What makes a country "racist"?

[Mikawa Ossan]

Recently I have noticed that people have been accusing various countries of being racist.

What does that mean?

South Africa under apartheid was clearly racist, but how about countries like America, Australia and Japan?

Are they racist, and if so, by what standard do you call them so?

 

[Sarapva]

Thanks for bringing this up, Mikawa Ossan. This keeps getting referred to in arguments around the forum.

It's a very general statement to say that a whole country is "racist", though I guess in South Africa's case it was more obvious. Race is clearly on the mind of a person accusing another of being racist.

I can only really speak for my own experiences in the U.S., and race hardly seems to come into the question anymore. You can't go into any store or public place without seeing people of multiple races. It's just an accepted thing. To say that the U.S. as a whole is "racist" would mean bringing all these races together as being "racist", but then who would they be racist against, when they're made up of various races? It's kind of an old-fashioned issue here that isn't brought up much anymore.

 

[Chi65]

Paranoia and "Grössenwahn"
And to me now Japan, that I once loved so much.

 

[Ma Cherie]

That depends on how you define "racist." Many people accept this general definition of racism:

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

: racial prejudice or discrimination

But here's another definition, that a lot of people don't like it, but I think it holds water.

:Racism is a system of advantage based on race.
This would mean, that one group of people are at an advantage while another is at a disadvantage.

So that would depend on how you would define it.

 

[Chi65]

Its mostly fear that creates racism, and in the following, war.
And we have a word in Germany, called "Kriegstreiber", which means people, who are willingly driving others and their own country into war, by scapegoating, for example, and calling those, who have another point of view liars. Such people are severely sentenced hereabout now!

That is something we have learned from our past. We are sick and tired of all those paranoids, and wherever it starts again, be it for money's sake.

And where such behaviour is ignored and allowed even(for example despite forum rules), it will appear to be very very suspect for us. . .

 

[Mars Man]

Actually, we have discussed this before, and I guess some may have missed it. It wasn't in a thread on the theme 'racism' itself, and I will try to locate that again, and link to it here...or re-discuss it again.

The term 'Racism' may have become very obsolete, and evidence having been a misnomer from the beginning.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I just don't understand what a "racist country" is. Who is that referring to? The people or the government? Or both?

Personally I think that when it is brought up, it is almost always done to obfuscate the discussion and derail one's opponent, and it's said rather lightly for maximum impact. Whether the accuser actually believes it is another issue entirely, but I am inclined to think that most times at the time of accusal, s/he does not really believe it, but rather convinces him/her self of it in the ensuing debate.

 

[Sarapva]

Personally I think that when it is brought up, it is almost always done to obfuscate the discussion and derail one's opponent, and it's said rather lightly for maximum impact.

Yes, exactly! Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking!

 

[Chi65]

VERY dangerously blueeyed. . .it becomes more and more widespread in public too and will in fact lead to war.

 

[MadamePapillon]

I just don't understand what a "racist country" is. Who is that referring to? The people or the government? Or both?

Well, I'm no expert but I'd say racism is an inherent sense of superiority against someone of another race, there fore, you, as the 'superior race', are allowed privileges and rights not afforded to those of the 'lesser race'. For example, being a citizen but not having the right to vote, being turned away from public establishments on the sole basis of you looks, being denied work for the same reasons. All those are examples of discrimination based off of a difference in race.
In other word, racism. This I'd say is the fault of both the people and the government.

Therefore, a racist country would be one that either passively or voluntarily allowed these things to occur.

There could be argument that a country like America is racist because of it's long history of slavery and the actions of the KKK and others. However, I think there is a vast difference between a country like America where citizens of any race are allowed to vote and there are laws preventing discrimination in hiring, education, and public service and a country like Japan where those of a different race are required to carry around a card, can be denied accommodation, public services, and jobs, and aren't allowed to vote based entirely on their race.

I think an interesting question is: which brand of racism do you find more offensive? A blatant, in-your-face racism or a smiles-to-your-face-and-stabs-you-in-the-back racism.

