Animavore wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Pebble wrote:

What about racism toward the Poles, Romanians, Itinerants (not sure they are a defined race though) - see plenty of that these days in Ireland. Don't really need govt. approval to be racist - just in a position to discriminate as a consequence of bigotry or fear.

Well, according to Mr. Samsa and IT, that's not racism, that's bigotry. Otherwise what you just said applies to black people who hate white people out of bigotry or fear. But we've been told that it doesn't.
Anyway, it's not the Romanians that are hated, it's the Roma are. Irish people just mistakingly call them "Romanians" (most of them are from there though). I guess when you come to the country just to scrounge you're going to draw ire.

I think the critical point is to be in a position to discriminate - e.g. refuse jobs etc. So you have to be in a position to exercise 'power over' - that is why skin colour can be so potent - it make ones racism obvious in a fashion that is easily measured. White on white discrimination is more difficult to audit and report.

There was a black-owned barber that set up in Dublin once which tried to put up a sign saying, "No Whites" (or something to that effect). By that logic that barber was racist. After all, he had the power to refuse custom based on skin colour.

Can't imagine he'd be in business for long - but yes that would meet the definition for a very short period of time.

What definition of racism is required here?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Ring-of-Kerry-restaurant-sparks-outrage-with-no-loud-Americans-ruling.html

It isn't really according to me. I'm just saying what sociologists are saying. Well, at least I am trying, I might not have the whole concept down pat. White Irish people can be racist, they just don't have the power plus prejudice plus discrimination plus it being normalized to do that to British people. There are unequal relationships so to call it by the same name "racism" is not accurate.

Imagination Theory wrote:It isn't really according to me. I'm just saying what sociologists are saying. Well, at least I am trying, I might not have the whole concept down pat. White Irish people can be racist, they just don't have the power plus prejudice plus discrimination plus it being normalized to do that to British people. There are unequal relationships so to call it by the same name "racism" is not accurate.

I think they are tailoring the definition to fit their predjudices. If you use what power you have to disadvantage a race that is racism - the fact that your power is limited is not the issue. To do otherwise is a bit like saying that a weak person hitting you is not an assault, because they are too weak to hurt you.

chairman bill wrote:

Animavore wrote:The Irish don't have an equivalent of Bernard Manning.

Trust me, plenty of Brits wish we'd never had a Bernard Manning too

I knew Bernard Manning pretty well. Used to work fairly regularly at his club in North Manchester.

He wasn't a comedian, he was a bigot.

One of my favourite gags ever was one I heard the day Manning died.

'Comedian Bernard Manning died today in North Manchester General Hospital. Dr Patel described his condition as 'satisfactory''.

Imagination Theory wrote:It isn't really according to me. I'm just saying what sociologists are saying. Well, at least I am trying, I might not have the whole concept down pat. White Irish people can be racist, they just don't have the power plus prejudice plus discrimination plus it being normalized to do that to British people. There are unequal relationships so to call it by the same name "racism" is not accurate.

If you can't express a summary yourself, try posting a link to an argument someone else is making.

'Sociologists' is not enough because the diversity of opinion is wide and just because someone has a label 'sociologist' it doesn't mean they have special sauce.

Irish people certainly do have these qualities, for example: "they just don't have the power plus prejudice plus discrimination plus it being normalized to do that to British people", which means it's context dependent.

That is allowing for the definition of racism to stand as you say it is before we even get into definitions.

A big problem for people who talk about axis' of Privilege is to explain why there is a pivot, an axis in the first place, let alone to then explain why this is an accurate picture of the world.

Pebble wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:It isn't really according to me. I'm just saying what sociologists are saying. Well, at least I am trying, I might not have the whole concept down pat. White Irish people can be racist, they just don't have the power plus prejudice plus discrimination plus it being normalized to do that to British people. There are unequal relationships so to call it by the same name "racism" is not accurate.

I think they are tailoring the definition to fit their predjudices. If you use what power you have to disadvantage a race that is racism - the fact that your power is limited is not the issue. To do otherwise is a bit like saying that a weak person hitting you is not an assault, because they are too weak to hurt you.

That analogy doesn't really work as it implies that the assault is viewed as okay or not at all comparable to the assault caused by a stronger person. The racism situation is more like the distinction between domestic abuse and general assault, where hitting your partner is classed as domestic abuse but hitting your best mate is assault - the distinction is made because the context differs and it's useful to distinguish the two (as they often have different causes, outcomes, procedures, etc).

If people want to use a much broader definition of racism which simply means to discriminate against any race then obviously there's not necessarily "wrong" to do so. It's a valid use of language for many situations. The only problem comes when the discussion is more academic (in which case it's better to use the sociological definition) or when people are trying to say that the sociological definition is in some way "wrong".

As IT has said, there is a significant difference between a white guy in the US abusing a black guy for being a "dumb nigger" and a black guy in the US abusing a white guy for being a "dumb whitey". They're both insults, they're both bad, they're both forms of bigotry and discrimination, but it's useful to point out that they are coming from vastly different places, with different causes, different contexts, etc and they have significantly different effects on the person being abused.

