Positive Racism?

[Latifa]

Something I've been pondering. If someone were to say "Black people tend to be fast runners" do you think that is racism? I know it's a bad steriotype to use but say if all black people were fast runners would it be racist to point it out?

[Funky Monk]

Think it would be generalising a bit much. People of African American origin tend to have a denser muscle mass or something similar which means that the best "black" athletes can run faster than the best "white" athletes.

[Latifa]

You have misinterpreted. I don't give a shit whether or not they run faster. I want to know whether or not you consider this racism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It isn't racist, but it might reflect an incorrect and racist notion - that is, that there is an alienable race of "black" people. This is a bizarre and mistaken idea . . .

Also, reguarding:
the best "black" athletes can run faster than the best "white" athletes
That isn't actually true - there are certain genetically-alienable populations which are identified as black that typically have greater muscle mass than populations identified as white, but the difference is rather crucial. What yr statement implies is that one socially constructed group is faster than another - it's like saying "Canadians" are faster than "Americans". I can elaborate later, if need be.

[Latifa]

No, you've made it obvious enough. Thanks for clarification.

[Funky Monk]

No, thats why i used quotation marks, to emphasise the rigiculous nature of such common classifications.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 8 2004, 07:55 PM
No, thats why i used quotation marks, to emphasise the rigiculous nature of such common classifications.
Haha, quite right. I need to start playing the concentration game.

[Imyr]

Something I've been pondering. If someone were to say "Black people tend to be fast runners" do you think that is racism? I know it's a bad steriotype to use but say if all black people were fast runners would it be racist to point it out?

No, it wouldn't be racist. If one were to draw a conclusion such as "blacks are superior, because they have stronger athletes" it would be racism.

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 06:06 PM
Something I've been pondering. If someone were to say "Black people tend to be fast runners" do you think that is racism? I know it's a bad steriotype to use but say if all black people were fast runners would it be racist to point it out?
damm Latifa, I never knew you where so racist. :blink: :P

[Rasta Sapian]

this isn't racist, white folks can be blind too!

[Discarded Wobbly Pop]

On the running faster thing, my guess is that it's cultural, black people strive harder in sports, because they belive this is one of the only things they can excell in.

They have however found that people of african decent are more susseptable to frostbite than europeans, and native american/canadians.

Latifa,

To generally answer your question, it's not that it's racism, it's noticing phenomena around you. If you were to comment that black people hold more pigmentation, this would not be a racist comment even though it is stating a definable, physical difference between groups of people.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Rasta Sapian+Dec 9 2004, 03:00 AM--> (Rasta Sapian @ Dec 9 2004, 03:00 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 06:06 PM
Something I've been pondering. If someone were to say "Black people tend to be fast runners" do you think that is racism? I know it's a bad steriotype to use but say if all black people were fast runners would it be racist to point it out?
damm Latifa, I never knew you where so racist. :blink: :P [/b]
Riddle me this: How does one learn without asking questions?

[Anti-Prophet]

It's not racist at all to point out physical differences between races. Saying negroes have dark skin, asians are short, or white people have small toes (???) is not racist because it is a physical comment and after all physical traits are what makes you white, black, indian, or whatever. Racism is pointing out mental diffrences between races. Saying asians tend to be smarter or negroes tend to be criminals is racist. The reason it is racist is because there are no mental diffrences between races. Of course there are differences brought about by cultural and socioeconomic upbrining but these differences have nothing to do with genetics or race.

[bolshevik butcher]

anti-prophet, these are just averages bordering on stereotypes, I know some tall asians.

[wellis]

back to the thead,can rascist be positive.....?????
of course not.so simple it is . only hitler or bush could think otherwise.(or other fascist minded people)

[Funky Monk]

I remember seeing this programme about this Japanese bloke who is over 7 feet tall. He has a hell of a time trying to get out of cars.

[commiecrusader]

I have talked to some of my friends about this, and they all deem it to be racist because it is making a generalisation on the basis of a groups skin colour.

[Hate Is Art]

How about a different type of positive racism, say there a two candidates for a job - one black and one white - the white candidate is slightly better then the black but they hire the black one to avoid being deemed a racist company or like in the police force (in the UK anyway - I'm not sure about other countries) there are very few black PC's. So to try and even this out, they hire alot of black police officers even if they aren't as highly trained as the white ones?

Is this right? Obviously this is just a certain situation, but I think you get what I mean.

[RedAnarchist]

Thats political correctness. Whilst some PC is fine, too much is as discriminatory to minorities as rascism. PC turns us all into zombies who dont want to harm a minority member in any way, in case youre seen as rascist/misogynistic/homophobic. I'm not saying that these things are acceptable - they NEVER are and NEVER will be - but we should treat minorities like humans instead of focusing on one certain facet of their persona.

[Anti-Prophet]

Ok. how about this:

In northern Quebec there is a larg indian (native american indian) population. Because of the openly racist laws of the federal (maybe provincial) goverment, the indians are treated differently than all other races in Canada. They are free from some types of taxes (maybe all types, im not sure), they are payed for getting post-secondary education (college, university, etc.) and they get other special privileges based on their race. A lot of people are opposed to these laws because their taxes are paying for these special privileges and so some become openly hateful towards the indians and the people who protect these laws (there were even race riots here a few years ago). But is this really racism or is it just opposition to the governments racist laws and the people who benefit from these laws.

