sources I quote, despite how many educated people I refer to who says something else than you I know this wont lead anywhere. Believe there are races within humans and classify different phenotypes as something else and race as something else than different phenotype. If you're happy believing this keep doing so. Enjoy the rest of your day.

I was totally willing to discuss race as a purely man-made construction if you were up to that instead, but if not, then OK. Enjoy your day too.

Oh of course it's man made. As it stands now we're not even able to define species to a good degree anymore. I just don't see a need to discuss it further since even people with a lot better standing to us can't really put definite definition to phylogeny between species. Seriously, don't get me started on the whole mess of a phylogeny within the citrus family.

I'm glad you accepted that I wanted to end this without making a thing out of it. I've had too many annoying discussions that could only end with me ignoring whoever quoted me afterwards. Thanks for a civil discussion in any case.

 

[Jonluw]

Well maybe because our genome is eerily similar no matter where we go? Because there's practically no way to tell the difference between the DNA of an Asian as a European person or an African person?
Beca8use scientists both on the biology side and the sociology side agrees on it?

"The F(ST) or "genetic variation between versus within groups" for human races is approximately 0.15. This is ample to satisfy taxonomic significance. The F(ST) for humans and chimpanzees is 0.18"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#.22Within.22_versus_.22between_group_variation.22

If 0.18 is the difference between two species, I would say 0.15 certainly should be enough to warrant a race concept from a genetic point of view.
I'm not arguing the genetic angle though.

Because the Wikipedia article on races in humans say the following:

Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

If you even bothered to read my last post you will see that I stated that there's less difference between two dog races than there is between a human and a chimp. What you reflect to as phenotype and what you reflect to as race is the same thing. There's not enough difference between humans to divide into races. Saying "It's a fact" doesn't make it a fact.

Subspecies and races are two different things though.
There is more to differences between species than plain how many genes correspond. Humans can't mate with chimps because they have 48 chromosomes while we have 46, for example.

Yes, there is no taxonomic significance to the concept of human race. The same goes for a good deal of other species that have different races, I assume. If we bothered to record every single variation in morphology as affected by geography in every single species, there wouldn't be enough paper in the world. The information is just to trivial to keep taxonomical records of. We have no subspecies (which are an extrapolation of race), so we can't use the race concept to divide the species into taxonomically significant groups. That's merely about the classification of homo sapiens as a species though.

What I'm saying is, races, as the word is used today i.e. to denote the morphological differences between humans from different parts of the world (as is the definition when applied to other animals) is definitely a concept that's both useful and relevant in daily life.

 

[Woodsey]

I can't speak for The Dictator, but the joke in Borat is that he's a) a complete piss-take of what Americans think when they think of various other countries, and b) their reactions to him.

Some people may see that as excusing racism, I see it as them missing the point of the character. Neither of group has the definitive say, I guess there's just a majority consensus that's reached, or perhaps none at all if it's particularly divisive. People will continue to knock it and others will continue to defend it.

There are cases when things are clearer though - where people are laughing because they enjoy being racist, or they think some ludicrous stereotype is entirely accurate and they're being particularly venomous about it.

 

[Yopaz]

Well maybe because our genome is eerily similar no matter where we go? Because there's practically no way to tell the difference between the DNA of an Asian as a European person or an African person?
Beca8use scientists both on the biology side and the sociology side agrees on it?

"The F(ST) or "genetic variation between versus within groups" for human races is approximately 0.15. This is ample to satisfy taxonomic significance. The F(ST) for humans and chimpanzees is 0.18"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#.22Within.22_versus_.22between_group_variation.22

If 0.18 is the difference between two species, I would say 0.15 certainly should be enough to warrant a race concept from a genetic point of view.
I'm not arguing the genetic angle though.

Because the Wikipedia article on races in humans say the following:

Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

If you even bothered to read my last post you will see that I stated that there's less difference between two dog races than there is between a human and a chimp. What you reflect to as phenotype and what you reflect to as race is the same thing. There's not enough difference between humans to divide into races. Saying "It's a fact" doesn't make it a fact.

Subspecies and races are two different things though.
There is more to differences between species than plain how many genes correspond. Humans can't mate with chimps because they have 48 chromosomes while we have 46, for example.

Yes, there is no taxonomic significance to the concept of human race. The same goes for a good deal of other species that have different races, I assume. If we bothered to record every single variation in morphology as affected by geography in every single species, there wouldn't be enough paper in the world. The information is just to trivial to keep taxonomical records of. We have no subspecies (which are an extrapolation of race), so we can't use the race concept to divide the species into taxonomically significant groups. That's merely about the classification of homo sapiens as a species though.

What I'm saying is, races, as the word is used today i.e. to denote the morphological differences between humans from different parts of the world (as is the definition when applied to other animals) is definitely a concept that's both useful and relevant in daily life.

Oh I was aware of that chimps had an extra set of chromosomes and thus we can't mate. I was simply using chimps as a reference value for whole narrow the differences are.

I could quote the guy who teachers human evolution at the university, but I doubt that would change anything. I doubt you'd recognize his name and I doubt you'd care anyway. I don't see a reason to discuss this any further. This wont lead anywhere and we both know it. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Bobic]

Honestly, I wouldn't say the Dictator was all that racist, it was a parody of asshole dictators like Gaddaffi, not the middle eastern population in general, and you know what, those guys don't need defending, and they've more than earned every insult (despite, in the case of Gaddaffi, being overthrown and killed and all that jazz).

