Some thoughts on Racism

[Ihateregistering1]

By real racists I mean people who openly hate other races. Generally people who say "I'm not racist but..." just have misconceptions or are about to quote a stereotype. Since really all people stereotype other people to some extent I wouldn't really call adding ignorance on top of that racism. Its just ignorance. It does not mean they necessarily hate or think they are better than the race they about the stereotype when they say that phrase. The people who use that phrase are a part of the other group I mentioned in my post. The people who are extremely afraid of being labeled a racist. When they say "I'm not racist but..." they mean " I don't hate or think I am better than (insert race) but (insert stereotype)". That's just ignorance. Big difference if you ask me.

While I agree that there is a big difference between ignorance and racism, you're example here is really flawed. People don't say "I'm not racist but..." because they're ignorant, they say it because they know they're about to say something that may be taken as racist. That's the opposite of ignorance. Racism isn't as simple as thinking that you're better than someone, is it thinking all of a certain type of people can be judged as the same. Saying "ooh, get the black guy for our basket ball team" may piss less people off then saying "let's not pick the black guy for the swim team" but it's no less racist.

You've sort of cut your own argument off at the legs though with this part: 'they say it because they know they're about to say something that may be taken as racist.', 'may be taken' being the key part.

Since racism has devolved so much into people's personal opinions of what they think is racist, saying "I'm not a racist, but" is nothing more than attempting to cover your ass from the people who use racism as an excuse and argument for damn near everything. Nowadays people talk about 'racist code words' and 'racist dog whistling', which is basically just a way of saying 'the person didn't actually say anything strictly racist, but I just KNOW they are racist". It's why people can say things like "anyone who thinks we need welfare reform is really just a racist" or "anyone who has issues with our current immigration policies is a racist" and people nod their heads in agreement. It's pretty much the ultimate argument trump card, because it's such an insult in this day and age that the moment you call someone a racist, they are immediately on the defensive. So what if you don't REALLY know that they are a racist, the burden is on them to prove now that they aren't.

That's why people caveat their statements with "I'm not a racist, but..", to attempt to undermine that knee-jerk argument before it's utilized.

 

[Robert Marrs]

By real racists I mean people who openly hate other races. Generally people who say "I'm not racist but..." just have misconceptions or are about to quote a stereotype. Since really all people stereotype other people to some extent I wouldn't really call adding ignorance on top of that racism. Its just ignorance. It does not mean they necessarily hate or think they are better than the race they about the stereotype when they say that phrase. The people who use that phrase are a part of the other group I mentioned in my post. The people who are extremely afraid of being labeled a racist. When they say "I'm not racist but..." they mean " I don't hate or think I am better than (insert race) but (insert stereotype)". That's just ignorance. Big difference if you ask me.

While I agree that there is a big difference between ignorance and racism, you're example here is really flawed. People don't say "I'm not racist but..." because they're ignorant, they say it because they know they're about to say something that may be taken as racist. That's the opposite of ignorance. Racism isn't as simple as thinking that you're better than someone, is it thinking all of a certain type of people can be judged as the same. Saying "ooh, get the black guy for our basket ball team" may piss less people off then saying "let's not pick the black guy for the swim team" but it's no less racist.

You've sort of cut your own argument off at the legs though with this part: 'they say it because they know they're about to say something that may be taken as racist.', 'may be taken' being the key part.



Since racism has devolved so much into people's personal opinions of what they think is racist, saying "I'm not a racist, but" is nothing more than attempting to cover your ass from the people who use racism as an excuse and argument for damn near everything. Nowadays people talk about 'racist code words' and 'racist dog whistling', which is basically just a way of saying 'the person didn't actually say anything strictly racist, but I just KNOW they are racist". It's why people can say things like "anyone who thinks we need welfare reform is really just a racist" or "anyone who has issues with our current immigration policies is a racist" and people nod their heads in agreement. It's pretty much the ultimate argument trump card, because it's such an insult in this day and age that the moment you call someone a racist, they are immediately on the defensive. So what if you don't REALLY know that they are a racist, the burden is on them to prove now that they aren't.