 

[Chi65]

It has the same weight because of its result.

 

[Mars Man]

Again, and I apologize, I'm a bit busy this morning...I will get back with that earlier discussed matter (mentioned above).

In the meantime, the problem is with the root word, race. We can say that there is no such reality as race. There are some innate genetically selected differences between human descent lines, but otherwise we are all one group.

Therefore, rather than using the term racism (and all those race based terms--since they only go to purport some 'clear distinction between peoples') we should find a better word. Otherwise, what this actually breaks down into, is simple in-group/out-group thinking...which is a part of nature. (now please do not read too much into this...while it is very true that such is a part of nature, saying that alone, does not insinuate that the homo sapien is not to try to overcome such...by use of the large brain it has gained by nature)

Yes, Mikawa san, what you mention is basically the strawman argumentation format. One pokes that entity, thereby fallaciously charging the other and separate matter to have been debunked or falsified.

 

[Rioneru]

"It's Alive!" *thunderclap*

Thanks for bringing this up, Mikawa Ossan. This keeps getting referred to in arguments around the forum.
It's a very general statement to say that a whole country is "racist", though I guess in South Africa's case it was more obvious. Race is clearly on the mind of a person accusing another of being racist.
I can only really speak for my own experiences in the U.S., and race hardly seems to come into the question anymore. You can't go into any store or public place without seeing people of multiple races. It's just an accepted thing. To say that the U.S. as a whole is "racist" would mean bringing all these races together as being "racist", but then who would they be racist against, when they're made up of various races? It's kind of an old-fashioned issue here that isn't brought up much anymore.

While being in the "melting pot" known as the U.S., it is very easy to overlook the undertones of racism still very much present here. When this country was initially founded, the racial differences were vast. "Come one and all and take advantage of this land of opportunity!" would lure anyone; regardless of race, or how good/bad things were going back home. Now, while some races throughout colonizations didn't have the choice to come here or not, there were certainly those that arrived to make better for themselves and family. All of the other matters, whether by race or discrimination would come second.

But, back to the racism being an "outdated issue". It is like enjoying a beautiful lake from the shore for all of its redeeming qualities, maybe even going so far as dipping one's feet in or swimming around a bit. Yet, until we snorkel to the deep or swim out far enough, we only see the surface. Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but it was the quickest one I could come up with and seemed to fit well enough for what I'm trying to convey.

Realizing racism in any given country when a chosen few seem to realize, insist upon or directly/vicariously experience it may take conversing with the right individuals or simply, an objective perspective. It isn't always our fault that we tend not to notice something, for never having to deal with it on an excessive or consistent basis can just be due to a lack of exposure.

From my personal experience, I can definitely say that racism can be so subtle that even the most scrutinizing/open-minded person can not detect it. A trip down to the Southern or Southeastern United States, though one doesn't have to travel that far to see lingering remnants or blatant racism. I, for example, am largely of black and German ancestry and I can definitely say the racism that we do notice and/or undergo has much to do either with what race we appear to be or what we are.

Now, while I think labeling an entire country as racist because of a few is foolish, I do realize that the undertones I referred to are very much present in ALL countries and more often than not, subtle racism (often stated above) is so apart of the norm that it is often ignored by those who do not suffer it, or simply cannot detect it.

I will gladly elaborate with examples if need be.

 

[Mars Man]

I appreciate your presentation there, and cannot disagree with the situations you have provided, but, if you were to again reconfirm my post above, really feel we should strive to find a different word. Skin pigmenation alone makes not a difference between you and I, among other things. We are both fully in the same group at large.

 

[Rioneru]

I appreciate your presentation there, and cannot disagree with the situations you have provided, but, if you were to again reconfirm my post above, really feel we should strive to find a different word. Skin pigmenation alone makes not a difference between you and I, among other things. We are both fully in the same group at large.

