| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Racism in Australia
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Racism in Australia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5041
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 03:03
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Well, La Raza ideology doesn't claim the superiority of nobody. It only says that the future all people of the world would be mixed, and that the first region mixed that led the world into that is Latin America.

Racial mixing did not start in Latin America, it has happened all over the world where people from different "races" encountered each other. That's precisely one of the reasons why it's silly to speak about human races in the first place.

Quote So, it is "slightly" racist, because it says in an implicit way that the future of the white man is to be mixed, and replaced by mixed people (its own descendents).
 

 

Vasconcelos' raza cosmica idea was not just fairytale racial mixing advocacy, but indeed he believed in intrinsic strenghts and weaknesses of every race (the fundament of racism). He was no different than the rest of his time in that. The important difference is that he concluded race mixing to be an adequate solution to the differences between races and not racial segegration.

Not coincidentally Vasconcelos was an antisemite and a Hitler admirer.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 03:13
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And the rape of Nanking. And the press-ganging of 'comfort women' which I thought you were against a little while ago.

Quote Many of those things would not happened if Japan had not been opened up by westerners and been inspired by western colonial thinking.

You're becoming ridiculous.


So you think the history of Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries would have looked the same?

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Anything CAN BE said about anything. It can be said that western racism was just a stroll in the park with some races having to walk on the right and others on the left.

That something can be said is nothing to do with anything. Like I said you're getting to be ridiculous.


So you will actually find the kind of explicit racial theories and writings, and the sometimes extrem obsession with race that you find in some European countries, and in the US, in the 19th and 20th centuries also in other cultures?

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

  No. I'm especially talking about racism. Colonial thought has nothing to do with racism, except occasionally. The Athenians weren't racist when they built their colonial empire, and loads of countries have been racist without acquiring colonies. Britain^s American colonies even fought a war with Britain for their independence, but there wasn't any racism involved on either side. In fact the colonial power have better relations there with the native population than the settlers did.


So in a lot of other ways west inspired Japan, but for some reason the western racist ideologies and politics had no impact at all on Japan?

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 03:41
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Vasconcelos' raza cosmica idea was not just fairytale racial mixing advocacy, but indeed he believed in intrinsic strenghts and weaknesses of every race (the fundament of racism). He was no different than the rest of his time in that. The important difference is that he concluded race mixing to be an adequate solution to the differences between races and not racial segegration.

Not coincidentally Vasconcelos was an antisemite and a Hitler admirer.


Well, indeed. But Vasconcelos had a very hard problem at his hands, how to unify Mexico, after the disaster of the Revolution. As you may know, the Mexico of that time was divided in castes classified by race and ethnic origins, and not just by the income differences.  Well, La Raza was the solution to that identity problem, and pretty soon spread all over Latin America.
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6372
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 05:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What West. If the Iberians were such racists, there weren't mixed with Amerindians and sometimes with Blacks.

So, your thesis of racism is a simplification of the more complex process of colonialization

The French and Anglos did a lot of mixing, too... and you still call them racist... your statements don't back themselves up a lot of times. 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 05:41
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What West. If the Iberians were such racists, there weren't mixed with Amerindians and sometimes with Blacks.

So, your thesis of racism is a simplification of the more complex process of colonialization

The French and Anglos did a lot of mixing, too... and you still call them racist... your statements don't back themselves up a lot of times. 


The French were very little racists against Indigenous people in North America, but ask them how they treated Blacks in Haiti Confused.
With respect to Anglos, the problem I have that I can't find any figures of those supposed mixings. How many they were? Is there an estimation of the mixed White-Indigenous populations in the colonies at 1776, for example? How many they were, or it was just Pocahontas the single case?

More important. Why there is no study of the percentage of Amerindian mtDNA in the American population? Not a single one, after years of googling... That would clarify a bit what really happened to the Amerindians in the Anglo territories.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 06:49
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


As far as I know the said victims in this thread were Indians and racist institutions do not discriminate between the highly skilled and the impovrished, they discriminate based on race, funnily enough.Wink 
Obviously. Which is why you have to esatblish that the attacks were carried out for racial motives. Omar's case is they weren't. You're claiming they were. AFAIK either  of you could be right. But your argument that racist attacks must be racist because they are racist attacks is merely an inrrelevant tautology. It's no better than calling the attacks 'religious' and then claiming they can't be racist because they were religious.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 06:55
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Carch you're engaged in some serious racial profiling yourself here. Your treating westerners as the arch-evil and everyone else as fluffy bunnies.


