Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on July 13, 2013, 06:33:51 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqjlhtKIToo
KTVU done goofed. :lol:
-
Oh dear ...
-
That's probably the best thing.
-
This is the most glorious piece of news ever broadcast. :lol:
-
That's some serious facepalm.gif-worthy material. And I'd thought that kind of stupidness was confined to SNL skits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMr3QO2Sbc). :P
-
I've heard the executives at that station are on the warpath over this, and someone (probably several someones) is going to end up fired, just as soon as they figure out who did it.
Me, I wonder how the newscaster managed to read those "names" with a straight face. Of course, she did mention that the names were "confirmed" (and indeed they were, apparently... someone at the NTSB is probably also getting fired), so...
-
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSbojPpHDEVe-Jmj33UdkhGuDM-kaqpP96y3TaGkRChCHFY3YJy)
-
I get the first and the third name, but what's the pun in the second and fourth ones?
-
I get the first and the third name, but what's the pun in the second and fourth ones?
Second: we too low (plane crashing)
And the last one I think is just getting knocked around inside the plane. bang ding ow.
-
So... which is the best one for u guys?
I think I'll go with Wi Tu Lo.
Also, I'm having an urge to know what she said afterwards, or if she ever noticed?
-
Reminds me of this awesome tweet from a week ago:
"Sad day for Irvine. I will miss my friends who I must assume were incinerated in the localized apocalyptic weather."(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOH9LSLCUAAAuk8.jpg) (https://twitter.com/sfgirl/status/351840616201736192/photo/1)
Melanie (@sfgirl) (https://twitter.com/sfgirl/statuses/351840616201736192)
But I guess in more of a "typo" way than "somebody deliberately pranking the news" way.
-
wi tu lo. the others are pretty cliche.
-
The "Holy ****" one with the "We too low" one right after it
That's how it should have been read
-
And now someone's getting sued (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/asiana-sue-tv-station-gaffe-over-pilot-name-031148538.html)
-
The company whose plane just crashed, killing three people and injuring over one hundred others, is upset that the mistaken broadcast which was later retracted has harmed their reputation.
:wtf:
-
Colbert made that exact same joke tonight. It's sad when you think about it.
-
Mr. Wishy Washy (Family guy) comes to mind.
-
The company whose plane just crashed, killing three people and injuring over one hundred others, is upset that the mistaken broadcast which was later retracted has harmed their reputation.
:wtf:
To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, why should we let people get away with turning the death of three people into a racist joke?
Sure, in this case it seems like they're going after the wrong people. But if we're talking about the principle of the thing....
-
I don't think it's a racist joke. They're just playing with the names, it's got nothing to do with the race. It's just juevenile garbage, though in disgustingly bad taste.
-
The company whose plane just crashed, killing three people and injuring over one hundred others, is upset that the mistaken broadcast which was later retracted has harmed their reputation.
:wtf:
To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, why should we let people get away with turning the death of three people into a racist joke?
Sure, in this case it seems like they're going after the wrong people. But if we're talking about the principle of the thing....
Its pretty certain that the station is going to be hunting down and canning those responsible. Heck if a third party wants to make an issue of it that's fine, but Asiana filling its coffers and trying to deflect attention after being responsible for a plane crash isn't really principled in my book.
-
To further clarify, this is the exact same deal as Bart Simpson putting a call in to Mo's Tavern with a stupid name like Seymour Butts and Mo falling for it. It just isn't English names this time.
-
I'd like to place a pizza order under the name I.C. Wiener, thank you. :D
-
The company whose plane just crashed, killing three people and injuring over one hundred others, is upset that the mistaken broadcast which was later retracted has harmed their reputation.
:wtf:
To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, why should we let people get away with turning the death of three people into a racist joke?
Sure, in this case it seems like they're going after the wrong people. But if we're talking about the principle of the thing....
They specifically said that they'll never sue the organization that confirmed the names for the news organization.
Yes, the news organization was incredibly stupid for not realizing the joke, and they're internally punishing people for it, apparently. But the initial error began further up the line, and suing the king's fool rather than the king strikes me as being disingenuous and deflecting, trying to drag attention away from any mistakes on the airliner's part.
ASIDE: And by the airliner's logic, even if there was no joke they should still be suing them for reporting on the issue. The joke didn't make the airliner look bad, it made the news look bad. The crash is what made the airliner look bad.
-
I don't think it's a racist joke. They're just playing with the names, it's got nothing to do with the race. It's just juevenile garbage, though in disgustingly bad taste.
The contents are race-based, it's racist by default.
-
oh ffs everything is racist now?