Mars_Man, I believe you and I are definitely on the same page are far as our beliefs on the constuct of "race", the harm it has done, is doing, and so on. We strive to think ahead and furthermore do away with the binding terminology and distinction of the human species, but I find myself hard pressed to find a more fitting term for what I see as being described above. I've often found myself reiterating to others that "Race does not exist!", and while some would be in accordance with me; many echoing the same logical approach as you've presented, I am also challenged by "then what is it"? And a more pressing question is, regardless of what we choose to call it, how is that changing what it is? Is changing of terminology running the risk of mirroring the very effects of creating euphemisms? While there may be a way a perfectly acceptable way to describe the above as mere human construct (relation, exclusivity, superiority complexes, etc.), I can't help but feel the potency and severity of racism being taken away by softening its effects and relative terms with a more scientific approach.

Concerning strawman arguments, yes, completely unnecessary in most cases when race is involved. I cannot count how many times I've been countered with, "That's racist!", when in actuality, they were experiencing a just form of "selection", be it occupation or admittance to a restaurant. However, I can also agree with many instances of racism that have been perpetrated that have unfortunately fell under the umbrella of being "something else" and thusly, discounted as such. This is my concern with the change of the term "racism", even IF we want so much to change views and the way things are. Racism is so very real, and I believe all connected with showing its ugliness is appropriate when used properly. Racism is not to be referred to for fear mongering or strawman arguments, but as a point of reference for that complex (and often, actions) that may very well stem from skin pigmentation to an erected flag (yes, flag).

 

[MadamePapillon]

In the meantime, the problem is with the root word, race. We can say that there is no such reality as race. There are some innate genetically selected differences between human descent lines, but otherwise we are all one group.

Therefore, rather than using the term racism (and all those race based terms--since they only go to purport some 'clear distinction between peoples') we should find a better word.

Skin pigmenation alone makes not a difference between you and I, among other things. We are both fully in the same group at large.

There are many people that would disagree with that, I am one of them. From a genetic standpoint, yes, we are all basically the same, we are all different sub-species of one common root: human. But there is such a thing as race, all you have to do is put a person like me next to someone who looks, say, very 'asian' in appearance to tell that there is a definite difference in appearance to the point where we can no longer be considered 'one race'.
I would say it's like comparing a Rottweiler and a Doberman. Yes, they look somewhat similar and are both of the "dog" species but would you honestly classify them as being the same breed...no.

I think it's an over complication and over correctness to say that 'race' and 'racism' are obsolete terms because we are all human. It's not simply about physical appearance but also the cultures that go along with it...in no way are all the world cultures and people so similar that the differences among us are of no matter and we can now all be considered 'One'.

 

[hanachan]

I think that there is the discrimination, however, it is not racism here.
In Japan, at least in my region, people are welcomed if they are any religion and they come from any country.
But I hate gaijins of "party animals" making a noise in a train. Am I racist?
In such a local city, American or European people (white or colored) barrow apartment more easily than Chinese people. Because often Chinese people live with many friends together in a small room, and a trouble for garbage with neighbors. I know an old woman from New Zealand living in neighborhood, she is always clean in front of house, and says hi to neighbors. Of course I like her. Am I racist?

Unless they are against public morals and rules, race and religion don't matter in Japan.

 

[kameron]

I think that there is the discrimination, however, it is not racism here.
In Japan, at least in my region, people are welcomed if they are any religion and they come from any country.
But I hate gaijins of "party animals" making a noise in a train. Am I racist?

I don't think you're racist, I have seen some videos of how some gaijin behave in Japan and it disgusts me how they completely disregard Japanese culture. Especially that halloween party, I can understand how any japanese person could hate that.

 

[Goldiegirl]

So am I racist because I was offended by some obnoxious and loud Americans that were at Sumo wrestling today? Do I hate my self? I think it's not racism, rude people are just rude. I just don't like being "lumped" in to the obnoxious American group with out people knowing me...that smacks more or racism.....

 

[Chi65]

And I never met anyone rude in the above sense in Japan from japanese side, when I was there (and I never was a rude gaijin myself, nor wish to be). But that must have been in another century, according to whats happening here, also in form of for example video informations about Japan.

Still disgusted indeed with the wish of keep in big distance to Japan and some here in general now.