Hardly racist. I do not say that western racism and colonialism is a product of westerners (Europeans and European descendants) skin color or physical traits.
 
So what?
Racism isn't necessarily based on skin colour or physical traits. It's based on perceived ancestry. You're arguing that it is exclusive to 'westerners' (pinguin would say, I suppose, 'Europeans', since he seems himself as western). 'Westerners' implies an ancestry - I assume you are not calling Sikhs in Bradford or Nigerians in Brixton 'westerners'? - and you're demeaning that ancestry.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 07:12
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Racism isn't necessarily based on skin colour or physical traits. It's based on perceived ancestry. You're arguing that it is exclusive to 'westerners' (pinguin would say, I suppose, 'Europeans', since he seems himself as western). 'Westerners' implies an ancestry - I assume you are not calling Sikhs in Bradford or Nigerians in Brixton 'westerners'? - and you're demeaning that ancestry.


Racism in the classical sence do also mean that one discriminates because of physical traits as skin color, fascial form and details, color and structure of hair, stature and similar. Ancestry is of course also a part of it.
I did not critizise westerners as some kind of race but the western ideology of racism.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 07:13
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And the rape of Nanking. And the press-ganging of 'comfort women' which I thought you were against a little while ago.

Quote Many of those things would not happened if Japan had not been opened up by westerners and been inspired by western colonial thinking.

You're becoming ridiculous.


So you think the history of Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries would have looked the same?

Nope I never said anything like that. I think the Japanese would still have been racist. Read something about Shinto.
Quote
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Anything CAN BE said about anything. It can be said that western racism was just a stroll in the park with some races having to walk on the right and others on the left.
That something can be said is nothing to do with anything. Like I said you're getting to be ridiculous.


So you will actually find the kind of explicit racial theories and writings, and the sometimes extrem obsession with race that you find in some European countries, and in the US, in the 19th and 20th centuries also in other cultures?
Yes. Not of course exactly the same. But look at the attitude of the Aztecs to the other peoples around them. Or the attitude of the Bantu to the bushmen. Or, face it, the Israelites in Canaan.
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

  No. I'm especially talking about racism. Colonial thought has nothing to do with racism, except occasionally. The Athenians weren't racist when they built their colonial empire, and loads of countries have been racist without acquiring colonies. Britain^s American colonies even fought a war with Britain for their independence, but there wasn't any racism involved on either side. In fact the colonial power have better relations there with the native population than the settlers did.


So in a lot of other ways west inspired Japan, but for some reason the western racist ideologies and politics had no impact at all on Japan?

[/QUOTE]
When I finally managed to decipher that sentence I realised the answer has to be that western racist ideologies and politics impacted heavily on Japan. After all they lost WW2 and had two A-bombs dropped on them, which is a pretty big impact.
 
But western racist ideologies and racist politics had only  peripheral effects on Japanese racism. For instance Japan had a preferred position in trade with South Africa because the Japanese were seen to be 'white' under apartheid, whereas Chinese and other Asians weren't. So they benefitted from western racism: however they themselves already considered themselves superior to Chinese and Indians, so their racism wasn't affected.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 07:33
Enough skipping around this mulberry bush. People with but only common sense recognize a racist in terms of their conduct towards perfect strangers [or even their manner of speaking about others with which they do not even have personal contact]. However, if I capitalize that r then Racism becomes the realm of the ideologue and the false academic. To pummel a perfect stranger because of perceived physical differences moves beyond the realm of prejudice into the legal world of racism, but such does not transfer into an expression of ideological Racism unless the pummeler carries a membership in the "Aryan Nation". Simple enough. Flipping a bird--no matter your ethnicity--at a passing car will result in a "road rage" incident anywhere on the face of the globe. That the pummeler is of a different ethnicity does not make the encounter an example of either racism or prejudice...the most that can be said of such is mutual idiocy!
 
