Is this racist?

[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.

Horizontally or vertically?

Port topside, starboard below?

Damn, I think we need a poll.

[Robert_S]

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.

I can understand how the Black Pride movement was a good idea given the pretty systematic phenomenon of shaming people just for being black. But if we continue to progress to the post-racial society that some folks claim we are living in, then its usefulness will continue to diminish.

But as a general principle, race shouldn't be a source of pride or shame.

[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.

I can understand how the Black Pride movement was a good idea given the pretty systematic phenomenon of shaming people just for being black. But if we continue to progress to the post-racial society that some folks claim we are living in, then its usefulness will continue to diminish.

But as a general principle, race shouldn't be a source of pride or shame.

I agree-- except that when an aspect of oneself is made a point of shame, sometimes the only way to overcome that is to turn the shamefulness into a point of pride.

I don't experience that personally with race (which isn't too surprising) but I'm definitely in that place when it comes to other aspects of myself that aren't accepted by society at large.

[Drewish]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

[hadespussercats]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

[Hermit]

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.

That may be the basis of the misunderstanding. To me 'race' is purely genetic and 'culture' has nothing to do with it. To refer to a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution as a race is to me a fundamentally flawed/misguided concept.

[hadespussercats]

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.

That may be the basis of the misunderstanding. To me 'race' is purely genetic and 'culture' has nothing to do with it. To refer to a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution as a race is to me a fundamentally flawed/misguided concept.

Well. I agree, mostly. But whether I agree with it or not, I live in a world where that reference is accepted, and powerful. It doesn't make sense to me to pretend that isn't the case, simply because it doesn't make sense. It'd be like pretending religion doesn't exist. It shouldn't, but it does, and it seems counterproductive to deny it. Generally.

[Drewish]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

I was saying that regardless of people's positions on racism, that people who are racist and willing to admit as much should not be shunned into silence. This won't end racism, only drive it underground. Especially when they are expressing such an opinion in a way that is not attacking anyone. Simply put, if all you have to add is, "Shame! Shame!" then you really have nothing to add (not meaning you personally, but anyone). I don't have to agree with somebody to defend them from unwarranted attacks, and I'm not really clear on Tyranical's position as so far it appears to be a hit and run post (whether that was always going to be the case or was the result of the response to that post, I don't know).

[hadespussercats]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

I was saying that regardless of people's positions on racism, that people who are racist and willing to admit as much should not be shunned into silence. This won't end racism, only drive it underground. Especially when they are expressing such an opinion in a way that is not attacking anyone. Simply put, if all you have to add is, "Shame! Shame!" then you really have nothing to add (not meaning you personally, but anyone). I don't have to agree with somebody to defend them from unwarranted attacks, and I'm not really clear on Tyranical's position as so far it appears to be a hit and run post (whether that was always going to be the case or was the result of the response to that post, I don't know).

Oh. I agree that people should be encouraged to look at their own racism, and address it-- though I think it really depends on the nature of the declaration whether the audience should feel bad about attacking the shamefulness of those views.

For instance, someone who offers up a personal reaction because he's looking to move on from that viewpoint is different from someone who simply thinks negative stereotypical thoughts and sees no reason to change.

[Drewish]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

I was saying that regardless of people's positions on racism, that people who are racist and willing to admit as much should not be shunned into silence. This won't end racism, only drive it underground. Especially when they are expressing such an opinion in a way that is not attacking anyone. Simply put, if all you have to add is, "Shame! Shame!" then you really have nothing to add (not meaning you personally, but anyone). I don't have to agree with somebody to defend them from unwarranted attacks, and I'm not really clear on Tyranical's position as so far it appears to be a hit and run post (whether that was always going to be the case or was the result of the response to that post, I don't know).

Oh. I agree that people should be encouraged to look at their own racism, and address it-- though I think it really depends on the nature of the declaration whether the audience should feel bad about attacking the shamefulness of those views.

For instance, someone who offers up a personal reaction because he's looking to move on from that viewpoint is different from someone who simply thinks negative stereotypical thoughts and sees no reason to change.

So it's okay to disagree so long as you're looking to change your mind? I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this subject with you.

[Tyrannical]

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.

That may be the basis of the misunderstanding. To me 'race' is purely genetic and 'culture' has nothing to do with it. To refer to a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution as a race is to me a fundamentally flawed/misguided concept.

Dog breeds and their well known behavior patterns proves that behavior can be genetic. Culture by a reward (rich! ) / punishment (executed! ) feedback can shape behavioral genetics. Just as people through natural selection adapt to their environment, they adapt to their culture.
And that is the scary truth why racists like me are scientifically correct and multiculturalism is doomed to failure

[Coito ergo sum]

This thread is somewhat inspired by the thread about an anti-black rally in Israel.

So first a quick confession. I have no problem with Asian people, but the moment I hear one of them mention "Asian pride" I instantly think less of them. I have no issue with Italians, but when one of them wears a shirt with an Italian flag on it or talks about their Italian heritage I view them as racial trash. I have similar views regarding pretty much any racial group or ethnic identity. The more they insist on identifying themselves through racial identity, the more I feel they should be mocked and treated with open bigotry and hostility for it. To this day when somebody makes a point to identify them self as Jewish I think, "Oh great, another one of God's chosen people with a persecution complex." It's not that I stereotype all jews. It's that I stereotype people who make a point to let me know that they're Jewish. For some reason I don't see that as racist. I'm not judging you based on your race. I'm judging you based on your clear desire to conform to that racial identity. Thoughts?