But both racism.

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

There's a political decision here as well as a lack of consensus, it's a tawdry appeal to authority to claim this represents some form of rigour.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

This is a piss-take, surely. Any maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof, is racism. There is no more rigour to be had than that.

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

This is a piss-take, surely. Any maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof, is racism. There is no more rigour to be had than that.

So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense? I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

Mr.Samsa wrote:So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense?

No, it's a piss-take to suggest that there is any more rigour to be had in defining racism as anything more or less than 'maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof'.

I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

Well, it's certainly true that context can change words, but that principle isn't universal. Is there any context in which 'rotten badger' describes anything other than a decaying mammal?

One in which ''rotten' is used synonymously with 'minging' and 'badger' has become slang for male or female genitalia.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

hackenslash wrote:But both racism.

In the layman definition, sure. But in rigorous academic study they are distinguished because it's more accurate, for their purposes, to do so. In a similar way to saying that the evolution of a dog and the evolution of a business philosophy are both "evolution" but if you're talking biology then there's a reason to distinguish the academic definition of evolution from the broader layman definition.

This is a piss-take, surely. Any maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof, is racism. There is no more rigour to be had than that.

So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense? I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

I'm not sure your analogy holds actually. The difference in meaning between 'evolution of a dog' or 'evolution of an idea' is clear cut, unlike the usage of the word 'racism' when talking about black on white racial abuse vs white on black.
The analogy would be better if you would have used 'evolution of a dog' and 'evolution of a bird' but then the point you were trying to make would be lost.
The historical load is indeed different, but it remains racial in nature and as such 'racism' is an apt terminology.

hackenslash wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense?

No, it's a piss-take to suggest that there is any more rigour to be had in defining racism as anything more or less than 'maltreatment based on race, or the perception thereof'.

Maybe you could provide more explanation here or give some reasons for your position. I know that you disagree (i.e. think that it's a "piss take") so you don't need to keep repeating that but you haven't explained why. I've pointed out that significant differences occur in the two cases and that it makes sense to distinguish between the two - are you denying that the differences exist or that it's worthwhile to distinguish between the differences?

The problem is that if you want to stick to the history of the word and its original meaning then we're stuck with the idea that it refers to claims about superiority and inferiority of races. Surely you'd disagree with that simplistic account of racism?

hackenslash wrote:

I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

Well, it's certainly true that context can change words, but that principle isn't universal. Is there any context in which 'rotten badger' describes anything other than a decaying mammal?

You'd have to give reasons (like I've done above) as to what conditions and contexts could give us reason to distinguish between types of rotting badger. Can you think of any? If you can't then I don't see how it's relevant here.

babel wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense? I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

I'm not sure your analogy holds actually. The difference in meaning between 'evolution of a dog' or 'evolution of an idea' is clear cut, unlike the usage of the word 'racism' when talking about black on white racial abuse vs white on black.
The analogy would be better if you would have used 'evolution of a dog' and 'evolution of a bird' but then the point you were trying to make would be lost.
The historical load is indeed different, but it remains racial in nature and as such 'racism' is an apt terminology.

The analogy highlights the fact that the academic use of the word and the layman use of the word can differ. They can both be accurate in certain contexts and one can be more applicable in other contexts.

Animavore wrote:One in which ''rotten' is used synonymously with 'minging' and 'badger' has become slang for male or female genitalia.

Feck! Never thought about that possibility.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

babel wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
So it would be a piss take to suggest that business philosophies don't "evolve" in the strict sense? I don't understand your reasoning here as it seems to amount to the most literal interpretation of a word and denying that context can change the relevance of its application.

I'm not sure your analogy holds actually. The difference in meaning between 'evolution of a dog' or 'evolution of an idea' is clear cut, unlike the usage of the word 'racism' when talking about black on white racial abuse vs white on black.
The analogy would be better if you would have used 'evolution of a dog' and 'evolution of a bird' but then the point you were trying to make would be lost.
The historical load is indeed different, but it remains racial in nature and as such 'racism' is an apt terminology.

The analogy highlights the fact that the academic use of the word and the layman use of the word can differ. They can both be accurate in certain contexts and one can be more applicable in other contexts.

True, but it doesn't mean that one example is no longer racism because you are changing to another context.

Likewise, a cold blooded murder and a murder in the heat of catching somebody raping your wife are different depending on the context, but murder in both cases.

babel wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

The analogy highlights the fact that the academic use of the word and the layman use of the word can differ. They can both be accurate in certain contexts and one can be more applicable in other contexts.

True, but it doesn't mean that one example is no longer racism because you are changing to another context.

Yes and no... It would still be racism in the layman definition but it wouldn't in the academic sense. Since the context is hugely important to the academic definition then changing to a different context would change whether it is termed "racism" or "racial prejudice".

babel wrote:Likewise, a cold blooded murder and a murder in the heat of catching somebody raping your wife are different depending on the context, but murder in both cases.

Yes, but killing someone in cold blood and killing someone in cold blood when government sanctioned are not both murder. The first is murder and the second is an act of war.