 

[Mars Man]

There are many people that would disagree with that, I am one of them. From a genetic standpoint, yes, we are all basically the same, we are all different sub-species of one common root: human.

MadamePapillion, I don't really know how deeply you have studied in the sciences that deal with such matters, and I do not wish to make any accusations, per se, but it is a fact that you have made an error here. The homo sapien is a species, and there is no subdivision below that. Now if you had been comparing the homo sapien with the homo africanas, or some other species, then ok...but...

But there is such a thing as race, all you have to do is put a person like me next to someone who looks, say, very 'asian' in appearance to tell that there is a definite difference in appearance to the point where we can no longer be considered 'one race'.

Ok, then, please define the term 'race' as it is used here; and please back it up with data from studies in the field on genetics, anthropology, and evolutionary biology...if that is possible.

The point here, is not to put anyone on the spot, nor to shed any negative light, but simply and only and honestly to say that if we make claims, we should have some good, valid, and testable stuff behind the claim. We shoule be willing to validate our arguments.

It is very much the case that the old idea of 'race' is mistaken. The reason for that old idea was a lack of understanding of the human build and makeup--DNA and the genome. We have a much better understanding now. There are some factors which do make a difference in genetic array, and while this does not make the old 'race' matter (most likely) it does allow for some differing lines of descent.

I will choose the term, 'groupism.' It's most clearly groupism that is being applied and taught. One group can be visually and culturally, as well as nationally distinguished from another (the in-group .vs. the out-group) and to that extent, and in that way, an in-group is bonded and strengthened against an out-group.

So, as mentioned above in others' posts, groupism is a very real thing...and it will persist for a long time, I do reason and regret.

(and the later portion of all being together is a visonary matter...the 'ought to be' expression...)

 

[Sarapva]

While being in the "melting pot" known as the U.S., it is very easy to overlook the undertones of racism still very much present here. ....

...A trip down to the Southern or Southeastern United States, though one doesn't have to travel that far to see lingering remnants or blatant racism.

You're right, Rioneru - and I know how prejudices still linger in the southern U.S., having relatives in the deep south. But even their prejudices have mellowed over the years. But yes, I can imagine that there are countless examples of "racism" that are not blatant or "in your face", as MadamePapillon said.

I tend to agree with Mars Man about the term "race". It doesn't seem to fit somehow, maybe because there are so many people who have ancestors from differences races (and I don't know if there are any people left who are purely one race). Maybe "ethnicity" is a better word?

Posted by MadamePapillon:

Therefore, a racist country would be one that either passively or voluntarily allowed these things to occur.

...a country like America where citizens of any race are allowed to vote and there are laws preventing discrimination in hiring, education, and public service ...

I think an interesting question is: which brand of racism do you find more offensive? A blatant, in-your-face racism or a smiles-to-your-face-and-stabs-you-in-the-back racism.

These are good points. Since "racism" is illegal in the U.S., those who still have some prejudices can't show it outwardly so much anymore for fear of being sued or taken to court. But when the government makes this kind of behavior illegal, it sends a message to the people that it's wrong, and over time I think this message becomes internalized. It's certainly much better here than it used to be.

 

[MadamePapillon]

MadamePapillion, I don't really know how deeply you have studied in the sciences that deal with such matters, and I do not wish to make any accusations, per se, but it is a fact that you have made an error here. The homo sapien is a species, and there is no subdivision below that. Now if you had been comparing the homo sapien with the homo africanas, or some other species, then ok...but...

I'm sorry, but once again I have to disagree. I'll be the first to admit that I am no scientist or geneticist but you don't have to be an expert to realize that the human race has evolved separately to the point where we cannot all be classified as the same group.

Maybe 'race' isn't the totally politically correct term but it's a term that clearly defines a difference between the human species and categorizes us based on thing such as coloring, bone structure, facial features, eye shape, build ect.
There is even differences on a genetic level that make some races more prone to certain types of diseases or cancers that other races are more immune to.
Plus the added factor that different peoples have evolved in such a way as to better cope with their surroundings. You would not see an African with straight blonde hair, nether would you see a Swede with a large flat nose and dark skin.