If so, then I will unapologizingly defend a really good amount of racism. The funny good kind at least. And before you judge me too harshly I give you Zizek.
-
oh ffs everything is racist now?
If so, then I will unapologizingly defend a really good amount of racism. The funny good kind at least. And before you judge me too harshly I give you Zizek.
*snip*
Agreed. Racism IMO is maliciously treating another person as inferior just because they're different from you. It is not racist to acknowledge that those differences exist.
EDIT: Apparently, a prank wasn't needed to get unfortunately appropriate names...
On Monday, Suh, the Asiana spokesman, played down earlier reports that the company threatened legal action against the federal agency as well. "We will never sue the NTSB," Suh said.
-
Agreed. Racism IMO is maliciously treating another person as inferior just because they're different from you. It is not racist to acknowledge that those differences exist.
Exactly.
-
Agreed. Racism IMO is maliciously treating another person as inferior just because they're different from you. It is not racist to acknowledge that those differences exist.
Exactly.
Pity that's not what happened here!
-
That's exactly what happened here. That's the entire point of racist jokes in this context; to use racist stereotypes as a method of humour.
Why are so many threads threads around here devolving into arguments about racism or sexism?
EDIT: Oh hey, they took down the video. The reason was because of a copyright violation.
Sure it was.
-
EDIT: Oh hey, they took down the video. The reason was because of a copyright violation.
Sure it was.
Worry not!
http://youtu.be/wFA7t1sHxBI?t=44s
http://youtu.be/2GNQt578qHQ?t=6s
http://youtu.be/7ZR4Em9JJDw
-
That's exactly what happened here. That's the entire point of racist jokes in this context; to use racist stereotypes as a method of humour.
Except nobody was making any racist jokes in this prank. At worst it could be called a cross-lingual pun in bad taste. It was not singling out Chinese for racial properties or inferring that they are inferior in any way. It was merely making a pun based of what English-speaking Westerners perceive as Chinese-sounding names - the language, not the culture or people. :rolleyes:
-
Of course it's racist. The question is whether or not it's acceptably mild racism is the issue. I tend to believe if the situation was different it would be okay. But in the context of a plane crash, it is pretty out of order to make fun of the names of the pilots involved.
As for Asiana suing, well again, they're going after the wrong people. But there's a reason why you don't sue the judge while you're on trial.
-
Except nobody was making any racist jokes in this prank. At worst it could be called a cross-lingual pun in bad taste. It was not singling out Chinese for racial properties or inferring that they are inferior in any way. It was merely making a pun based of what English-speaking Westerners perceive as Chinese-sounding names - the language, not the culture or people. :rolleyes:
Again, exactly. It's no more racist than Bart Simpson and his calls to Mo's tavern.
-
Again, exactly. It's no more racist than Bart Simpson and his calls to Mo's tavern.
Except, you know, it's entirely based in race and doesn't work without a racial component, which is racist.
If you made this joke about white people, it'd be just stupid. Because they're white people. They don't have names at all like that.
-
If you made this joke about white people, it'd be just stupid. Because they're white people. They don't have names at all like that.
You think white people haven't funny names to the other folks?
I have a friend of mine who is called Joaquim. When he presented himself to americans they laughed and laughed. They listened "Hi, I'm Joking".
If this kind of **** is racist, then consider me a fuill blown racist. From this kind of silly stupid criteria I'll even consider it a compliment.
-
If you made this joke about white people, it'd be just stupid. Because they're white people. They don't have names at all like that.
You think white people haven't funny names to the other folks?
I have a friend of mine who is called Joaquim. When he presented himself to americans they laughed and laughed. They listened "Hi, I'm Joking".
If this kind of **** is racist, then consider me a fuill blown racist. From this kind of silly stupid criteria I'll even consider it a compliment.
I was thinking the exact same thing, that's what it comes down to. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure others with other languages can twist English names up into things which mean "other things" shall we say, in their own language. It would be a facinating subject in it's own right, it's something I've wondered about before.
You know, something like this with the boot on the other foot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Fuchs
Maybe my name means something like that to someone else... :shaking: :lol:
-
Ironically that was the most racist sentence I've come across in this thread so far. (the whites not having funny names)
-
Ironically that was the most racist sentence I've come across in this thread so far. (the whites not having funny names)
:lol: Yes! :nod:
You had me worried there for a moment though, I thought you were talking to me! :lol: :D
Speaking of which, we can have funny names in our own language. My mother went to school with a girl called Henrietta Fish. Then that girl got married. But it didn't help her. Because she then became Henrietta Stone.
Shame on her parents. :rolleyes:
-
If Anita Baker married Moby Dick what would her name be...