Borat on the other hand, yeah, that was very racist (in my eyes at least). Not towards the jews with all the overt hatred pointed at them in the film, but towards kazakhstanians, the film painted them as a group of racist, sexist, [insert word for people that have cows in their kitchen and get off with their siblings], tools. The film had some funny moments, but it was undoubtedly prejudiced.

As for you saying that white people are bad at judging racism, I'd like to extend that to include every other race, and say that everyone is bad at judging racism unless it offends them specifically. Those white people jokes noted by other posters are every bit as racist, but I can guarantee the black comedians telling them would tell you that it's 'just a joke'

 

[Cyfu]

All the things you said

I agree with you on this. dat double standard.

irrelevant information for those who want to know. the Indian accent part, I recently talked with an Indian and I was curious if Indians actually speaks like Rajesh. he did not have the accent, because he spoke english every day. He said that the way Rajesh talks is like every Indian talks english. He actually has to change his accent to Indian-English if he has to talk english with his father.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

As for you saying that white people are bad at judging racism, I'd like to extend that to include every other race, and say that everyone is bad at judging racism (unless it offends them specifically.)

I think this is very true, up to the point where I bracketed your post(sorry about that). I do so because I think that when the joke is aimed close to home, that's often when you're at your least objective with how you deal with it.

I'm English, so I'd like to pose a question to the Americans of the forum, please do forgive it sounding naive...I'm an outsider. How is Al Sharpton someone that is tolerated? It seems that he is taken seriously when he kicks up a fuss about what offends him. But I've read quotes and heard audio of him saying some pretty iffy/nonsensical/ignorant things. Not only does he have a prime-time slot on MSNBC, but I keep seeing pictures of him with Obama...it doesn't seem to add up.

 

[LetalisK]

I'm English, so I'd like to pose a question to the Americans of the forum, please do forgive it sounding naive...I'm an outsider. How is Al Sharpton someone that is tolerated? It seems that he is taken seriously when he kicks up a fuss about what offends him. But I've read quotes and heard audio of him saying some pretty iffy/nonsensical/ignorant things. Not only does he have a prime-time slot on MSNBC, but I keep seeing pictures of him with Obama...it doesn't seem to add up.

Just like with all the other commentators, it's because he's dramatic and sensationalist, thus garnering popularity. Drama fuels us.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Yeah, another racism thread

Do we have alot of them?

I see a lot of people saying that certain jokes, movies, comedians aren't racist, despite telling potentially offensive material. Obviously this has started to come up again with the release of The Dictator, and it got me wondering who gets to decide when something is racist.

Its subjective.

In the above example, the people saying things aren't racist are almost invariably white and western.

That seems like a faint ad hominem.

However I work with international students every day, and they show real anger towards things like The Dictator and Borat, and they see them as just as racist as any slur or offensive word.For them, the humour doesn't alleviate the fact that these jokes are often being made at the expense of their culture.

I'm Jewish and I didn't find Borat offensive.

It strikes me that perhaps white people aren't the best to judge when it comes to racism,

Then you would be wrong.

as there isn't really anything in our lives that compares to it.

Go to South LA, Turkish neighborhoods in Germany, or Japan and say that.

We may be insulted for religion, or for personal reasons, but when has anyone ever really insulted you based on your skin colour or your society and passed it off as being completely okay because it's just a joke?

When my Indian friends attributed my lack of science knowledge to my race, or when my Muslim friends said it wasn't my fault that I'm Jewish(you know, like being handicap isn't your fault).

If someone attacks another culture, however well done or however light that parody/satire is, and large groups of that culture take offence to it on the grounds that it is an attack on their race, then surely that is racism? No matter how you try and justify it with 'but Sacha Baren Cohen's a jew so it's okay,'

Yep he is, and as a fellow Jew he's ok to mock his our people in my book.

or 'it's being used as a satire against terrorism, not an attack on Islam.

Because all Muslims are not terrorist.

If it can be taken by the people who are actually being used as examples as being offensive, then doesn't that make it offensive?

It can be.

You can't have it both ways, if you're 'allowed' to call something offensive because you are part of the group it's insulting, you can't then defend something else on the grounds of 'well they can't take a joke' when it's racial.

Its all subjective dude, what is offensive to some is not to others.



The main question of this thread is: Who gets to decide what is and isn't racism?[/quote] Everybody

Is it the people making the offensive joke? The people who are offended by the joke? Or some third body which is supposedly objective of the issue?

Again, everybody gets an opinion because it is subjective.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

As for you saying that white people are bad at judging racism, I'd like to extend that to include every other race, and say that everyone is bad at judging racism (unless it offends them specifically.)

I think this is very true, up to the point where I bracketed your post(sorry about that). I do so because I think that when the joke is aimed close to home, that's often when you're at your least objective with how you deal with it.

I'm English, so I'd like to pose a question to the Americans of the forum, please do forgive it sounding naive...I'm an outsider. How is Al Sharpton someone that is tolerated?

I think old Black people like him, while young Black people think he neglects black-on-black crime. I'm speaking in generalities of course.