Remember the duck test!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 07:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


As far as I know the said victims in this thread were Indians and racist institutions do not discriminate between the highly skilled and the impovrished, they discriminate based on race, funnily enough.Wink 
Obviously. Which is why you have to esatblish that the attacks were carried out for racial motives. Omar's case is they weren't. You're claiming they were. AFAIK either  of you could be right. But your argument that racist attacks must be racist because they are racist attacks is merely an inrrelevant tautology. It's no better than calling the attacks 'religious' and then claiming they can't be racist because they were religious.


Would you please direct me to where I explicitly said that the attacks were racist?  I just used the possibility as stimulus for my other points.


Edited by Zagros - 12 Jan 2010 at 08:00
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 08:02
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


As far as I know the said victims in this thread were Indians and racist institutions do not discriminate between the highly skilled and the impovrished, they discriminate based on race, funnily enough.Wink 
Obviously. Which is why you have to esatblish that the attacks were carried out for racial motives. Omar's case is they weren't. You're claiming they were. AFAIK either  of you could be right. But your argument that racist attacks must be racist because they are racist attacks is merely an inrrelevant tautology. It's no better than calling the attacks 'religious' and then claiming they can't be racist because they were religious.


Furthermore this point was made because Omar was using the social status of an individual as a determinant as to whether a racist would be racist towards him as opposed to his race or cultural background, using the former to exclude Indians as victims of racism.  So I was stating the obvious for a valid reason.


Edited by Zagros - 12 Jan 2010 at 09:03
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 09:10

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But western racist ideologies and racist politics had only  peripheral effects on Japanese racism. For instance Japan had a preferred position in trade with South Africa because the Japanese were seen to be 'white' under apartheid, whereas Chinese and other Asians weren't. So they benefitted from western racism: however they themselves already considered themselves superior to Chinese and Indians, so their racism wasn't affected.

 

One can obviously have different opinions about these matters, which is shown in for example the book Race, Ethicity and Migration in modern Japan (3 vol), edited by Michael Weiner. For example Gary P Leupp, in his essay >>Images of Black people in late mediaeval and early modern Japan, 1543-1900<< writes about how some of the Japanese racism were influenced from Europeans. He takes attitudes toward black, mostly African (some times though the early Japanese did not always separate Africans, Indians or South East Asians but conflated them), peoples as one example. There seems to have been more tolerance early in the contacts but the views of Europeans that held Africans as slaves inspired more racist views against the Africans from the Japanese side.

He also claims that the Japanese in their contacts with Americans and Europeans in the 19th century (and also in the 20th) got inspired by western racist ideas.

Quote As Japanese elites, partly through necessity, came to look to Europe and America for inspiration, elements of western racism not only inspired their wiews of Africans, but of various other non western peoples as well.


But the matter is of course not straight forward. Later on some Japanese thinkers actually started to defend non Europeans against European and American racism and imperialism in their writings.
And some of these thoughts were also used in the propaganda when Japan attacked European colonies. Then the Japanese claimed to save the peoples of the colonies from the Europeans.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 09:46
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

A good start but then what distinguishes it from prejudice, which unfortunately is a common failing in humanity itself.

I would say that those two words are largely interchangable but prejudice would include homophobia where culture wouldn't.
Quote After all the Irish and the English share the same "culture" but such did not prevent the flourishing of signs "No Irish need Apply".

English and Irish do not share the same culture. The obvious illustration and the one most applicable to Australia is that the Irish are Catholic.
Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

I don't think racism is connected (except indirectly) with 'culture'. If it were drgonzaga would be correct that it becomes indstinguishable from 'prejudice' which is a more general term. 'Racism' has to be connected with ancestral descent (at least, believed ancestral descent) or the word loses any specific meaning.

Actually I'd stick with culture. At least in an Aus context, ancestral descent is not important. What is important is how well you act "white". Similarly, "white" is a culture, not a race, and certainly not a skin colour. I know North European people who you could hardly call white, and Chinese people who are white all the way through. The former could experience racism but the latter won't [assuming the racism isn't directed towards white people]. In a manner of speaking its not hard to change 'races' in Australia, it depends as much on your social group as your ancestory.
Maybe this isn't racism in the dictionary definition, but it is what happens in the real world.
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


There have been many instances in the past here, when Britain was at the same level of immaturity with regards to race and its institutions, where police, fire, army and other services were notorious for how they treated ethnic minority colleagues - especially if they had aspirations for success