(http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hurr_durr.jpg)
-
If Anita Baker married Moby Dick what would her name be...
There was someone with the surname Head at my school. He didn't have that name but I'm sure you can see the potential...
-
Except, you know, it's entirely based in race and doesn't work without a racial component, which is racist.
If you made this joke about white people, it'd be just stupid. Because they're white people. They don't have names at all like that.
Well, the joke in and of itself is stupid. The part of this that's funny is that the newscaster actually read them without getting it. The names themselves weren't terribly amusing.
-
My old school had a Wayne King and a Paul Skinback. They had such happy childhoods...
-
My brother had a friend named Michael Cox. Yep.
-
You think white people haven't funny names to the other folks?
No, I think white people don't have names like the ones used here. This joke's contents ar based on the race of the people it's being made about. It's racist by default. As Karaj noted, the question is whether it's acceptable or not.
Simply denying it's racist, however, is encouraging the minimal-understanding no-analysis Lorrics of the world to pretend that racism doesn't exist at all.
-
White people have other kinds of names that will be laughable to foreigners in a different manner. Do you really believe in the ridiculous idea that somehow white people's names are "special" in this sense that no foreigner will laugh at them?
What is this "racist by default" thing going on here? It's evidently clear some kind of a stupid prankster thought it would be amazing to fool the tv's anchor into reading that thing on tv. Perhaps such prankster never even considered the idea that the anchor would not recognize the idiocy and was as surprised as everyone else who saw it live (or recorded). It is also obvious that the anchor was clueless about the whole shenanigan.
So I really fail to see "RACISM!" here (much more about total inappropriate pranksterism, outright stupidity from the editors and anchor of the show, etc.) and I really think it's almost offensive to read it here, as if racism was all about making fun of funny foreign names. ****, I really wished racism was about that. It isn't. It's something entirely different.
-
White people have other kinds of names that will be laughable to foreigners in a different manner. Do you really believe in the ridiculous idea that somehow white people's names are "special" in this sense that no foreigner will laugh at them?
What is this "racist by default" thing going on here? It's evidently clear some kind of a stupid prankster thought it would be amazing to fool the tv's anchor into reading that thing on tv. Perhaps such prankster never even considered the idea that the anchor would not recognize the idiocy and was as surprised as everyone else who saw it live (or recorded). It is also obvious that the anchor was clueless about the whole shenanigan.
So I really fail to see "RACISM!" here (much more about total inappropriate pranksterism, outright stupidity from the editors and anchor of the show, etc.) and I really think it's almost offensive to read it here, as if racism was all about making fun of funny foreign names. ****, I really wished racism was about that. It isn't. It's something entirely different.
I really don't know why he can't see it. Are you mystified, Luis? I certainly am. It's as clear as day to me that it's not racist. It's obvious. It's exactly as you say it is. Naming conventions have nothing to with race. They can be changed. Unlike the race you are born into.
-
I'll say it again.... racism is treating or considering people who are different from you as inferior or less-capable. None of that was happening here. People weren't saying that the plane crashed because it was being piloted by Chinese pilots - that would be racist. The joke wasn't about the pilots being less capable or inferior in any way at all. It was about the Western perception of typical names in the Chinese language.
-
Quite right Sandwich. It's about treating people as inferior or less-capable. Such as this example of Lorricism. Those poor Lorrics of this World. I'm a Lorric you know... :(
Simply denying it's racist, however, is encouraging the minimal-understanding no-analysis Lorrics of the world to pretend that racism doesn't exist at all.
-
Several years ago, Letterman had a top 10 list of people with names that get you ridiculed as a child. The number one was Dick Assman. He ran a gas station (a Petro-Canada I believe) outside Regina (no joke)(or was it Saskatchewan?). Anyway, in 1995 my mother, brother and I went on a trip out to B.C. and we hit his gas station and there was a sign right outside that said "Home Of The Assman".
-
Stephen Colbert pointed out why it's racist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/16/stephen-colbert-explains-what-was-really-wrong-with-ktvus-fake-korean-pilot-names/) better than anyone on this thread. :D
-
I'm pretty sure that the newscaster (regardless of their racial prejudices) didn't elect ahead of time to commit career suicide by saying "**** it, it's funny" and did it anyway.
So while the newscaster may not necessarily be a racist individual, racism is still present in the fact that she didn't engage her brain well enough to clue in to the fact that "wait a minute..." and as such, is passively racist by complicity.
As opposed to generic or aggressive racist, such as whomever thought that those names sounded "chinese" enough to see if anybody would actually air them. Or any of the people that can't say "fried rice" properly without trying to "sound" chinese saying it.
