|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 10, 2024 7:59:11 GMT
I have asked several times now as regard what Racism is and it seems to get dodged or be stated to be so self evident that it is not worth debating. However accusations of racism fly thick and fast both here and in the general society and people are denigrated and attacked because they are 'racist' as not defined in law but defined by a broad group largely from the left.
I think several definitions stand out and perhaps people have others
Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized:
Racism - the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another:
As regard each we seem to have inbuilt racism into our laws and society through both 'positive action' and 'valuing diversity' so being racist cannot be a moral outlook it seems to be that only some forms of racism seem to be acceptable which on the face of it must be a racist outlook. It has become a racist ideology that we must accept on pain of being accused of that which we do not support and is promoted in the main by the left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 10, 2024 8:13:28 GMT
It seems to me that the modern-day definition of racism is not concerned with subjugation or supremacy but instead it involves the noticing of difference. The offence is compounded if such differences are not merely observed but are actually articulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 10, 2024 8:26:45 GMT
It seems to me that the modern-day definition of racism is not concerned with subjugation or supremacy but instead it involves the noticing of difference. The offence is compounded if such differences are not merely observed but are actually articulated. Which is part of what I do not understand we are expected, as policy, although who knows where it came from, to value diversity but diversity indicates that there is a value in a difference and that can only arise, certainly on the race side, if one assumes there are differences in the races otherwise racial diversity has no meaning. It seems that only positive differences are accepted and negative differences are dismissed as racism yet a positive difference assumed for one race means that whichever race that works against is assumed to be negative in that attribute. In all it makes no sense either morally or logically. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 10, 2024 8:58:10 GMT
Indeed. It is even racist to notice, let alone remark that since all finalists in 100m final were black, or that seven out of eight of the athletes who won medals for Team GB in the relays were black, they must be uniquely gifted as athletes in sprint events.
We are simply not allowed to say such things. Just quietly applaud as if there were nothing unusual going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by wassock on Aug 10, 2024 16:02:55 GMT
I have asked several times now as regard what Racism is and it seems to get dodged or be stated to be so self evident that it is not worth debating. However accusations of racism fly thick and fast both here and in the general society and people are denigrated and attacked because they are 'racist' as not defined in law but defined by a broad group largely from the left. I think several definitions stand out and perhaps people have others Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized: Racism - the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another: As regard each we seem to have inbuilt racism into our laws and society through both 'positive action' and 'valuing diversity' so being racist cannot be a moral outlook it seems to be that only some forms of racism seem to be acceptable which on the face of it must be a racist outlook. It has become a racist ideology that we must accept on pain of being accused of that which we do not support and is promoted in the main by the left. The original definition is where one feels more superior over another race. The modern version is where whites says something about a different ethnic group, even if if it's a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 6:48:22 GMT
It seems that despite a determined effort to smash racism and to demonstrate against 'racists' it is just too difficult for 'the left' to tell us what it is they wish to smash and to stop people indulging in. I suppose that is a win win for them if they say it is racism it is if other people say it is not they are just wrong. At least the picture is much clearer for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Aug 11, 2024 7:02:56 GMT
I can accept the first one.
The second one would read better if it said, "...the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as different from one another:"
I see no need to introduce concepts of inferiority or superiority.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 7:12:44 GMT
I can accept the first one. The second one would read better if it said, "...the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as different from one another:" I see no need to introduce concepts of inferiority or superiority. If we accept the first one then we have a problem as law in the guise of positive action allows racism in the form of discrimination on teh basis of race both in final selection and in selecting for training programmes. So it cannot be a moral concern that drives law. You cannot stop murder and allow murder all at the same time. The second one, the belief that people are different, is racism, and what the left wish to smash, yet they applaud and encourage diversity which is predicated on exactly the belief that people are different. I am none the wiser why racism is classed as unacceptable when classic racism in indulged in with vigour and support by those who shout the most it should be smashed. It makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Aug 11, 2024 8:45:08 GMT
Positive discrimination has always been problematic and I'm not a big fan, but if we take the wording of the first statement, prioritising some races or ethnicities over the dominant race and ethnicity is consistent, since by definition the dominant race and ethnicity - white British - is neither a minority nor (depending on your political bias) marginalised. I appreciate that some on the right dispute the latter and fear for the advent of the former.