That hasn't happened since the 60s. The underlying goal of all Australian racism from prehistory is to make people white. It is not to restrict positions to people of Anglo ancestory.
Quote As far as I know the said victims in this thread were Indians and racist institutions do not discriminate between the highly skilled and the impovrished, they discriminate based on race, funnily enough.Wink  And in the case of racist attacks I am pretty sure you're not asked for your resume/CV before the level of abuse you receive is decided;

The Victorian police haven't bashed any indians. You pointed out that Victorian police may have problems dealing with (1) Non-English speakers, and (2) Somali refugees (who are are also 1). Indians are niether (1) nor (2) nor is it anyway possible to mistake them for (1) or (2). You're extrapolating without data.
Quote and something which might work to the disadvantage of some Indians (esp. southern ones) is that they could pass for Aborigines.

South Indians are not mistaken for Aboriginies. That's like saying Tamils are mistaken for Moroccans.
...and Melbourne is probably the least likely place to see anti Aboriginal violence as well.
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

I don't need to prove anything, since I am not stating that these attacks were racist or not, I am talking about Australian institutions.  It seems to me, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the Australian police have ruled out racism as a motive behind these attacks - my questions are:

They haven't ruled out anything for the specific case - who knows the motive of an unknown individual. They've ruled out racism in the general case - there is no pattern of anti-indian racism.
Quote Furthermore this point was made because Omar was using the social status of an individual as a determinant as to whether a racist would be racist towards him as opposed to his race or cultural background,

People are definitely more likely to be racist to people of low social status, but not exclusively so.
Quote using the former to exclude Indians as victims of racism.

No, I was using education/status to exclude them from either being refugees or not speaking english. Which relates to the claim or racism you posted about the Victorian Police.
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Later on some Japanese thinkers actually started to defend non Europeans against European and American racism and imperialism in their writings.
And some of these thoughts were also used in the propaganda when Japan attacked European colonies. Then the Japanese claimed to save the peoples of the colonies from the Europeans.

Your using "Asia for the Asians" to claim that the Japanese aren't Racist (capital intended). Boy is that argument weak.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 10:47
Omar, rather than quote your post, I would have to just simply respond that I find your definition of "culture" rather amorphous as when you protested that the English and the Irish do not share a common culture? Then there is the foray into an even more bizarre label: "white culture". Such definitions turn the accepted meanings on their heads since the only people that I've encountered yapping about "white culture" are certifiable loonies (aka skinheads, aryanists and other assorted goofballs). Now the argument has some resonance with regard to a current brouhaha in the context of American politics: Senator Reid's comment of the Obama candidacy [i.e. while asserting why he could win, the good senator said "he was light-skinned" and had good diction!]. Was he being a "racist" when he rendered that assessment or was he simply being honest within the context of politics in the Media Age?
 
From reading the various threads that have touched upon this topic you should have a clear understanding as to what I consider racism as both a prejudice and an ideology. Yes there are always tensions resulting from cultural misapprehensions, but to define these phenomena in terms of the lowest possible common denominator becomes more than problematic. Within this context I always turn to Law and its elaborations with regard to "hate" crimes. As GCLE underscored when discussing the Japanese "cultural" considerations easily explain why Japanese society did not need to turn to 19th Century Racism to shape its own internal prejudices. Fear and hostility directed against the "outsider" or "the other" is a common emotional response and any study of anthropology and ethnology yields ample evidence of such. One might say at this elemental level it is a function of ignorance and/or insecurity. What I deplore in a contemporary context is the hurling of such terminology as convenient epithets or superficial explanation.
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 13:12
'White': White Australian establishment culture. In the 21st century this is also called Anglo-Celtic or just Anglo
100 years ago, the establishment was white Anglo-Saxon protestant culture which excluded Irish. 21st century white Australian culture is a blending of 19th century Irish, English, and Scottish culture.

Maybe this is amorphous, but I don't see that it matters. A race is whatever people decided to be a race. Any group identity label will do as longs as its a community of differing people.