The context can be (and in this case, IS) extrodinarily racist, regardless of the disposition of its delivery or the disposition of the individuals involved.
And yes, it is also racist to have found it funny as **** and/or to have laughed about it. Sorry, there are no two ways about it.
-
And yes, it is also racist to have found it funny as **** and/or to have laughed about it. Sorry, there are no two ways about it.
Finding a newscaster saying something completely inappropriate and thus ruining their career amusing makes me a racist? Um. Okay. :/
-
Did you honestly only laugh at the situation? Or did you find the names themselves funny?
There's a difference between being a racist (we all are, it's very hard not to be) and being a bigot. Just cause you occasionally find some humour in racial jokes doesn't make you a bigot. But it is the racist part of you that is laughing at the joke that those names sound Chinese.
Remember, this isn't a case of people laughing at someone with a real name that sounds funny in English. This is a case of someone inventing names which aren't real in order to make a joke about Chinese. It's made worse because in the west, oriental people have had to put up with this sort of joke for far too long. It's now in the same sort of league as making jokes about black people and fried chicken/watermelons.
I'll say it again.... racism is treating or considering people who are different from you as inferior or less-capable. None of that was happening here. People weren't saying that the plane crashed because it was being piloted by Chinese pilots - that would be racist. The joke wasn't about the pilots being less capable or inferior in any way at all. It was about the Western perception of typical names in the Chinese language.
So I assume these (http://media.gunaxin.com/cyrus-caught-making-slanty-eyes/11237) pictures (http://www.thevine.com.au/sport/news/spanish-team-make-slanty-eye-boo-boo/) are just about the Western perception of Chinese eyes, and also not racist?
-
I'm pretty sure that the newscaster (regardless of their racial prejudices) didn't elect ahead of time to commit career suicide by saying "**** it, it's funny" and did it anyway.
So while the newscaster may not necessarily be a racist individual, racism is still present in the fact that she didn't engage her brain well enough to clue in to the fact that "wait a minute..." and as such, is passively racist by complicity.
As opposed to generic or aggressive racist, such as whomever thought that those names sounded "chinese" enough to see if anybody would actually air them. Or any of the people that can't say "fried rice" properly without trying to "sound" chinese saying it.
The context can be (and in this case, IS) extrodinarily racist, regardless of the disposition of its delivery or the disposition of the individuals involved.
And yes, it is also racist to have found it funny as **** and/or to have laughed about it. Sorry, there are no two ways about it.
I think it weakens the arguments aganst racism when stuff like this gets included though. Nobody's laughing because "Hurr Hurr, those yellow bastards sure do have funny names". We're laughing because the newscaster was too stupid to realize that the names weren't genuine.
FWIW, I thought it was funny. I thought Colbert's take on it was even funnier. If that makes me racist, well then, a racist I shall be.
-
As opposed to generic or aggressive racist, such as whomever thought that those names sounded "chinese" enough to see if anybody would actually air them. Or any of the people that can't say "fried rice" properly without trying to "sound" chinese saying it.
The idea that the Chinese can't say "fried rice" is actually quite racist in and of itself. I've not spent enough time in Guangdong to know if it's justified when it comes to Cantonese but Mandarin speaks generally have no problems whatsoever pronouncing L's and R's. AFAIK it's actually the Japanese who have that issue, but I could be wrong there too.
Ironically it's us Westerners who have trouble with their R words. I don't know many Westerners who can pronounce the Mandarin word for Japan without quite a bit of practice. :D
-
I'm not so certain, though, that racism can be inferred from not realizing a list of names was racist. That's kind of pushing the line for me. Yes, had she thought for 20 seconds, she might have spotted it, but when you are reading from an autocue, 20 seconds is often not an option.
We have a company down the road called 'Tak Kee Trading', which gets smirked about occasionally, it's not because of an opinion about race, it's about pronunciation, that's all. There was a huge factory on the River Severn in Wales, called 'The Jones Manufacturing Company', my Dad used to say that was where all the Welsh came from. Now, that was racist, but even a Welshman would have needed a really big chip on their shoulder to find it insulting.
-
There's a difference between being a racist (we all are, it's very hard not to be) and being a bigot. Just cause you occasionally find some humour in racial jokes doesn't make you a bigot. But it is the racist part of you that is laughing at the joke that those names sound Chinese.
I'll say it again.... racism is treating or considering people who are different from you as inferior or less-capable. None of that was happening here. People weren't saying that the plane crashed because it was being piloted by Chinese pilots - that would be racist. The joke wasn't about the pilots being less capable or inferior in any way at all. It was about the Western perception of typical names in the Chinese language.
