Is this racist?

[hadespussercats]

Seems to me like the 'mob' here are the people who insist that having any notions that they identify as racist (and heaven forbid ADMITTING TO IT) makes one a prime target for ridicule. Amazing how fighting group thought with group thought just gives rise to another form of stupid mob.

Did you actually admit to racism, though? Seems to me you copped to some intolerant, stereotypical thinking, but the fact that you titled the thread "Is this racist?" indicates that you don't think you are being racist-- that you think your though process is reasonable and defensible and by that logic should not be counted as racist (or "bad").

It'd be different if you said, "I'm racist sometimes, but I think that's okay-- and here's why."

I think you're being a hypocrite.

[Blind groper]

Civilisation : noun
1 an advanced stage or system of human social development.

Sure, this is what the word has evolved to mean.
However, the Australian aboriginals were a hunter/gatherer society, with only primitive technology. So even avoiding the literal 'city dweller' meaning of the word, I think it would be pushing it to consider traditional aboriginal society to be 'civilised'.

[Lion IRC]

The statement ..."Aborigines are uncivilised" or "there is/was no such thing as an Aboriginal civilisation" is politically racist, linguistically false, anthropologically ignorant and legally invalid. In fact, scientific evidence in Australia is probably why "terra nullius" was overruled by the High Court in that country.

"The main features of the Mabo No 2 judgments may be summarised as follows. First, the Court rejected the claim that Australia was terra nullius when annexed by Great Britain..."

"Terra nullius in the following senses was rejected: (i) that Australia was unoccupied: id, Brennan J. 29; Toohey J, 142: and (11) that Australia was occupied only by uncivilised people without settled laws and government: id, Brennan J, 28-29; Deane & Gaudron JJ."

From http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/U ... 1994/4.pdf

[Hermit]

Seems to me like the 'mob' here are the people who insist that having any notions that they identify as racist (and heaven forbid ADMITTING TO IT) makes one a prime target for ridicule. Amazing how fighting group thought with group thought just gives rise to another form of stupid mob.

Did you actually admit to racism, though? Seems to me you copped to some intolerant, stereotypical thinking, but the fact that you titled the thread "Is this racist?" indicates that you don't think you are being racist-- that you think your though process is reasonable and defensible and by that logic should not be counted as racist (or "bad").

It'd be different if you said, "I'm racist sometimes, but I think that's okay-- and here's why."

I think you're being a hypocrite.

Read Andrew Clunn's last sentence in the OP again: "I'm not judging you based on your race. I'm judging you based on your clear desire to conform to that racial identity."

[Blind groper]

Lion

The word 'civilised' has to be relative, or it has no meaning at all. In other words, some societies are more civilised than others. Claiming traditional aboriginal society was uncivilised compared to modern western society is not racist. It is a simple recognition of the reality of how they lived.

Racist beliefs are not those related to the technology or social development of a society. To be racist is to believe that someone is 'inferior' because of their 'race' or geographic origin. Australian aboriginals are not inferior. They have shown this by the ones that were adopted into western families, and grew up to be doctors and lawyers and so on.

However, traditional aboriginal society involved very basic technology, and very small social groups. Both are marks of a society that is less developed, hence relatively uncivilised. It we cannot use this method of determining relativity of civilisation in different societies, then the word 'civilised' is useless.

[hadespussercats]

Seems to me like the 'mob' here are the people who insist that having any notions that they identify as racist (and heaven forbid ADMITTING TO IT) makes one a prime target for ridicule. Amazing how fighting group thought with group thought just gives rise to another form of stupid mob.

Did you actually admit to racism, though? Seems to me you copped to some intolerant, stereotypical thinking, but the fact that you titled the thread "Is this racist?" indicates that you don't think you are being racist-- that you think your though process is reasonable and defensible and by that logic should not be counted as racist (or "bad").

It'd be different if you said, "I'm racist sometimes, but I think that's okay-- and here's why."

I think you're being a hypocrite.

Read Andrew Clunn's last sentence in the OP again: "I'm not judging you based on your race. I'm judging you based on your clear desire to conform to that racial identity."

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between someone being of a certain race and someone taking pride in being of a certain race makes such a fundamental difference in terms of racist views.

It's okay to be black, as long as you're not proud of it.

[laklak]

I don't get this "racial pride" thing. Then again I'm of Irish stock, so I'm just a stupid drunk.

[Lion IRC]

Lion

The word 'civilised' has to be relative, or it has no meaning at all. In other words, some societies are more civilised than others. Claiming traditional aboriginal society was uncivilised compared to modern western society is not racist. It is a simple recognition of the reality of how they lived.