That's why people caveat their statements with "I'm not a racist, but..", to attempt to undermine that knee-jerk argument before it's utilized.

Pretty much was I was going to respond in a nutshell. Racism is muddled at this point. Its like sexism. There has been so much finger pointing and accusation going around that now racism and other -isms are almost subjective at this point. The meaning behind them has just been diluted and its used more as a weapon to shut people up at this point. Its a weapon that allows people to assume your intent or meaning without ever having to prove it. Really all its achieved is creating cynical bastards like myself who just don't care anymore. Unless someone is openly being hateful and racist its not even worth mentioning because all other forms of implied racism could range from asking an asian for help on your homework (when it could just be because they are the closest person to you) all the way up to offering a black guy fried chicken. At this point I just classify open hatred as racism because any other definition is just whatever the accuser wants it to be.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Snip

Excellent response, but why did you have to mention fried chicken? Now all I can think about is eating some KFC, and I'm supposed to be on a diet

 

[YuberNeclord]

2) Now I don't know about the rest of the world but there is a lot of anger here about the preferential treatment that asylum seekers get upon entering Australia. Most of the time upon getting entry they are put straight into housing trust, which is something very hard to Australian citizens to get, and can be put on benefits for around $50,000 a year which is scandalous when you consider the average wage for a full time worker is something like $35,00 a year and pensioners who have worked all their life can only get $28,000 a year (btw don't quote me on these numbers I may be recalling them incorrectly). Anyway, people who are protesting this treatment may be misunderstood as being racist because it seems they are against immigrants when really they are against the government for not helping out their own people this much as well.

Ok I've got major problems with this. Firstly I know you said that you don't want people to quote you on numbers, but when they are that ridiculously far off, I'm calling you out on it.

You claim that Asylum Seekers can be put on benefits of around $50,000 a year.

Ok, let's take that number and divide it by 52. This gives us the number 961.54(to the second decimal place).

You are saying that Asylum Seekers can receive benefits of up to $961.54 per week.

Now I went to https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-refugees-asylum-seekers and found out the following:

Spoiler

So basically if they have Temporary Protection Visa then they may be entitled to a "Special Benefit", which according to; http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/special-benefit
is usually the same rate as Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance.
If on the other hand they manage to get a Permanent Protection Visa then they are entitled to the same benefits as Australian Citizens, i.e Centrelink.

Now I'm currently with Centrelink as a part time student looking for work(Newstart Allowance). I'm also over 25 so I get the maximum threshold of money. Which once you add rent assistance is roughly $630 per fortnight. 630 X 26 = $16,380 per year. Now let's say that Asylum Seekers are on a different threshold(which as far I know they are not) and they get extra money due to their situation, I'm going to be really generous here and give them $1000 a fortnight.
That's still only $26,000 per year, nowhere near $50,000 per year.

Now my second problem with what you wrote is that you started off talking about Asylum Seekers and then you referred to immigrants as if they were the same thing. You do know that they are in two different categories?

Oh and for the record it is not illegal to seek asylum. I'm not saying that you claimed that but it's a common misconception that frustrates me. It's usually perpetuated by the media when they refer to Asylum Seekers as "Illegal Immigrants"(I'm not saying that there aren't illegal immigrants, but they are different to asylum seekers.)

To be honest, the fact that the people voted in a **** like Tony Abbott, and here in Tassie put the Liberals into power, politicians who do not even try to hide their bigotry and openly talk about a "majority government for majority people" sort of reinforces that stereotype, sadly.

It does look bad but I think that it was less about Australians being racist and more about the fact that Labour made themselves unvotable(fun fact; apparently unvotable isn't a word).

Considering how strong a position Labour were in after the 2007 election I haven't seen such a cluster-fuck in politics(I don't was to get too much into that though, I could write a whole thesis on how Labour fell so far considering all the angles like the media influence and the Liberals underhanded tactics when they were in opposition).

I've only met a handful of people who voted for the Liberals and they all pretty much said the same thing, "I know Abbott is an arsehole, but the Liberals can't be any worse then Labour."