So I assume these (http://media.gunaxin.com/cyrus-caught-making-slanty-eyes/11237) pictures (http://www.thevine.com.au/sport/news/spanish-team-make-slanty-eye-boo-boo/) are just about the Western perception of Chinese eyes, and also not racist?
The stupid fools pulling on the corners of their eyes are failing miserably at making fun of physical characteristics common to Asian ethnic groups. That's a physical characteristic that a person has no control over, it genetics. Naming conventions are a cultural device, it's not intrinsically tied to an ethnic group. Plenty of people in the world are of Asian descent and have names that are not considered typical of an Asian culture. An Asian person can take the name John Brown just as easily as I could take the name Shingen Takeda. While they are making a juvenile joke at the expense of cultural standards I don't think it rates the same as if they had made a targeted insult of Asian people over things tied specifically to their ethnicity such as the photos you linked.
For example:
"They must have crashed because they have slanty eyes." is unequivocally racist in the extreme and specifically ethnic characteristics. On the other hand one of the local Chinese restaurants is named "I Yit Ho" (https://www.google.com/search?q=i+yit+ho&rlz=1C1ASUT_enUS449US449&oq=i+yit+ho&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0l3j69i64.2205j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) the pronunciation of which in English garners a juvenile chuckle. There are English terms that translate into something equally silly in foreign languages as well. I know American motor companies have occasionally fielded car lines in foreign nations that fell flat because the name they chose didn't translate well. These are cultural differences that occasionally lead to juvenile humor. While making a stupid jest at the expense of a tragic situation was extremely stupid and those responsible should be held accountable I don't think acting like KTVU is the KKK is quite warranted.
As for the folks thinking its hilarious "this dumb woman" read them out loud, try repeating what's on the teleprompter professionally for a few years before you get too full of yourselves. It's worth a chuckle maybe but insulting her intelligence and trying to build a case for her being a bigot is unfounded. If people can autopilot through leaving their child in a vehicle do die of hyperthermia I think this woman can be cut some slack for auopiloting through a list of names.
-
As for the folks thinking its hilarious "this dumb woman" read them out loud, try repeating what's on the teleprompter professionally for a few years before you get too full of yourselves. It's worth a chuckle maybe but insulting her intelligence and trying to build a case for her being a bigot is unfounded. If people can autopilot through leaving their child in a vehicle do die of hyperthermia I think this woman can be cut some slack for auopiloting through a list of names.
This deserves some attention. I never thought the woman was dumb either, she's paid to read what they put in front her. It's someone else's job to make sure the information is accurate, and that's where the failing was here. I just felt sorry for her. I thought about the way you could get put into autopilot as a newsreader myself, but the part about the kids in cars is a really nice touch.
-
Well, as far as she knew, the crew were called that. A newscaster is not a reporter, in her situation, I'd have read those names, too. That's she's paid to do, afterall, not to question the data she's given. This could (and probably did) raise a few eyebrows, but considering some things newscasters read on a daily basis, it's reasonable to assume she dismissed it as another weird coincidence (as a news anchor, she certainly had her share of those).
-
Remember, this isn't a case of people laughing at someone with a real name that sounds funny in English. This is a case of someone inventing names which aren't real in order to make a joke about Chinese.
An old classmate of mine named Hugh Gerald Rection may disagree with you (he was also not real).
And I think it bears mentioning that the crew were Korean, not Chinese, and the fake names were definitely more Korean-sounding than Chinese. Also, the real relief first officer was named Bong Dong-won. {1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Passengers_and_crew)} So, there's that at least.
-
They're more a mix of the two I'd say. Some of those sounded fairly Cantonese (At least to my untrained ear). Ho for instance is a pretty common Cantonese name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_%28surname%29). I don't think it's a Korean one though. The other characters Li and Fuk are also fairly common in Chinese too.
I'm not so certain, though, that racism can be inferred from not realizing a list of names was racist. That's kind of pushing the line for me. Yes, had she thought for 20 seconds, she might have spotted it, but when you are reading from an autocue, 20 seconds is often not an option.
Who said I was on about the announcer though? I said right at the start that they were going after the wrong people.
Someone made up that list of names. They're the racist. Maybe not a bigot but making up that list of names is racist.
Try watching Chris Rock's bit on the difference between blacks and niggers. The whole thing is incredibly funny but also incredibly racist. You can tell cause you'd be very, very careful about who was around you if you repeated those jokes. Cause there is a good chance people would hear the words you're saying and decide you're a racist.
If you don't think those jokes are also racist, let me ask you something, would you repeat them within earshot of a crowd of Korean and Chinese people you didn't know?
