racialitivismness

[whiteypoker]

I've recently heard some comercials on the radio by the underground railroad something or another. These comercials leave me with a feeling of unease for a few reasons.

First, the description. The comercials always start with a social situation in which someone is telling a joke or conversing with another individual. Then they'll drop a racial or cultural zinger such as, "I didn't know you were jewish," or "you know Shaniqua, Telliqua, they're all the same." After this line is dropped, the other individual in the conversation says that the comment was uncalled for or something of the like.

Here's my question. When do we cross the line from the observance of general statistics to that of racism or culturalism? Here's my point, so long as the "slur" or what have you does no damage, for example, being a tightwad is not necessarily a bad thing, why must be up in arms about it?

[reaper]

simple when people stop being ignorent about it

[Excel Zero]

I think we've discussed this one already...quite a few agreed that it depends on how the person targetted takes it, and others say it depends on how the person saying the 'slur' means it. Others however agreed the whole argument is dumb...which is the stance I take. Either way please keep this civil.

End of line

Excel

[Shinigami Banchou]

i don't really see how "oh i didn't know u were jewish" is a racial slur... thats merely an observation n a remark on the results of said observations.. i mean i could see them being offended if it was something like "oh i didn't know u were a dirty jew bastard" or something like that

[Doot]

Communication comes with the responsibility and intelligence to be able to gauge your audience. You have to try your hardest to have the other person hear what it is you are saying. In a society where most of the time people are just waiting for their turn to talk it makes it a little sticky.

In the same respect, if someone says something that offends it is also up to you to educate that person on why it would be offensive to you or others. Some cases people just don't know and unless you say something about it they'll continue not to know.

EXAMPLE: The Real World. Anyone remember the one with Julie (I think it was New Orleans) and she came from a VERY sheltered background and said the word "colored" refering to a black person. Melissa, of half-black background, got incredibly angry at her and told her off. See, Julie had no clue what she said was offensive at all and by Melissa throwing a fit instead of communicating effectively to educate her turns it into a pretty touchy topic.

Some people are out to offend - don't get me wrong. There are extremes on both ends. There are also people out there who make it a point to nitpick every minor detail and twist it to be about racism.

I agree with Reaper in this case, ignorance is the catalyst.

[whiteypoker]

Ignorance is not a legitimate answer in my book. The majority of African Americans alive today did not live through racial segrigation. Very few Jews alive today were around when the holocaust happened.

Why should this generation have to walk on egg shells because our great great grandfather's might or might not have had slaves? or were Nazi's?

When a people holds on to the past, I believe that it can create a hotbed of resentment that needs not exist. It searches and waits and invents ways to keep for the future what was in the past. If people wanted the nation to heal, it must forget the otherwise negative conotations.

I wasn't really talking about racism though in my original question though. I wondered when racism crossed into the observance of statistics, and to my knowledge, that is not a topic we have discussed before. The answers given to that question were, "when it offends." Well, alot of statistics are offensive and must therefore, under that logic, be racist. I don't believe that to be true sooooo.....

When does the observance of statistics cross the line, in a social situation, into racism?

[Excel Zero]

[quote="whiteypoker"] The answers given to that question were, "when it offends." Well, alot of statistics are offensive and must therefore, under that logic, be racist. I don't believe that to be true sooooo.....

When does the observance of statistics cross the line, in a social situation, into racism?

[\quote]

But just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. I think it has everything to do with intention. What one man believes to be "observing statistics" may be racist to another. That's often why I think these conversations are bunk. It's nothing against anyone in specific, but individuality exists and thus, you wil never get a clear answer out of the question. If you're specifically looking for each individual answer...then I stick with intent and comprehnsion. Just because most black people haven't lived through slavery doesn't make the N word any less powerful. I say if you either intended the "observance of statistics" to be bad or it was taken that way, then we have to be man and woman enough to apologize and let it go.

End of line

Excel

[whiteypoker]

The observance of statistics, unlike racism, is quantitative. One can look at and either verify or negate statistical facts. For instance you could look up the statistic that a little less than fifty percent of the AIDS carriers in the United states are black. That is verifiable or falsifiable, pure and simple. If I were to say then that if you are black, you are more likely to have AIDS than an Irishman, thats not any type of derogotory statement, merely an observance of fact.


I never used cocaine to get high; I just liked the way it smelled]

[Excel Zero]

[whiteypoker]

When I said that this discussion didn't involve racism, perhaps what I should have said was that this discussion shouldn't involve the merrits or lackthereof of racism. Rather, I hoped that the discussion would lead to decomposition of what makes something a racist statement and something more than an observance of statistics.

The answers that were given I felt dealt with more of the racial aspect of the problem rather than examining the point that there is some fact behind some "racial slurs."

Your answer, for example, deals nothing with the facts of life. You quoted some other's beliefs, which I agree with you, are not legitimate reasons for making something racial.

The best answer thus far, in my opinion, is Shinigami's because it explainse that in some social contexts, observances are made and regurgitated in a way that may or may not be offensive. The fact that something is offensive is not a reason to arm a race. It would be similar to saying something of ill favor about convicted inmates (aside from higher probability of your statement being universal for prison inmates that would not exist when addressing a race), and them saying that you were targeting inmates. You are in a way targeting behavior, but it is happens to be a behavior that EXISTS. You aren't targeting the population, but they happen to posses the behavior of which you observe.

Instead of offering up only the problem and no solution, here is my best guess:

The general observance of statistics is in fact racism. Because racism is discrimination against a race, and because a race may statistically produce a certain trait, and because that certain trait may or may not be desireable, any and all observation of statistics are racist.