And then unfortunately you have people who have a sports mentality when it comes to politics. Which is to say that they think of parties in terms of sports teams. They jump on a political party from a young age and vote vote for them for the rest of their lives, regardless of politics, simply because they are their "team".

 

[Mr.Cynic88]

Consider that only 50 or so years ago blacks and white were still segregated in the US and blacks were treated horribly. That was an attitude that goes back to Ancient Greece or even further which is thousands of years and I think the jumps society has made in such a short time are pretty good really.

History major here correcting your statement. Slaves were enemies captured in battle. To say that race had anything to do with it is anachronistic.

In fact, race is a pretty new concept. It goes back to about the 17th century. Chattel slavery, which is what the American south practiced, was a unique kind of slavery based on white supremacy. Race wasn't a thing in ancient times. There are no words in ancient greek that translate to "race."

I posted something on my friends Facebook trying to explain the significance of race in American society, and I think it applies here:

"What made the white race so successful, as a whole?"

Let me try to answer that. I recently took a 3 hour exit exam for my Master's in History, and covering American history from the 1600's to present, all I talked about was race. I would argue it's one of the most important themes when analyzing our country's culture, and it took me seven years of college to figure that out.

The white race was so successful, as whole, because they invented the game. It's easy to win when you make the rules.

White people didn't invent the game; they simply had the geography to win it. Europe had fertile land, sea access and easily defened geographical features (for borders) that allowed for large population growth and fierce competition between multiple cultures and nations with minimal risk that any one power would swallow all others (like China) for long periods of time. This meant culture would have to continually improve their technology and practices to remain economially and militaryly competitive with their neighbours, a factor not present anywhere else. This essentially meant that every the time we'd marched out of Europe en mass we had a culture that was far more technologically and economcially advanced than the forces that opposed it (see, Alexander, Rome, Russian Imperium, British empire etc). If you seriously did history as a proffesion I would be revoking your doctrate for misleading these escapists with 'facts' that would not hold up to the scrutiny of an primary school student.

I understand you have already been discredited by openly by other posters, and their points are very valid. However I feel its important that your posts flaws are exposed through technical terms.

Race doesn't go back to ancient Greece at all. You're probably thinking that because there were slaves in ancient Greece, it was a racial thing, but it wasn't.
SNIP*
Race is a social construct. White people made it up. There was no such thing as race in ancient rome. It came about in the 17th century as white people moved into new territory and needed an excuse to justify it.

Ancient Greek and Latin peoples had terms for race and ethnic groups. In Hellenia the terms were Genos and ethnikos respectively. The main difference between then and now is that both Rome and the Hellenic states judged 'barbian' people on their cultural values as opposed to their outward appearence; because their philosphy acknwoledged that racial discrimination was in fact the product of ethnocentic disrimination (judgement of cultural values) and thus they went straight to the source.. This was a idiom later emulated by the successor Imperiums (the British empire/Commonwealth, the Holy Roman Empire, the French Empire, The Portuguese empire, the Spanish empire, the Russian Imperium and Byzantium.) and deconstructed by the American colonists to further their practice of chattel slavery, a practice virtually non-exsitent (and illegal) in Britan in 1776.

White people were classifying everything at the time, and since you're writing the rule book, you might as well put yourself on top.

Now to understand race you need to understand the concept of "othering." We ultimately define everything, not by what it is, but by what it is not.

What does it mean to be black? It means you're not white. Language is nothing but a collection of metaphors, and thus imperfect. We only understand things by comparing them against others.

Now what does it mean to be white? There's a pretty sweet book by David Roediger called "Wages of Whiteness," and it explains how whiteness came about in America.

Basically it came from trying to get jobs. Dirty, smelly European immigrants came into the country, and found the job selection less than satisfactory. But they had one thing going for them, and that was their fair skin. Now it came time to one-up the competition.

"I'm better to hire because I"m not a negro, I"m WHITE." Nobody wanted to hire negros, because, black people, and nobody really wanted to hire immigrants, but that was definitely better than hiring a negro.