The point I'm trying to make is people can change identities regardless of ancestry. Racism is targeted towards the identity not the ancestry or appearance.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12 Jan 2010 at 13:14
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 14:26

Yes, Omar that's rather amorphous to say the least. Under that definition, "football hooligans" would classify as a "racist culture"...I do not mean to be facetious but common-place criminality by gangs held together through weird allegiances really does violence to proper understanding of terminology. Hate crimes are one thing, Racism something else entirely. Then there is the phenomenon of social discrimination, which perhaps would be more appropriate given that you mentioned the magic word: "establishment"-- e.g. they're not our kind why would you want to sell them that house! 



Edited by drgonzaga - 13 Jan 2010 at 06:54
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2010 at 20:21
The give my 2 scents: all that you're arguing against is the terminology.

The definition of "racism" is different for everyone. Originally, the world "racism" relates to the word "race"; which means biologically distinct human groupings. In this sense, "racism" is indeed mainly an invention of the European colonial powers of the late 18th and 19th century because before then the concept of "biological race" simply didn't exist.

Most of the 19th century beliefs of biological races that had evolved separately have been proven wrong following scientific and archaeological studies; so since then the old-school biological racism has declined, nevertheless, the word racism today often refers to "xenophobia" or "ethnocentrism".

"ethnocentrism" is indeed a phenomenon that has been around since human existence: the belief of defending one's tribe whether it's right or wrong. Strictly speaking, the conflict today in Darfur, Sudan; in the former Yugoslavia, Ruanda, Afghanistan, Georgia etc are "ethnic" conflicts rather than "racial" because of the absence of the ideology of "biological race"; so are the recent violence against immigrants in Italy, the prejuidice against Gypsies in Spain, and the general Islamophobia in European nations.

By the end of the day, I wouldn't say that one is better than the other; efectively, you can say that "racism" is one form of ethnocentricism that has taken the biological factor into account.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2010 at 00:10
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


As far as I know the said victims in this thread were Indians and racist institutions do not discriminate between the highly skilled and the impovrished, they discriminate based on race, funnily enough.Wink 
Obviously. Which is why you have to esatblish that the attacks were carried out for racial motives. Omar's case is they weren't. You're claiming they were. AFAIK either  of you could be right. But your argument that racist attacks must be racist because they are racist attacks is merely an inrrelevant tautology. It's no better than calling the attacks 'religious' and then claiming they can't be racist because they were religious.


Furthermore this point was made because Omar was using the social status of an individual as a determinant as to whether a racist would be racist towards him as opposed to his race or cultural background, using the former to exclude Indians as victims of racism.  So I was stating the obvious for a valid reason.
I think you are still missing the point. Omar was not using the social status of an individual to determine whether a racist would be racist toward him. Omar was using am individual's social status to determine (or help determine) whether a random individual (not necessarily a racist) would have a reason other than racism for attacking him.
 
Obviously a racist will attack people for racist reasons. That's exactly the same sort of tautology I was pointing to in the first place. The question is whether a random individual should be judged 'racist' when the object of his attack differs from him on other grounds as well as racist ones.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2010 at 04:12
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

[
Your using "Asia for the Asians" to claim that the Japanese aren't Racist (capital intended). Boy is that argument weak.


I just pointed out that Japan used this argument in the propaganda to justify attacks on Europan colonies.

But there were actually writers in Japan that felt that the western imperialism and its treatments of other peoples were wrong. But their message were distorted and used by the propagandists.



Edited by Carcharodon - 13 Jan 2010 at 04:28
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2010 at 05:48
It would be more relevant to consider Japanese writers who felt Japanese imperialism was wtong.
 
I've no doubt that Tojo thought that western imperialism was wrong: doesn't seem to be anything but predictable.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2010 at 20:08
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



From my personal experience: There are a lot of Aussies here and, in conversations with them it has come up that racism and xenophobia in Australia is a lot worse than what there is in Europe. And many people whom I've met that have been to Australia tend to describe many Aussies as uncultured, bigoted buffoons... in a similar stereo type to the 'dumb American'.   And in fact racism in Australia has been described as institutionalised...