-
I wanted to chime in sooner, but I got a little hacked off at the thread for debating if the names were racist.
I think whoever made up those names offended a lot of people and is culturally insensitive. That is why I believe that racism was involved. Racism does not need to involve a view of a "race" being superior/inferior. Moreover, physical characteristics is not the only thing that defines "race". Culture is hugely important.
The reason this joke is racist is because it is offensive to East Asians. I can imagine many from Korea and China to look at those names and think that they would never romanize their names like that. But that's not the audience of the joke. The joke targets an audience who wouldn't know any better. In this case, everyone else. And since some people in this thread are using American sounding names as a reason to say that the joke isn't racist, it reinforces the idea that Asian names are awkward and phonetic to the sounds cookwares make when thrown down a staircase. Tell me that last statement isn't racist.
On the topic of what possible place these names might be "from", I think the closest thing would be a mix of Hong Kong, Taiwanese, and Chinese romanization of their names. It's far from Korean sounding in my opinion (then again, I'm no expert).
Edit: Furthermore, I think the joke is racist towards East Asians is because it groups East Asia as a single monoculture. Koreans do not have "Chinese" looking names. If anyone called me a Kim, Nguyen, or Miyamoto, I'd be pissed. The fact that many of us compared the joke to English names as puns in TV comedies is surprising. Does English names and German names look the same to us?
-
I think people are too quick on their "RACIST!" accusations to the point of absurdity. Now anchors' own incompetence and ignorance is labeled as "racism"? Are we really aware on how this ridiculous labeling practice is actually undermining and destroying the very meaning of that word?
Or are you just too scared and intimitated of foreigns to ever make fun of their names and have a honest / funny exchange of cultural comic things with them? It almost seems to me that some people here are just too afraid to speak anything about anything, given the risk that one will "offend" some unknown other (with bad taste, clearly) that isn't even here. To say that those names aren't funny in themselves is a pure lie, period. To condemn someone as racist for laughing at them is insane. We should be a lot less frigid in these matters ffs.
-
Now anchors' own incompetence and ignorance is labeled as "racism"?
How much experience do you have professionally reciting the news? Do you know this woman personally and can make an authoritative declaration as to her competence?
-
I don't have to do that. I just have to look at her and see her struggling even to read those names, and she does not seem to even be aware of the idiocy happening. I don't even care what she is thinking or not, I just have to see what happened and what it transpires.
*IF* she was aware of it and if the intent was racist, then not only a racist ****head she would have been, she would also have been incredibly stupid for putting the broadcast channel in that position, and an incredible actor by portraying a clueless idiot who can't even bring herself to read properly the joke on screen. Why pressupose all these unprobable things? Assuming incompetence / lazyness / fast-pacing of news is sufficient to explain everything that happened on screen.
IDK if this is true but I heard it was a summer intern that "confirmed" these names. He was a smart jackass, but he did manage to make a big prank on TV. Probably unemployed by now.
-
I don't have to do that. I just have to look at her and see her struggling even to read those names, and she does not seem to even be aware of the idiocy happening. I don't even care what she is thinking or not, I just have to see what happened and what it transpires.
I'm not sure what footage you're referring to, every one I've seen simply shows the list graphic while she reads them.
-
I don't have to do that. I just have to look at her and see her struggling even to read those names, and she does not seem to even be aware of the idiocy happening. I don't even care what she is thinking or not, I just have to see what happened and what it transpires.
I'm not sure what footage you're referring to, every one I've seen simply shows the list graphic while she reads them.
She struggles over the names in the way anyone would with unfamiliar names. That's a big part of the reason this happens, because she's not reading them fast enough for the hidden English phrase to come out properly. That and her brain is obviously fully engaged in just reading them out. I hope nothing happens/happened to her. She was just doing her job.
Further back in the thread we have this:
I get the first and the third name, but what's the pun in the second and fourth ones?
And he knows it's a joke and is looking for the meanings, and has time to think about it. She didn't know it was a joke, nor did she have time to think about it.
Personally I think anyone who still believes she is stupid and/or incompetant is being very harsh. I feel sorry for her.
-
If you don't think those jokes are also racist, let me ask you something, would you repeat them within earshot of a crowd of Korean and Chinese people you didn't know?
This here is a loaded question. I wouldn't use the joke, but because it's a sick joke, not a racist one.
-
My 2 cents:
It's only racist if it offends someone.
Everyone wants to be offended.
Ergo, everyone is racist.
So I assume these (http://media.gunaxin.com/cyrus-caught-making-slanty-eyes/11237) pictures (http://www.thevine.com.au/sport/news/spanish-team-make-slanty-eye-boo-boo/) are just about the Western perception of Chinese eyes, and also not racist?