As I intimated in my earlier post, it's not racism as difference that upsets the left, it's racism as superiority/inferiority. You may have a preference for one thing over another thing, but that does not inherently make that for which you have less or no preference inferior to what you prefer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 11, 2024 8:50:45 GMT
If you hate someone because of their colour or their nationality, that's racism. It's not difficult to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 11, 2024 8:59:33 GMT
What if you don't actually hate them, but don't want to share your living space with them? Is that racist too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 11, 2024 9:00:30 GMT
I can accept the first one. . But even if we just look a the first word of the definition, we run into problems.
We have alternatives, as in one could be a neutral prejudgement, like that might mean it is late at night, and some Somali youths on bikes are running around and you are walking on your own, you will be making a prejudgement on how friendly they are likely to be vis-a-vis a Brit walking around his country estate wearing a tweed jacket. Which is more likely to pull a knife on you. You need to prejudge to save your skin. Then again, if we take it to mean injustice rather than pre justice, that changes things entirely. How then do you accept the first, given the ambiguity here?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 11, 2024 9:17:05 GMT
Positive discrimination has always been problematic and I'm not a big fan, but if we take the wording of the first statement, prioritising some races or ethnicities over the dominant race and ethnicity is consistent, since by definition the dominant race and ethnicity - white British - is neither a minority nor (depending on your political bias) marginalised. I appreciate that some on the right dispute the latter and fear for the advent of the former. As I intimated in my earlier post, it's not racism as difference that upsets the left, it's racism as superiority/inferiority. You may have a preference for one thing over another thing, but that does not inherently make that for which you have less or no preference inferior to what you prefer. The definition is 'typically a minority or marginalised', it does not have to be for the purposes of the definition which makes discrimination against an individual based on his race fall within the definition so positive action is racism. It also falls outside the human rights clauses as no individual should be treated differently in law by governments on the basis of their race. I am trying to find out if the whole question of race and racism is a moral concept which it frequently is posited as. If one apportions a difference between different groups there cannot be anything else but an implication of some form of superiority or inferiority as the whole basis of diversity is it brings something different. Ten white men form a team and that is lacking in something that the taking out of one white member and replacing with a black member changes and improves the team. However it only seems to work one way as a ten man black team would not be improved by taking out one black member and inserting a white member and if one suggested that it would be naked racism. It is a fine mess of contradictions and dogmas. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 11, 2024 9:19:16 GMT
...As I intimated in my earlier post, it's not racism as difference that upsets the left, it's racism as superiority/inferiority. You may have a preference for one thing over another thing, but that does not inherently make that for which you have less or no preference inferior to what you prefer. If we are to jettison completely any notion of superiority or inferiority, how do we account for the fact that only people of Western European origin or descent have been able to create and sustain stable, prosperous and orderly societies in which the rule of law prevails and individual rights are paramount?
Or is it even racist to think it let alone say it?
And with regard to preference, is it not telling that in terms of international migration, the flows are overwhelmingly asymmetrical, from the Rest to the West? Hardly anyone moves the other way. So even if we resist the notion that the societies we have created are superior, others are not so hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 11, 2024 10:01:46 GMT
What if you don't actually hate them, but don't want to share your living space with them? Is that racist too? You're an immigrant yourself for goodness sake!!!!! You don't live here any more. You expected other countries to share their living space with you, but don't want the UK to share its living space with skilled brown people? Anyone, so long as they're of good character, with skills and the means to support themselves, is welcome to live and work here as far as I'm concerned. BUT, we need to make sure there are adequate roads, public services (including schools and hospitals), enough houses, and industrial estates.
Therefore there should be a quota.
|
|
