Saiuu
Joou no Oh
Saiuu
I think that your conceptual analysis of racism is off, and that is why you think that it is racist to have some preference for a certain race in terms of physical attraction. Why this is so is because while it is racial discrimination, it is not unjust racial discrimination.
First, to clarify what is meant by the term discrimination, simply look at the denotation free of any negative connotations. It simply means to make a judgement or determination between two things. Now, discrimination under these terms is certainly not necessarily bad or unjust; I am very discriminating when it comes to color. I can't stand the color of light brown, while I absolutely love red. Therefore, when I discriminate against clothes, I'm discriminating against them on the basis that I prefer one color over the other, which most would not bat an eye about.
Now, as this relates to the subject at hand, we can determine whether the discrimination of racial physical preference is just or unjust. Some would say that it is unjust on the basis that it uses the color of one's skin as a factor in the determination of anything, however, this is false. People have come to be very afraid of using race as a factor of discrimination due to the real unjust discriminations on the basis of race that occured in the past and exist to some degree in the present. However, this does not mean that race is always an unjust factor, and in the case of physical racial preference, it is just. Just like it is perfectly just for me to have a favorite color, it is alright for me to have this kind of a preference so long as it is constrained like other physical qualities. Racial discrimination in the workplace is just as unjust as discriminating against someone in the workplace because they are ugly; physical qualities in that sense generally do not make one a more efficient, smarter, or otherwise better worker. However, likewise as it is just for me to discriminate against someone who has giant boils all over the body and looks like a prune in treating them as ugly or unattractive, it is perfectly just for me to us the color of someone's skin as a marker of attractiveness.
A little caveat, though, about all of this. It must always be kept in mind that even if racial preference in terms of physical appearance is a just discrimination, that absolutely does not mean that race can at all be used justly in cases of non-aesthetic, non-physical appearance judgements, as was stated earlier. I restate this because someone is likely to go and try manipulate this argument into something that it is not.
In summary, racial preference in terms of only matters of physical attractiveness is a just a discrimination and therefore it is not racism. However, race likewise can not be used when it is a trivial quality to the value at hand.
Jus... what?
Alright, I read this entire block of disgustingness and you know what this boils up to?
> Coming into a Black Issues (PoC) thread to tell the PoC that thier definetion of the oppression targeting them is wrong.
SWPD because they explained it well enough
G. If you go into an anti-racist discussion and start trying to claim the colloquial definition that "racism is simply viewing or treating others differently based on race", you're going to get a negative reaction. Stick to "racism = prejudice + power". Anti-racists aren't going to take it well if you wander in halfway through the debate and start trying to make them abide by your definition rather than the commonly accepted "prejudice + power". Imagine if everyone in a classroom was chatting about a particular subject and then someone walked in and said, "No! You're all doing it wrong! The REAL definition is ABC and I don't care that all the rest of you think it's XYZ!" -- do you think that would go over well? Of course it wouldn't; the newcomer would be considered rude. (Also, making an appeal to Dictionary.com is not going to work. Pointing out that the colloquial definition is how Webster's Dictionary defines racism is not going to make anti-racists suddenly say, "Wow, you know what? You're right! I never realized it, but now that Webster's has backed you up, I see that you're totally right and racism really is just judging people based on their skin color!" Actually, they may say that, but they'd be saying it sarcastically.)
> Attempting to diassociate a pejorative from it's meaning.
Are you kidding me? This is both Abuser Logic and Oppressor Logic all rolled up into one ******** package, and it's sad that I had to tackle this already in a thread on suicide only to see it here. Not surprised, but disgusted all the same.
>Trying to equate "not liking a certain colour" to latent racism based on overt and subtle negative messages on PoC fed to us throughout our lives. See the OP as it's already throughly explained.
You do not get to walk into a PoC space, and then dictate what thier oppression means to them. Let alone set the rules on what kind of racism is okay from what isn't. NO form of racism is ever okay. Period. Full stop.