Are Nikon cameras racist, then? (http://nehkkuh-discussion-forum.28153.x6.nabble.com/file/n123/did-someone-blink-asian-camera.jpg)
-
Ah yes, I looked at that and I didn't think it was racist.
And also, I wouldn't have been in the least offended if I saw a shot of an Asian Olympic team doing the same thing only to make their eyes "round" in order to be "ready" for London 2012. It's all in good natured fun.
-
They're more a mix of the two I'd say. Some of those sounded fairly Cantonese (At least to my untrained ear). Ho for instance is a pretty common Cantonese name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_%28surname%29). I don't think it's a Korean one though. The other characters Li and Fuk are also fairly common in Chinese too.
I'm not so certain, though, that racism can be inferred from not realizing a list of names was racist. That's kind of pushing the line for me. Yes, had she thought for 20 seconds, she might have spotted it, but when you are reading from an autocue, 20 seconds is often not an option.
Who said I was on about the announcer though? I said right at the start that they were going after the wrong people.
Someone made up that list of names. They're the racist. Maybe not a bigot but making up that list of names is racist.
Try watching Chris Rock's bit on the difference between blacks and niggers. The whole thing is incredibly funny but also incredibly racist. You can tell cause you'd be very, very careful about who was around you if you repeated those jokes. Cause there is a good chance people would hear the words you're saying and decide you're a racist.
If you don't think those jokes are also racist, let me ask you something, would you repeat them within earshot of a crowd of Korean and Chinese people you didn't know?
To be honest, the comment that caused me concern was from Zacam :
So while the newscaster may not necessarily be a racist individual, racism is still present in the fact that she didn't engage her brain well enough to clue in to the fact that "wait a minute..." and as such, is passively racist by complicity.
I don't consider her even passively racist, her job involves reading out all sorts of 'weird' names from all over the world. It could almost be argued that failing to see the intent behind the joke (for want of a better word) makes her less racist because she wasn't even thinking along those lines regarding them.
Edit : I think the problem here is that the guns are being pointed at the messenger. That list of names didn't come from the News Station, the names they received were confirmed by a seperate authority. The News station simply said those names, even if they did smell a rat, they genuinely believed in their confirmation and managed to make the report without any attempt of making light of those names even if there were suspicions.
Thing is, if the situation had been reversed, and an Oriental person on the news had a name that was translatable to something humorous in English, and then people turned around and said 'That HAS to be a fake name, it's too ridiculous to be real', then THAT would be branded as racist as well..
-
Yes, I also find Zacam's accusation of "inherently racist" even if one is unconscious or ignorant about it is, I think, rather over-the-top criteria for racism. People see racism everywhere. It's like a favorite hammer of a sorts, and then everything appears like a nail.
-
I think this whole debacle is the by product of a general ignorance regarding Asian names, a particularly ballsy intern looking for a laugh who probably didn't think he'd be taken seriously, and the tasteless sod who put the names forward to begin with.
I'll admit that I laughed when I saw the clip because I thought it was simply hilarious that not only one bad pun got through, but four. One can be seen as a funny coincidence, two at a stretch. But with four at once, someone should have asked for a second confirmation from a different "Official"
-
I think this whole debacle is the by product of a general ignorance regarding Asian names, a particularly ballsy intern looking for a laugh who probably didn't think he'd be taken seriously, and the tasteless sod who put the names forward to begin with.
And this is my point. The tasteless sod's joke is racist because it is tasteless and offensive.
I never blamed the anchorwoman for the record. It's not her fault that she read those names and weren't familiar with them. I don't expect everyone to know how to pronounce every culture's names.
-
I think the context does have to be considered as well with these things, for example, Monty Python frequently relied on bastardizations of English or Latin names for comedic effect. I don't think things like 'Biggus Dickus', for example are created with intent to insult to Roman Empire (after all, what have they ever done for us?) just as a comedic tool. However, there's a time and a place and a way to do it, and picking on languages that are extinct is one such way ;)
Edit : And to clarify, the News broadcast is very much the wrong time, place and arena for it. but I think the question of whether it is outright racist or merely ignorant, hurtful and inconsiderate is maybe more complex than simply Yes/No.
-
Yes, I also find Zacam's accusation of "inherently racist" even if one is unconscious or ignorant about it is, I think, rather over-the-top criteria for racism. People see racism everywhere. It's like a favorite hammer of a sorts, and then everything appears like a nail.
I think you're failing to distinguish between an act that is racist, and a person who is a racist. If I copy and paste something from someone else into this post and don't notice that I've included the bit later on where the guy goes into a racist diatribe, then I've posted something racist, but that doesn't necessarily make me a racist.