Racist beliefs are not those related to the technology or social development of a society. To be racist is to believe that someone is 'inferior' because of their 'race' or geographic origin. Australian aboriginals are not inferior. They have shown this by the ones that were adopted into western families, and grew up to be doctors and lawyers and so on.

However, traditional aboriginal society involved very basic technology, and very small social groups. Both are marks of a society that is less developed, hence relatively uncivilised. It we cannot use this method of determining relativity of civilisation in different societies, then the word 'civilised' is useless.

I would argue that maintaining a (theistic) civilization for 40K years without any Chernobyls, thalidomide babies, stockmarket crashes, Bhopal disasters, Wikileaks, etc etc. is a pretty advanced and civilised way of life.

Of course they did practice male circumcision - wonder where that came from.

[Hermit]

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between someone being of a certain race and someone taking pride in being of a certain race makes such a fundamental difference in terms of racist views.

It's okay to be black, as long as you're not proud of it.

The quoted sentence did not imply agreement that there are in fact discrete races among humans. At least I cannot see it, but perhaps Andrew Clunn might want to clarify exactly what he meant.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't get this "racial pride" thing. Then again I'm of Irish stock, so I'm just a stupid drunk.

Me neither, but then again I'm half German so perhaps have avoided it...

[laklak]

I don't get this "racial pride" thing. Then again I'm of Irish stock, so I'm just a stupid drunk.

Me neither, but then again I'm half German so perhaps have avoided it...

So you should post a pic in half an SS uniform.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between someone being of a certain race and someone taking pride in being of a certain race makes such a fundamental difference in terms of racist views.

It's okay to be black, as long as you're not proud of it.

The quoted sentence did not imply agreement that there are in fact discrete races among humans. At least I cannot see it, but perhaps Andrew Clunn might want to clarify exactly what he meant.

Ah. I'm not sure if I'm following you, then.

As far as I know, there is no genetic basis for claims of racial difference. But there are countless cultural and other bases for perceiving racial differences. Perhaps in time we'll all start to see each other in the light of the first concept. But it's foolish to think the second doesn't matter in our world as it stands.

[Drewish]

Seems to me like the 'mob' here are the people who insist that having any notions that they identify as racist (and heaven forbid ADMITTING TO IT) makes one a prime target for ridicule. Amazing how fighting group thought with group thought just gives rise to another form of stupid mob.

Did you actually admit to racism, though? Seems to me you copped to some intolerant, stereotypical thinking, but the fact that you titled the thread "Is this racist?" indicates that you don't think you are being racist-- that you think your though process is reasonable and defensible and by that logic should not be counted as racist (or "bad").

It'd be different if you said, "I'm racist sometimes, but I think that's okay-- and here's why."

I think you're being a hypocrite.

Read Andrew Clunn's last sentence in the OP again: "I'm not judging you based on your race. I'm judging you based on your clear desire to conform to that racial identity."

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between someone being of a certain race and someone taking pride in being of a certain race makes such a fundamental difference in terms of racist views.

It's okay to be black, as long as you're not proud of it.

Actually my post (the one quoted in this post) was defending Tyranical and was not about myself.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't get this "racial pride" thing. Then again I'm of Irish stock, so I'm just a stupid drunk.

Me neither, but then again I'm half German so perhaps have avoided it...

So you should post a pic in half an SS uniform.

Horizontally or vertically?

[hadespussercats]

Seems to me like the 'mob' here are the people who insist that having any notions that they identify as racist (and heaven forbid ADMITTING TO IT) makes one a prime target for ridicule. Amazing how fighting group thought with group thought just gives rise to another form of stupid mob.

Did you actually admit to racism, though? Seems to me you copped to some intolerant, stereotypical thinking, but the fact that you titled the thread "Is this racist?" indicates that you don't think you are being racist-- that you think your though process is reasonable and defensible and by that logic should not be counted as racist (or "bad").

It'd be different if you said, "I'm racist sometimes, but I think that's okay-- and here's why."

I think you're being a hypocrite.

Read Andrew Clunn's last sentence in the OP again: "I'm not judging you based on your race. I'm judging you based on your clear desire to conform to that racial identity."

I'm not sure why you think the distinction between someone being of a certain race and someone taking pride in being of a certain race makes such a fundamental difference in terms of racist views.

It's okay to be black, as long as you're not proud of it.

Actually my post (the one quoted in this post) was defending Tyranical and was not about myself.

Oh. You were defending Tyrranical against your own better judgement?