Australia in many ways seems to me in this regard to be where Britain was in the 70s so that KKK cartoon, although a little overboard is probably not barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Quote Police

 

According to a recent study in Victoria, Forrest et.al (2007), found that those from Non English Speaking Backgrounds were more than three times more likely to experience intolerance and discrimination in Policing than those born in Australia. One in 39 Victorians from Non English Speaking Background often experience intolerance and discrimination within policing environments. Further, in a highly integrated local area in Victoria with a high proportion of newly arrived immigrants from the Horn of Africa, the local Community Legal Centre has lodged more than 18 complaints about brutality, harassment, racism and racial profiling with the Office of Police Integrity on behalf of young refugees over a period of 18 months. The Legal Centre claimed that these instances of excessive force, brutality and racism were perceived as not just one off events, but rather as symptomatic of police culture and management failure (Hopkins 2007). They noted that the legal service is still receiving serious reports of police brutality in Victoria. It was highlighted by Hopkins (2007) that comments made by Police to clients suggests that their role was viewed within the broader vision of border control. This is particularly disturbing and seems to provide clear links between political discourse and perceptions of the professional role.


http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Ti4YoKuanQsJ:www.communitylaw.org.au/flemingtonkensington/cb_pages/images/Institutional%2520Racism%2520in%2520Victoria%2520Paper%2520International%2520Racism.doc+institutionalised+racism+australia&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a




Racism in the health service:
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/180_10_170504/hen10112_fm.pdf

apologies about the belated reply but i couldnt let this go!

what your doing, is generalizing about a whole police force over individual complaints about  individual officers. Guess what there are racist cops, woopy ive met them, some dont like me because I could be Lebanese. That doesn't mean the institution is racist, that is a weak argument and would fall over with the nice cops who Ive also met..

 anway your figures are saying that 1 in 39 lets make that 1/40 or 2.5% have complained. That would be an ok result, 25% would make your case much stronger and back in the 70's you'd get a different result.

Each ethnic group has different experience with the coppers based on their own socio-economic situation and also on their own homeland biases that could make them suspicious of authority. For instance the Indian student leaders, making the most noise,  complained the police ignored them. In at least one interview that ive seen they then admitted that they never actaully complained because they wrongly feared they would be sent home. that cant happen and they are protected from such outcomes. The Aussies that are of Indian origin or background will not have the same experience, they know their rights and also where not to walk.

easy Google examples of multiculturalism within our institutions

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/CA256DB80025241B/page/Justice+Services-Police-Victoria+Police+Multicultural+Advisory+Unit?OpenDocument&1=15-Justice+Services~&2=15-Police~&3=10-Victoria+Police+Multicultural+Advisory+Unit~

Multicultural Advisory Services

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=290

NSW Multicultural Health Communication Service

http://www.mhcs.health.nsw.gov.au/

i could do this and provide examples of multilingualism for a surprising diverse range of departments, especially in migrant rich NSW and Victoria

anti discrimination laws with the country is pervasive, i know that I will get into big trouble of i have complaint agianst me. Despite individual racism, which certainly exists no one that is complaint to government law will risk the consequences of having such a issue arise in their work place. I just had to do a test to make sure i understood that so my employer can be complaint in educating me, everyone does it. small business may struggle to understand as they don't have professionals in HR or compliance to advice them but they can learn the hard way if they don't learn themselves. this all comes from the federal government

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/government-approach/social-cohesion/anti-discrim-laws.htm

we are one of the most heavily regulated societies so these are not feel good statements but real laws that make it very hard (not impossible) to be racist except personally, in personal time or undercover.  I know of some bars that wont let wogs in, but it is a unwritten rule because the government would close them down, fine them or whatever else if it was revealed. your barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



And for your comment about Europe introducing racist laws... give me one example because I think you're confused.  The very foundation of Australia was on a racist premise and as you have correctly stated it's finding that very difficult to shake off vis-a-vis its Aboriginal population. 



Bring the Aborigines in this is unfair and is not related to this particular event.

Granted there is allot of problems with our interactions, but the government is trying to fix past mistakes. It is a very complex issue that deserves more than passing remarks. One big difference is that Aboriginals are unseen and living in dysfunctional fringe rural communities. the original plan to help them via generous benefits, free uni, good pensions and the like actaully made things worse, the issue is cultural as well as community based. So helping is hard, the more they do its seems the more they screw it up, but that is a bigger problem than the issues at hand with the very visible immigrant minorities that tend to move up the ladder either way.

Edited by Leonidas - 15 Jan 2010 at 20:14
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.