I'm relatively well versed on how white american views on black people propagated and solidified in the southern states of the USA. One only has to read the first ten pages of the colour purple to understand how people of the early 20th century and late 19th can attain racist views of black people, though they lacked the education to understand that 'lowly' behaviours is not defined by race but by poverty, absence of oppurtunites and education. You may be very right on how non-germanic european immigrants apporpiated the 'white identity' for their economic advantage in the USA, but your disregarding two centuries of entrenched low status for people of african decent which would of facilated a vicous circle of views on black people and behaviours of the poor, disenfranchised and owned. In many ways the (hopefully) old white views of black people in the USA are not facilitated by actual skin colour (which is an easy identfiying feature), but by social-economic class structure.

Race is a tool of imperialism. It justified European conquests around the world and has been used to artificially categorize and separate us.

I'm not sure if your familar with the term 'whites man's burden'. But it hinges on the idea that 'non-white' people can eventually become as 'good' as white folks. And that my friend is how Europeans (and Persians, Chinese and Muslims, though change white for 'muslim/Persian/chinese') justified Imperialism.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much saying the same thing. My statements were highly generalized of course. I'm quite aware of the "white man's burden." It was the mentality that justified the white man's racism. It was the white man's burden to raise the savage classes up to the respectability of the white man, which was their justification for coming in and taking over.

As with so many things history, it tends to come down to a semantics game. I was referring to racism in how it influenced Western development. If you're going to widen the argument, of course you can add other variables.

Socioeconomic class is more important than race. After all, there were black slaveowners in the South. Still, socioeconomic class was influenced by race to this day, which is why you hear far more about blacks in ghettos than whites.

Race is a factor in what I was talking about. It's obviously not the only factor, but like I said, I'm posting things for a few dozen people on the internet, not trying to write a book.

 

[Bellvedere]

2) Now I don't know about the rest of the world but there is a lot of anger here about the preferential treatment that asylum seekers get upon entering Australia. Most of the time upon getting entry they are put straight into housing trust, which is something very hard to Australian citizens to get, and can be put on benefits for around $50,000 a year which is scandalous when you consider the average wage for a full time worker is something like $35,00 a year and pensioners who have worked all their life can only get $28,000 a year (btw don't quote me on these numbers I may be recalling them incorrectly). Anyway, people who are protesting this treatment may be misunderstood as being racist because it seems they are against immigrants when really they are against the government for not helping out their own people this much as well.

Please start getting your news from somewhere else. This is absolute bullshit. I looked up the argument you were referring too - it's from Clive Palmer. And *surprise* was proven to be utterly incorrect. Then he came out and said that his figures included the cost to process asylum seekers AND... it was still utterly incorrect. It's just hate mongering.

YuberCeclord has already explained the actual figures, though asylum seekers actually receive an allowance of 89% of CentreLink's Special Benefit Payment.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/clive-palmer-wrong-asylum-seekers-pensioners/4917836

The Australian Government is atrocious from the refugee policies, the national history curriculum, defending "the right to be a bigot". Yeah, I don't think it's being overplayed at all...

 

[manic_depressive13]

Also the original point I was trying to make was EVERY country has that similar problem where racism, fascism and other forms of discrimination is involved. Yes it's a problem and the narrow minded few shouldn't be getting louder and the news media shouldn't be adding fuel to the small flame.

I completely disagree. I think this is a widespread problem and pretending it's only a small minority is just dishonest and enabling. Perhaps only a small percentage are frothing at the mouth, saying Muslims are the root of all evil. But saying there's only a minority of racists? Nah man, don't think so. Also, stop saying that every country has problems with racism. That's completely irrelevant and it sounds like you're making excuses, for all your talk about how racism isn't okay.

That's not to say everyone is racist by any means. In fact there are many Australians in this thread acknowledging and condemning the prevalent racism in our country.

 

[Dwarfman]

-

I judge countries by the actions of their government and the general political climate. How do you judge countries?

Australia is the only country I know of,where the people in it's entirety, regardless of class or alignment will boo, sledge and ridicule the ruling governing body regardless of its policies or if that person even voted them in at all. So judging us based on politics is a flawed method.

In any case judging any country by the aspirations of the political/religous/scientific/military/sociopathic ruling body is flawed. A country should always be judged upon by it's people.