If you actually understood even the basics of my post, you would have recognized that
I wasn't trying to change the definition of racism, I was trying to make it more precise and better. 2.No one would say that is racist for doctors to tell people of darker skins to make sure that they are getting enough vitamin c without making a big deal about vitamin c to someone as white as snow since this is a just discrimination upon the basis of skin color since it is a scientific fact that those of darker skin have a high chance that they won't be getting enough vitamin c in the winter. In the same style of argument, it is also not racist to tell that person who is white as snow that they need to use a very high spf sunscreen in the summer while perhaps telling a person of darker complexion that they only need a lower spf sunscreen.
3.All of that are instances in which there is just discrimination, but not racism.
4.A case in which there is unjust discrimination and thus racism would be if so and so who is black with equal skills makes less money than a white person in the same company working in the same position. Clearly, color of skin most likely has
little real bearing on job performance, and therefore this discrimination is baseless and thus it is racism, and indeed,
almost all discrimination on the basis of color of skin fall into the category of racism since it is not really relevant in most discussions.
5. What I am arguing is that in the case of say dating preferences, color of skin is equivalent discrimination wise to other physical attributes and thus is just if you say that it is just to judge someone when it comes to dating at least partially on the basis of physical attractiveness.
6.You may argue that when it comes to love and dating, physical appearance isn't relevant, and thus race is not relevant, but that does not change the fact that they are still equal factors under these circumstances.
7.P.S. I doubt you'll read most of this, but I hope you read this. Intelligent people write out long posts because we want to make sure that our points come across absolutely clearly and that we are not misunderstood. It seems that in this goal I have failed as evidenced by your gross misunderstanding of my argument.
1. You were trying to make it more "precise and better" for yourself in that it would allow you to excuse racism. I read it all, I read it thrice. It still comes to the conclusion of "it's not racist if you look at it from the perspective of erasing the reality from the word itself.
It depends entirely on erasing the reality of PoC in order to de-tooth the word, and create a false two-tier system in which "non-harmful racism" exists.
C'mon, even Lemongrab can't begin to tell you just how unacceptable that is.
2. What...? What does that have to do with attempting to re-write racism as not-racism, and Black People are no less likely to have a vitamin C deficiency than anyone else, unless you're including factors like food deserts and other economical factors. Also, the entire carribean would like to have a word with you.
But seriously, this has nothing to do with the abouve, so I won't be addressing it further.
3. That's not discrimination, period. That's trying to give medical help according to a patient's specific needs. Again, this does not correlate with racism via racial preferrence.
4. In reply to the bolded, little? Really? Try
none.
And to the underlined? ALL.
emotion_facepalm
5. Skin colour carries a historical weight, it cannot be equated with "other physical attributes" as a broad term. People need to stop trying to push this lie.
If you are judging someone's attractiveness based on skin colour, you are dehumanizing them and assimilating them into one big-a** lump like the Borg. Period.
6. Look, you know what i'm pointing out already -race Not generalized physical aspects like arms and legs and clothes and all that other crap. Physical Appearance as a general term, which carries no historical, bloodied, fetishized weight, is NOT the same as race as a dating factor. Ever. It is a part of the general term, yes, however the general term is not synonymous with it.
7. I don't appreciate your implied low expectations of me.
stare And as someone who has a really, REALLY BAD habit of writing extremely long posts when I want to explain something, anything at all? I share your pain -that being said I have to say this as well: I've read excruciatingly long posts from equally excruciatingly terrible people. And they were nowhere near intelligent. (be they willfully ignorant, a member of one of the bigot group types(google it) or just plain sociopathic towards PoC)
So i'll try to make my point simple, I have a severe problem with your notion that racism can be seperated into any sort of not-racist racism. That is basic disassociation and it's especially horrible to bring that into a thread where it's already clear context is that racism, in all of it's forms, is harmful.
200
200
200