This is the same way animals are classified into species and sub-species. You can have penguins, then you can further break it down to classify the different types of penguins: Emperors, Rock Hoppers, Africans, Galapagos. You would not classify all those species into on group because they are just to different.

I will choose the term, 'groupism.' It's most clearly groupism that is being applied and taught. One group can be visually and culturally, as well as nationally distinguished from another (the in-group .vs. the out-group) and to that extent, and in that way, an in-group is bonded and strengthened against an out-group.

I would argue that the term 'group' would be better suited to members of the same race that differ slightly.
For example: Scandinavians, Brits, Danes, could all be categorized under the same group. So could Chinese, Korean and Japanese.

So you have your common root: Human. Then you break it up a bit to classify the different types or races of humans: Caucasian, African, Asian ect. Then you could go deeper to classify the different groups of a race: Ethiopian, Kenyan, Nigerian, all have differentiations due to the region they live in such as nose size and shape, skin tone ect. This is how geneticists can take an African American and trace their roots almost to the exact village they originated from way back in Africa. This wouldn't be possible if there was no such thing as race.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

In the meantime, the problem is with the root word, race. We can say that there is no such reality as race. There are some innate genetically selected differences between human descent lines, but otherwise we are all one group.
Therefore, rather than using the term racism (and all those race based terms--since they only go to purport some 'clear distinction between peoples') we should find a better word.

Thanks, Mars Man for being as thoughtful as always. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstand the intentions behind my OP (which admittedly were not necessarily stated very clearly).

You see, even if all of us who post on this thread can come up with a common nomenclature and standard of usage, it would be of no use to people who are most likely to use the term of "racist country" nor in responding to them.

I would rather try to explore what the people who are least likely to participate in the discussion you propose mean when they use this term. Also, what are their motives and intentions in using that term. I think that in terms of dealing with such accusations it would be of better use to understand such meanings and intentions than to debate the nature of race and racsim itself.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for the compliment, Mikawa Ossan san, I will try to live up to it, as often as I recharge my batteries. Actually, I had read it a different way, even, and had chosen not to go with that 'reading,' and now it turns out that that reading, even, had been wrong.

I actually had read (interpreted it) as being a question of how a country (absolute degree) could be 'racist,' when there are so many people of that country (as things often are) who are not? What could validate such an absolute claim? Then, that sounding like a rhetorical question, I chose to deal with the term...which in the end still comes out as better. (as far as I can reason on it) Here I'll explain a little by using some examples.

On second thought, I'll just summarize--since I still have a number of things to do here and in other areas (not JREF).

I challenge all to think it over real carefully. (and I would like to share some information and data with you MadamePapillion san, a little later...in the mode of encouraging further learning, rather than in the mode of argumentation, actually) What kind of examples can you think of which you could say are examples of understandings, actions, events, and attitudes which all boil down to the distinction of one group of people from and between another group of people.

Think about it to the finest of details, then tell me...are we not assigning individuals to groups? In the final analysis, are we not saying that these people belong to that group, and that group is distinct and different from the group that I belong to? Are we not, then, making comparative statements, such as which instill group coherence and bonding by physcially, ideologically, and figuratively belittling the another group, discriminating against another group, and/or dominating another group?

After really going over the details of human operations up to now--and even putting what empirical, scientfically sound conclusions of genetics teach us about the homo sapien at large aside--can we really deny that what is staring us in the face, is plain ole in-group/out-group basics? That ole natural way of bonding and surviving that all animals have a part in?

Most conclusively, that is the bottom line, whether it be the referent for the word 'groupism' or 'racism,' that is the animal we are talking about.

Therefore, I suggest that English speakers strive to use the more realistic word--'groupism'--to help remove the tendency through usage to actually create an idea in the mind of the public at large that is a non-reality. Perpetual usage of the terms race, racism, racist, only seem to me to encourage such in-group/out-group thinking...they are not us type mentality. (and it doesn't stop here too, but goes to national groups as well)