What makes a country "racist"?

[Kyoto Returnee]

Definitely the people, and sometimes the government.

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

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

Same - Same

I have been slowly been turning off.

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

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.

Racism is against a race of people.

I think generally, if racism is their, it would be OK by law within a country.

The occassional happenings of racism in countries tends to be caused by ignorance and thugs more than anything else.

I don't really know much about Japan, and I would think racism is against the law, but I'm not so sure about discrmination, which possibly are very similar.

I know that discrimination does feature often in Japan and is often a subject of concern for many both victims are people who think or know.

 

[thatsme]

we all are

I think I have stated on another thread, that in one way or another we all are, not consciuosly most of the time.

Yeah of course you are more than welcome to say "SPEAK TO YOUR SELF!!!!"
And I will, I am sure that I am then, I don't know where or which situation.

I beileve that racism is very infective.

Country is made by people, people is made by individuals, so by this logic if an individual is racist, would automatically make a country racist.

It is a fact take it or leave it!!!

 

[undrentide]

Country is made by people, people is made by individuals, so by this logic if an individual is racist, would automatically make a country racist.

It is a fact take it or leave it!!!

I wonder if there's any country where there isn't a single individual who is racist?
Based on the above "theory", all the countries in the world are racist.

 

[Mars Man]

WHAT really bothers me, is that people are so too often not willing to think more carefully about the bottom lines of reality...as best observed through the conclusions of well tested hypothesis and theories. Upon these, then we should apply logic.

Your argument is false, thatsme san, because your premise is false. Your premise is false because the meaning of the terms used cannot accurately explain the circumstances in the real world. If you were to reinvestigate your terms, and do it carefully, I am fairly sure you would be able to see where that is so.

The word 'species' has been misused on this thread and the word 'race' still abuses the most likely reality. If you can prove to me that the term 'race' as it socio-historically stands in the mind of the public at large is indeed an element of nature, then I will acquiesce to your argument as being true.

 

[thatsme]

WHAT really bothers me, is that people are so too often not willing to think more carefully about the bottom lines of reality...as best observed through the conclusions of well tested hypothesis and theories. Upon these, then we should apply logic.
Your argument is false, thatsme san, because your premise is false. Your premise is false because the meaning of the terms used cannot accurately explain the circumstances in the real world. If you were to reinvestigate your terms, and do it carefully, I am fairly sure you would be able to see where that is so.
The word 'species' has been misused on this thread and the word 'race' still abuses the most likely reality. If you can prove to me that the term 'race' as it socio-historically stands in the mind of the public at large is indeed an element of nature, then I will acquiesce to your argument as being true.

Oh Yeah it is false indeed.
Arguments are meant to go on and on and on anyway.
Would you agree that one way or the other we are all racist?
It is all about semantics.
If we can agree on that, I can assume that all countries are racist!!!
Again I have to emphasize "CONSCIOUSLY OR NOT"

 

[Davey]

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

Same - Same

I have been slowly been turning off.

Some people shouldn't surf on the web too much. A lot of negative stuff on the net going on... I read a lot more negative stuff on the net than I really see with my own eyes here in Japan.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don't really think that you could consider an entire country to be racist, because for this to be so everyone in the country would have to be racist etc.

But that aside, i do think there are some countries who are perhaps more racist than others because of their laws- i think the laws of a country make up a great deal of what it is. If there are laws in the country which are racist (like say, i dunno, for example a law which states that Chinese should be taxed more because they are Chinese) then that would make the country more racist than a country who does not have racist laws.
I can't think of any specific examples of this right now though.

Actually i would say that sexist countries are a lot larger/worse problem than racist countries. There are far more countries who have sexist laws than racist laws.

 

[thatsme]

I think that there are many individual in every country that have a tendency to be racist.
the reality is who ever come across such a behaviour automatically will lable the country as racist, unfair yeah!! but is the reality.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I think that there are many individual in every country that have a tendency to be racist.
the reality is who ever come across such a behaviour automatically will lable the country as racist, unfair yeah!! but is the reality.