My thoughts:

1. I think if you were really confident about your position not being racist, you would have mentioned blacks in your rant paragraph along with asians and jews and italians.

2. I don't have a problem with anyone taking pride in whatever heritage they have, whether racial or otherwise. I do, however, have a problem when they start thinking they deserve special treatment from other people because of that heritage, or when the start treating others worse because of lack of that heritage.

Edit: 3. I do think that anyone who thinks it's okay to display racial pride should not make an exception for white pride.

I have Norwegian pride, but only because I can make a colorable claim to being genetically related to Vikings, out pillaging and acquiring hot Irish and French girls.

I'm not big on the value of genetic connections between people, like I would treat an adopted child the same as a biological child. But, the pattern of child, parent, grandparent, great grandparent, allows us to create a fiction in our heads about a closer connection with folks 1000 years ago who may fall in an unbroken line from us. It's like we're part of some larger "family", and being part of that group we like to feel a positive view towards the group, and to know a lot about it. So, that's why I have had a keen interest in Scandinavian history since I was a teenager.

It's all bull, of course, since once you go back a few hundred years, we white folk are all basically related to all the royalty of Europe, and a little farther back and we're all everyone's cousin. So, it's just an interesting fiction, to me, and let's me be on a "Team" for some fun discussion, and some lighthearted banter about who kicked whose ass 500 or 1000 years ago, and all that sort of thing.

The people that piss me off are the ones that take it seriously, like the white power blokes with their talk of "misegination" (sp?) and "mud people" and all that sort of jargon. The reason they piss me off is because they take the fiction seriously. They're not just engaged in banter and having a keen interest in a family bloodline and the history associated with it. They think it's a war to be won. Same goes for the Farrakhan folks, the black separatists, and the Black Power, assholes.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

I was saying that regardless of people's positions on racism, that people who are racist and willing to admit as much should not be shunned into silence.

Maybe as a matter of politeness, or manners, sure. But, frankly, we're all entitled to be around the people that we want to be around, and if racism isn't your bag, or dog breeding, or model airplane building, you may eschew hanging out with such persons who engage in such things. And, if you find such things objectionable, our free and open culture affords us all the right to say what we don't like, be it a race, or dog breeders, or model airplane builders.

Actually, I think peer pressure and people speaking out against racism is the best way to get rid of it. That's called persuasion. If we all just have to sit here in silence and not say we don't like racism, then one might ask the same question of racists. Why shouldn't they be required not to "shun" those who oppose racism and not to "shun" other races? Does freedom of thought and expression go only one way?

This won't end racism, only drive it underground. Especially when they are expressing such an opinion in a way that is not attacking anyone. Simply put, if all you have to add is, "Shame! Shame!" then you really have nothing to add (not meaning you personally, but anyone). I don't have to agree with somebody to defend them from unwarranted attacks, and I'm not really clear on Tyranical's position as so far it appears to be a hit and run post (whether that was always going to be the case or was the result of the response to that post, I don't know).

Well, as long as the law allows everyone to speak freely, then racism can't be "driven" underground. Many views are minority views, opposed by the majority. If one wants to be communist, one will very likely be "shunned" by a big part of the population. We atheists see it all too well with atheism. Are we being "driven underground" by theists "shunning" us? No, of course not. They have the right to tell us our view sucks ass, and if that shuts us up, then, truly, shame on us.

It's called the marketplace of ideas.

[Hermit]

Dog breeds and their well known behavior patterns proves that behavior can be genetic. Culture by a reward (rich! ) / punishment (executed! ) feedback can shape behavioral genetics. Just as people through natural selection adapt to their environment, they adapt to their culture.
And that is the scary truth why racists like me are scientifically correct and multiculturalism is doomed to failure

Racists are yet to prove that general differences in behaviour between any two societies are genetically rather than culturally determined.

[hadespussercats]

My own better judgement? I can't tell if there's a miscommunication or if your attempting some sort of backhanded insult.

You said you were defending Tyrranical, not your own viewpoint. Do you agree with him? Do you agree with what you wrote? Or were you simply exploring an argument?

I was saying that regardless of people's positions on racism, that people who are racist and willing to admit as much should not be shunned into silence. This won't end racism, only drive it underground. Especially when they are expressing such an opinion in a way that is not attacking anyone. Simply put, if all you have to add is, "Shame! Shame!" then you really have nothing to add (not meaning you personally, but anyone). I don't have to agree with somebody to defend them from unwarranted attacks, and I'm not really clear on Tyranical's position as so far it appears to be a hit and run post (whether that was always going to be the case or was the result of the response to that post, I don't know).

Oh. I agree that people should be encouraged to look at their own racism, and address it-- though I think it really depends on the nature of the declaration whether the audience should feel bad about attacking the shamefulness of those views.

For instance, someone who offers up a personal reaction because he's looking to move on from that viewpoint is different from someone who simply thinks negative stereotypical thoughts and sees no reason to change.

So it's okay to disagree so long as you're looking to change your mind? I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this subject with you.

I don't understand you, Andrew. Who's talking about whether or not it's okay to disagree? I'm just saying that I don't feel any compunction writing off someone's racist views as shameful if they're not looking to address their racist views. In that case, they're not looking to examine their viewpoint-- so why should I?

Are you saying it's not okay for me to disagree with racists?