[leftist resistance]

To me that is racism

Back to Latifa's qn..That's not racism but generalisation

[commiecrusader]

Digital Nirvana has a good point. Some one did that where I live and it made the news. They applied for a job at an electronics store, I won't say it's name, saying they were UK born and white. They were told the company weren't interested. He then handed in the exact same application but claimed to be UK born Chinese. The company offered him a job without interview, just because of this change. That story made the local press.

I think this is wrong. Discriminating against white people is just as bad as discriminating against any other ethnicity/gender/group.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:24 AM
Digital Nirvana has a good point. Some one did that where I live and it made the news. They applied for a job at an electronics store, I won't say it's name, saying they were UK born and white. They were told the company weren't interested. He then handed in the exact same application but claimed to be UK born Chinese. The company offered him a job without interview, just because of this change. That story made the local press.

I think this is wrong. Discriminating against white people is just as bad as discriminating against any other ethnicity/gender/group.
Hmm. Well thats bad, but think about it this way... The company probably assumed he spoke basic Chinese ( This helps the store relate to, and sell products to Chinese people. ) Chinese people, who generally spend a lot of money on electronics products would find this very useful.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 11 2004, 11:22 PM
Ok. how about this:

In northern Quebec there is a larg indian (native american indian) population. Because of the openly racist laws of the federal (maybe provincial) goverment, the indians are treated differently than all other races in Canada. They are free from some types of taxes (maybe all types, im not sure), they are payed for getting post-secondary education (college, university, etc.) and they get other special privileges based on their race. A lot of people are opposed to these laws because their taxes are paying for these special privileges and so some become openly hateful towards the indians and the people who protect these laws (there were even race riots here a few years ago). But is this really racism or is it just opposition to the governments racist laws and the people who benefit from these laws.
Woah! Those are not racist laws - those are necessary laws to combat the symptoms of a racsist society. The systematic racism perpetuated against Native Americans requires some degree of compensation. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, the government signed legally bidning treaties with the sovreign Native tribes promising them certain rights - you wouldn't question a legally binding treaty between the government and a group of white people would you?
Don't be a racist fuckwit.

[Anti-Prophet]

Woah! Those are not racist laws - those are necessary laws to combat the symptoms of a racsist society.

They are racist laws. what else would you call laws that exclude or include only members of a certian race. And they are far from combating racism directed against the indians. In fact they are creating racism. Many racist people are racist exactly because these laws use their tax dollares to pay for the special privilages given to the the indians. If these laws never existed i doubt there would be as much racism as there is today.


The systematic racism perpetuated against Native Americans requires some degree of compensation.

Yes everyone who is suffering because their ancestors and they were treated unfairly by the bourgeosie should be compensated, not only the native americans. The native americans have and still are suffering because of the British and French colonialist bourgeoisie of the past and the Canadian bourgeosie of today. That should be compensated i agree. But the fact is that the privilages given to them as compensation is being payed for by the Canadian working class (through taxes), who have equally sufferd from bourgeosie oppresion, and not by the people who are profiting from the past and current oppresion of the natives. If anyone should be paying compensation it should be the British monarchy and the Canadian and British bourgeoisie.


HOWEVER, EVEN IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, the government signed legally bidning treaties with the sovreign Native tribes promising them certain rights

Yes the agreements signed with the natives to protect their rights are justifiable but many agreements made between the natives and the bourgeosie government was signed at the expense of the working class. Like the agreement that gives natives a check from the government ever month and the agreement that the government pays for native american post-secondary education (althought it would be great if the government payed for everyones post-secondary education).


you wouldn't question a legally binding treaty between the government and a group of white people would you?

Of course i would. No legally binding treaty that includes or excludes a certian race should be accepted.

[vivalache22]

There are many physical traits that certain ethnic groups have that others don't. If you talk about it in a civalized unoffending way, its not racism. However, if you make fun of people because of differant physical traits it is racist.

[CommieBastard]

I find this whole argument unconvincing.

You can speak of black people in terms of their pigmentation, that makes a good and workable generalisation, because it is contained within the definition.

However, When we speak of who runs fastest, we can only (if we actually want to identify fast runners effectively) talk in terms of how long it takes them to get from point a to point b.

In a given population there may be some similarity, some coincidental or causally sharing correspondance. This does not make identification of fast runners based on skin pigmentation a good practice.

These are pigeon holes, and any singular person can be pigeon holed into an almost infinite number of different groupings. The onyl pigeon holing science that would work is if we actually did pigeon hole people in every way possible, as only then would we get a full picture of exactly what traits they have. If we found that gay people ran faster, would we start putting them up for sports more? No, we would wonder what, if any, causal relation there is between the two facts, and then declare THIS to be the consequential issue. If there is no causal relation, and it is purely coincidental, then we would do well to forget it.

I am not, though, saying that it is racism. Just wrong.
To be frank I couldn't give a damn if a given statement is racist, as the term has lost all meaning in society, or rather maybe a bit too much meaning. Yes people who are black have a hard time. But so do people who are fat, and people who have bad acne and people who have bla and bla and bla. Why should people only be safeguarded against offence and discrimination based on their colour and creed? What about someone who is ugly who wants a job in a fashion store and is denied it?

The only measure can be in someone's actual capability to fulfil the functional roles of their job. As for safeguarding against offence... if someone offends you and you have no good argument to tell them why they shouldnt be saying it, then dont tell them not to say it. If you do have a good argument then tell them it, and they might not do it. If they do continue doing it , then more fool them for being incorrect. Don't hide behind laws they only perpetuate problems, fight your own fights (by which i mean with words).