Yes i agree, its not really correct in any sense to call an entire country racist.

 

[thatsme]

Yes i agree, its not really correct in any sense to call an entire country racist.

Even if it is out of ignorance to lable a country racist unfairly, what can you do about it?
There are different reaction, you are more than welcome to list them.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Even if it is out of ignorance to lable a country racist unfairly, what can you do about it?
There are different reaction, you are more than welcome to list them.

There's not really much you can do about it apart from question how the person came to their ignorant views of the country in question, and then try and persuade the person to look at the country in a more broad and positive light before making such generalized opinions again.

One thing i have noticed that with a lot of people who call a country racist, are often quite racist themselves.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for your reply and thoughts there thatsme san. It is always nice to debate in fair process,. . . I appreciate your taking that up.

Would you agree that one way or the other we are all racist?

Here, I would have to say no. I could not agree to that because as the word 'race' has been branded onto the public at large's mind through the course of time and events, being based on a previously greater lack of detailed information, it is false in content.

It is just as easy to conclude that there is no entity which could be the reference for that word other than a certain social group that can be distinguished in some way from any other social group. For that reason, along with the greater neutrality of any previously overly negative image in the public's eye, it would be better to assert that in one way or another we are all groupists.

I would still not be comfortably able to fully agree, however, until we were to replace the words 'we are all' with most of us[/i]--absolute should be avoided due to not really knowing. If there were even only one such 'non-so' person on earth, it would not be 'we...all.' Having done that, I would heartedly agree.

If we can agree on that, I can assume that all countries are racist!!!
Again I have to emphasize "CONSCIOUSLY OR NOT"

If we were to assign the word 'groupist' to that, then I would lean towards agreeing. If we were to reword it so that we could focus on the people, instead of any country as an abstract concept, so that we would have something like:

If we can agree on that (where that equals the concept involved with groupism), I assume that all countries consist almost totally of groupist !!!​

THEN. . . I would agree wholeheartedly !!

 

[yumeitsumo]

What country is most racist?

 

[thatsme]

If we were to assign the word 'groupist' to that, then I would lean towards agreeing. If we were to reword it so that we could focus on the people, instead of any country as an abstract concept, so that we would have something like:

If we can agree on that (where that equals the concept involved with groupism), I assume that all countries consist almost totally of groupist !!!​

THEN. . . I would agree wholeheartedly !!

Alright, then let's work on the word of "GROUPIST"
Can the groupist have the tendency to be racist? it does sound a contradiction or perahps a paradox, anyway let's continue.
Unfortunately my IQ is not that high, meaning that I wrongly use the wrong word which it is racist instead of groupist very poor with any language, and force of habit to use the same terms.

Say that a groupist have a similar tendency of being racist, obviously just for the sake of overgeneralizing the argument, would people assume that the country is racist?

Talking about Identity, I lost it a long time ago, and I am never missed it, not that is good or bad, Just my own state of mind.

Cheers

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

Am I racist?

very much sounds like it..

What do you have against foreigners?

 

[Mars Man]

A nice response. Let's go with that then, since I take we both agree (if only for the sake of argumentation, for now) that we are talking about groupism. Also, I trust your IQ, and think that would probably not matter here. What has been ingrained from childhood due to social conditioning, however, can get in the way. (we have to try to think out of the box)

Can the groupist have the tendency to be racist?

No, because in that race does not exist as a natural reality, racism does not either--and by extension, neither does racist.

Groupism is the tendency to form and divide by groups. While a group can be anything, it is often the more conscious, and discernible to the senses elements that define groups. People having a certain pigmentation which differs from a discerning number of non-such people can be a group, people from certain geo-cultural regions which differ from a discerning number of non-such people can be a group. People who strongly abide by the doctrines of a cerain religious belief-system can be a group, in the eyes of those who do not. People who have a certain inherited sexual orientation can be a group in the eyes of those who do not have that same orientation.