Now I'm not saying that Australia hasn't any issues when it comes to racism. We clearly do, more so than what the OP thinks at any rate, but you can't right off a country because a few fuckwits out there are loud and vocal or because the ruling government has a few screws loose on certain issues. After all that is exactly what the people you consider racist do. They judge a country by the same criteria, then see boat loads of them coming in and taking their jobs.

As for my self I have eaten with, drunk with, talked to and watched Football with a plethora of different peoples and have enjoyed their company regardless of race, colour or creed...except for that one French dude. But he sledged Australian sport and that's just not cool...

 

[manic_depressive13]

Australia is the only country I know of,where the people in it's entirety, regardless of class or alignment will boo, sledge and ridicule the ruling governing body regardless of its policies or if that person even voted them in at all. So judging us based on politics is a flawed method.

In any case judging any country by the aspirations of the political/religous/scientific/military/sociopathic ruling body is flawed. A country should always be judged upon by it's people.

Now I'm not saying that Australia hasn't any issues when it comes to racism. We clearly do, more so than what the OP thinks at any rate, but you can't right off a country because a few fuckwits out there are loud and vocal or because the ruling government has a few screws loose on certain issues. After all that is exactly what the people you consider racist do. They judge a country by the same criteria, then see boat loads of them coming in and taking their jobs.

As for my self I have eaten with, drunk with, talked to and watched Football with a plethora of different peoples and have enjoyed their company regardless of race, colour or creed...except for that one French dude. But he sledged Australian sport and that's just not cool...

Why are you talking to me like I have no idea what Australia is like? I am Australian, I've lived here all my life, and I feel comfortable saying this is a racist country. You can make whatever idealistic claims you like, but the dominant political discourse in this country is right wing whether the government is booed and ridiculed or not.

I have stood on the streets asking people what they think of asylum seeker policy and the vast majority will give a sheepish "It's complicated" or "It's a necessary evil". As far as I'm concerned, any country where the majority of people are ambivalent about whether people should be locked away indefinitely in inhumane conditions simply for seeking asylum is racist. Are those people themselves racist? Not through any personal malicious intent, but they live in a racist country with racist politicians that deliberately inflate the cost and risk involved in accepting asylum seekers for their own benefit.

Similarly if the majority of people support racist interventionist policies based on the lie that Aboriginal communities have a hugely inflated rate of child sexual abuse, is that the people's fault? To the extent that they didn't stop to question the statistics, perhaps. But I'm inclined to say that the government is more at fault for presenting these lies as facts and creating a racist climate.

So are the people racist? Fuck yeah they are. Is it their own fault? Not necessarily. Does this make Australia racist? Unequivocally yes.

 

[Parasondox]

Also the original point I was trying to make was EVERY country has that similar problem where racism, fascism and other forms of discrimination is involved. Yes it's a problem and the narrow minded few shouldn't be getting louder and the news media shouldn't be adding fuel to the small flame.

I completely disagree. I think this is a widespread problem and pretending it's only a small minority is just dishonest and enabling. Perhaps only a small percentage are frothing at the mouth, saying Muslims are the root of all evil. But saying there's only a minority of racists? Nah man, don't think so. Also, stop saying that every country has problems with racism. That's completely irrelevant and it sounds like you're making excuses, for all your talk about how racism isn't okay.

That's not to say everyone is racist by any means. In fact there are many Australians in this thread acknowledging and condemning the prevalent racism in our country.

I don't think I said there was a minority of racist. I didn't even say there wasn't a widespread problem. I am talking about the root of many racism issues is started from the smaller few and expands due to certain media groups that loves to add fuel to the flame with false information. It generates a distasteful atmosphere among the nation. So, of course it's a widespread problem and in order to attack that said problem, you must go to the route of it.

Making excuses? Did I say anything about how I support what other countries do when it comes to things like racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism and other social and important issues? NOOOO. It's called pointing something out. I thought this whole thread was about discussing thoughts concerning racism and if it is, at times, over exaggerated, under exaggerated or just lies in between. Racism happens not just in Australia but around the world and it's a very very very bad thing and a big issue that should be addressed and eliminated. How? Education and respect of other nations that isn't ones own and not giving so much attention to narrow minded minded hate group who oppose those that are different to them. The narrow minded hate groups that start out small and grow even bigger, like a virus/disease, that can often times infect and reach a standing or voted in government. Something that shouldn't be happening.