We will then most surely find, as you have noted, that there is a possibility for most people in the world to be groupists, in that there most usually, by most people, will be some degree of aversion or attention to some group. My father had an aversion to people from India and the Middle East. He, most unfortunately, had been of a more groupist attitude. He did change a little, latter on in life--can you imagine how he must have felt when his only son had been learning Hindi and Sanskrit, and reading the Bhagavadgita and Hare Krishina material in High School?

 

[thatsme]

A nice response. Let's go with that then, since I take we both agree (if only for the sake of argumentation, for now) that we are talking about groupism. Also, I trust your IQ, and think that would probably not matter here. What has been ingrained from childhood due to social conditioning, however, can get in the way. (we have to try to think out of the box)
No, because in that race does not exist as a natural reality, racism does not either--and by extension, neither does racist.
Groupism is the tendency to form and divide by groups. While a group can be anything, it is often the more conscious, and discernible to the senses elements that define groups. People having a certain pigmentation which differs from a discerning number of non-such people can be a group, people from certain geo-cultural regions which differ from a discerning number of non-such people can be a group. People who strongly abide by the doctrines of a cerain religious belief-system can be a group, in the eyes of those who do not. People who have a certain inherited sexual orientation can be a group in the eyes of those who do not have that same orientation.
We will then most surely find, as you have noted, that there is a possibility for most people in the world to be groupists, in that there most usually, by most people, will be some degree of aversion or attention to some group. My father had an aversion to people from India and the Middle East. He, most unfortunately, had been of a more groupist attitude. He did change a little, latter on in life--can you imagine how he must have felt when his only son had been learning Hindi and Sanskrit, and reading the Bhagavadgita and Hare Krishina material in High School?

Interesting!!!

would you agree then FOR EXAMPLE using the remark as "YOU SOUND LIKE A GROUPIST" would if it is used in a similar context of racist could be offensive in the eye of the beholder? subsequently would sound as offensive as racist?

I am sure that some people might not feel offended because do not think they are, or perhaps know that they are but don't give a rat.

The reason i am insistingly using the word of "racist" is because depending of how you use a word in this case "groupist" can be felt as an assumnption, and therefore would not make a difference if you use either groupist or racist.

I am lost here now, I don't even know what I am blabbering about.
I'll be back!!!

 

[MadamePapillon]

@ Mars Man

Whether you want to call it racism or groupism, it means the exact same thing: one bunch of people hating on another bunch of people.

Does it really matter if one term implies that we are, in fact, of different races while one implies that we are all the same just separate groups. In the end, we all know what we mean when we say racism, I don't see the need to overly complicate an otherwise straightforward discussion by trying to change our wording.

I believe there IS such a thing as races, and so I say racism. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mars Man]

Does it really matter if one term implies that we are, in fact, of different races while one implies that we are all the same just separate groups

Yes, it does matter. It matters very much, because the likelihood that is any truth behind the old concept of 'race' is very, very low, whereas that factuality of the latter is extremely high. One term is far more politically charged, whereas the other, the latter, is not. One term makes for division without educated cause, while the other, the latter, does not.

So yes. It makes a big difference, indeed.

I believe there IS such a thing as races, and so I say racism. I see nothing wrong with that.

Of course I have no real counter argument there; if you wish to believe in the concept inherent in the word 'race', you are free to do so...many, far too many in my opinion...do so. I would like to ask, however, that you give me as exhaustive an example of what it is that definitively determines a race, as possible.

Even among those in the biological fields, there are some who support the 'race' concept pretty much in tact; though there clearly appear more who see the lack of validity behind and within that concept. The greater bulk of evidence, whether one wishes to admit to it or not, is that the concept of 'race' is invalid, whereas biological differences in evolutionary selection processes show us a spectrum of nuances of the same speices--the homo sapien.

I tend to think, thatsme san, that it would not cause any arguments. This would primarily be because to be a groupist would not cause divisions of the whole--groupings are a natural fact. (in that way, a charge that another is a groupist, will have no valid negative weight, because all animals are essentially groupist--in that they form group bonds) Another thing is that the term would be presently neural politically.