So no pretending here. The problem is big now but it was started from something small. Destroy the root of the problem.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't think I said there was a minority of racist. I didn't even say there wasn't a widespread problem. I am talking about the root of many racism issues is started from the smaller few and expands due to certain media groups that loves to add fuel to the flame with false information. It generates a distasteful atmosphere among the nation. So, of course it's a widespread problem and in order to attack that said problem, you must go to the route of it.

Okay, if you acknowledge it is widespread on what basis did you dispute my claim that Australia is a racist country?

So no pretending here. The problem is big now but it was started from something small. Destroy the root of the problem.

Racism exists not because of some inexplicably narrow minded hate groups, but because there are people at the top of society with a material interest in propagating racism. The root of the problem is capitalism, not random assholes, and yeah, I agree that the people should rise against it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So no pretending here. The problem is big now but it was started from something small. Destroy the root of the problem.

Racism exists not because of some inexplicably narrow minded hate groups, but because there are people at the top of society with a material interest in propagating racism. The root of the problem is capitalism, not random assholes, and yeah, I agree that the people should rise against it.

I disagree with that. People want to hate other groups. This might be used (consciously or not) by people in power, but it's not something that isn't there until they do.

 

[Parasondox]

I don't think I said there was a minority of racist. I didn't even say there wasn't a widespread problem. I am talking about the root of many racism issues is started from the smaller few and expands due to certain media groups that loves to add fuel to the flame with false information. It generates a distasteful atmosphere among the nation. So, of course it's a widespread problem and in order to attack that said problem, you must go to the route of it.

Okay, if you acknowledge it is widespread on what basis did you dispute my claim that Australia is a racist country

It seemed like a far out generalization of Australia. You may not have intended it to be that way but from how I read it, and maybe others, it sounded like you thought Australia as a whole was racist due to a few in government and those who hold strong racist views. I also brought up other countries to show that other nations have the same or similar thing when it comes to those you first described.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I disagree with that. People want to hate other groups. This might be used (consciously or not) by people in power, but it's not something that isn't there until they do.

I think it's exactly the opposite. I subscribe to a Marxist understanding racism and its cause because it's the only theory I've found which satisfactorily explains why racism exists and how it is propagated. I may change my mind if a better theory is presented to me, but "people are just assholes" isn't a satisfying enough answer. It's overly simplistic and doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I disagree with that. People want to hate other groups. This might be used (consciously or not) by people in power, but it's not something that isn't there until they do.

I think it's exactly the opposite. I subscribe to a Marxist understanding racism and its cause because it's the only theory I've found which satisfactorily explains why racism exists and how it is propagated. I may change my mind if a better theory is presented to me, but "people are just assholes" isn't a satisfying enough answer. It's overly simplistic and doesn't actually explain anything.

Hmmm...perhaps I should have said that it's easier, rather than people want to. To not be racist, you've got to constantly not be racist, but to be racist, you only need to do it occasionally, if you see what I mean.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Hmmm...perhaps I should have said that it's easier, rather than people want to. To not be racist, you've got to constantly not be racist, but to be racist, you only need to do it occasionally, if you see what I mean.

I can accept this, but again it doesn't really help to understand the cause of racism. Is it easier because people independently and automatically stereotype others by race? Or is it easier because we've had it so deeply ingrained by our culture? If it's the latter, why?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...perhaps I should have said that it's easier, rather than people want to. To not be racist, you've got to constantly not be racist, but to be racist, you only need to do it occasionally, if you see what I mean.

I can accept this, but again it doesn't really help to understand the cause of racism. Is it easier because people independently and automatically stereotype others by race? Or is it easier because we've had it so deeply ingrained by our culture? If it's the latter, why?

Possibly both. It's easy to stereotype people in groups you aren't in, and once there's a history of stereotyping one group, it would lend the idea some illusion of credibility.