That said, human society at large still would have a long up-hill battle in controlling the tendency to bond in-groups by making the out-groups appear to be a reason to bond more tightly and selectively. It will have a super long way to go before 'in-group first' thinking (as in country first) spreads enough to leave no more out-groups to make use of. If the earth were approached by beings of whatever sort from another location in the universe, we would suddenly become one big, earth-wide in-group.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Of course I have no real counter argument there; if you wish to believe in the concept inherent in the word 'race', you are free to do so...many, far too many in my opinion...do so. I would like to ask, however, that you give me as exhaustive an example of what it is that definitively determines a race, as possible.

Even among those in the biological fields, there are some who support the 'race' concept pretty much in tact; though there clearly appear more who see the lack of validity behind and within that concept. The greater bulk of evidence, whether one wishes to admit to it or not, is that the concept of 'race' is invalid, whereas biological differences in evolutionary selection processes show us a spectrum of nuances of the same speices--the homo sapien.

Well, to quote myself...

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...
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...
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.

I believe that is my definition of what I qualify as 'race'.

Group is far to broad a term as it can include anything from people of different races to the cast of a Broadway production to that group of smokers out by the bar.
Race is a clearly defined term that tells me 'what this person means is a group of people that are physically, culturally and even genetically different from myself'.

The day where the whole world considers itself as on big 'in-group' is, IMHO, far from being a reality and an idealistic goal at this point. Human are hardwired to form in and out groups, you see this in children all the time, even before they have been conditioned by society they form cliques and include or exclude people. We may not like it but it's human nature....I don't believe any amount of term changing will change what's in our nature to do.
We don't have to like or embrace everyone simply because they are human...we shouldn't kill or persecute or ignore others suffering either but to ask a person to see the whole world as being a part of their 'in-group' is a bit much.
A radical fanatic religious Muslim is NOT in my in-group...it may sound racist but thats just how it is.

 

[thatsme]

because we are free

we can use differents terms, even invent them.
the point is the being the way we are " HUMAN BEING" we react in different ways.

In this case we are talking about what is the right term, either groupist or racist, in the end it does'nt matter really.

In the beginning there was the word, in the end a war, and started because of the word, irony!!!!!!

 

[Half-n-Half]

Perhaps we should change the topic to, "What makes a country 'racist/groupist'?"

Mars Man, while I admire and respect your idealism, I have to disagree with you. Like MadamePapillon put it, "group" is just too broad of a term. Why try and sugar coat the word "racist" to make it politically correct? As far as the science behind it, you can call it whatever you like, the meaning stays the same. A racist/groupist is against a certain type of people who share a common culture, way of living, and physical traits.

For example, if I said, "Man, it's hot as hell out here!" as opposed to "Man, it's hot as heck out here!" the meaning is the same. Sure, one is more polite than the other, but the meanings behind the two are the same. As you can probably tell, I am against politically correct terminology.

You are definitely entitled to call it groupist as much as I am to call it racist. We both mean the same thing. And I don't think erasing "racist" and substituting "groupist" is going to change that.

Like Shakespeare put it, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

 

[Mars Man]

I'll get back, but let me firstly point out, my choice and publishing of the word 'group' over 'race' is by no means to be politically correct--a thing that I also am not fund of--rather, this drive to eliminate misconceptions that people have. As in the anaylogy give by thatsme san, it's not, actually the word at all (a word is nothing more than a symbol, just 3 is a symbol, or $ is a symbol) it's the perception of the referent that people have in their minds, upon which they act.

Just as MadamePapillon has highlighted, 'group' broadens out, and is a natural thing (I suspect you are not reading carefully, MadaePapillon san), so it ends up including all animals on the planet. The idea of one in-group, will not mean in a present setting, that is a mistake that many people make...trying to plug a future setting into present circumstances and then making an argument against it--a logic fallacy. I'll get back...got to run to the uni now.