The announcer and perhaps even the entire station are in that situation. I tend to agree with most people here that the mistake isn't the announcers fault. She's simply seeing the names on the autocue and reading them out. Even if part of her brain does start cluing her in that the list is suspect, what was she going to do? Stop reading the names out on live TV because she suspects she's being pranked? Pretty unprofessional to do that and even if she did stop, what if by some weird coincidence those names were real? Then she'd have an even bigger problem to face.
I do think someone at the station should have caught the issue, but anyone who knows how a newsroom works should see that it's possible that the names came in while the report was already on air and were quickly added to the report. There are many reasons why it's quite possible that they never had the time we have to notice something was horribly wrong with that list of names.
Returning to the list itself. Yeah, of course the list is racist. The person behind it might not be. He might just think it was funny and not realise that there are quite a few people who have seen this sort of joke too many times. That sort of thing happens all the time. A joke which works with a small number of people can be offensive if reported to a wider public. Politicians and other public figures fall foul of this sort of thing all the time.
What I'm surprised by is the number of people who are basically saying to anyone who is offended by it, "You shouldn't be offended by this slur against people of your ethnicity, it's just a funny joke. The fact that it assumes that Chinese and Koreans are the same, shouldn't be offensive to you. No one has said anything directly racist to you so therefore you should go get a sense of humour about being insulted."
Are Nikon cameras racist, then?
Google seems to think so. (http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=nikon+cameras+racist&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) :p
-
i think this entire conversation is mired in the ambiguity and cultural baggage of the word 'racism'
-
That's pretty much how every bloody argument around here is started.
-
I suppose the thing is, on the Colbert sketch he comes up with more Korean names that are working on the very same trick, only executed with the 'right' sort of name-structure. He also projects it from a position of obvious satire, his show is unabashedly satirical in nature. Because of that, that kind of thing is tolerated more because it is being presented from a 'you were warned' standpoint.
I think confusing Chinese names with Korean names is ignorant, and I can even understand how it could be considered casual racism, but never leave too small a margin for just 'dumb'. I'd consider it more of a cultural faux-pas than an act of casual racism, it's not really assigning a stereotype based on an assumption, more a case of simply not knowing the difference between the two cultures names.
Edit : And I'll note, a Cultural Faux Pas is not anything less offensive and unpleasant than Racism is, I'm not trying to play down the act, I simply have concerns that, as far as the name thing was concerned, it seems missing the barb of intent, and assumption based more on simple lack of knowledge than anything I could define as hurtful. I suppose it could be argued that the ignorance is not a defence, or even that it was the tool with which the Racism was implemented, but I'm not sure it is feasible for every person to understand every structure of every naming system, which is what would be required in order to avoid it.
I do see Karas' concern, of some intern thinking to himself 'I need some Korean names' and then just grabbing 'Asian Sounding' words out of the air, I can see how that is belittling to bundle all Asian cultures up into one, when there are vast differences between them, but I suspect he was no more aware that he was making Chinese names than he was aware he was not making Korean ones.
-
Yeah, I suppose that's a fair way of looking at it. Like I said, I tend to see a distinction between the list itself (obviously racist) and the person behind it who is just ignorant of the racist connotations of his list (and who probably would say he's not racist and use many of the same arguments people on this thread have used).
I should point out that I haven't seen Colbert's video cause I'm traveling and unable to view Youtube videos at the moment. I do think you can make racist jokes and not offend people of that race. It really does depend on the context. That's one reason why I mentioned Chris Rock's stand up. Since he's black he could get away with a lot of that stuff. A white comedian could get away with it if people knew he wasn't racist but without context it could easily be seen as very, very racist.
Which brings us back to the news report. You have a white newsreader, reading out a list of racist names on a news report about a plane crash where people died. Of course that's going to come off as racist.
Still, all said and done, at least the newsreader involved in this can remind herself that there's another newsreader who did a worse job (http://shanghaiist.com/2013/07/08/korean_newscaster_calls_chinese_asiana_airlines_deaths_a_relief.php) with the same news story. :p
-
Since hours after my post and reading what you said, I noticed I've been saying that the joke is racist. I guess I assumed that unconsciously.
-
The annoying thing is, it kind of feels racist, but what I think it actually is, is the globalization of the homophonic pun.
I think we need to evaluate very carefully whether a play on words based on the fact that two words sound the same but mean different things is racist if different languages are involved, because it's going to be discovered more and more often. For example, Spanish speaking countries find car names such as the Mazda LaPuta or the Chevrolet Nova hilarious, because they mean 'The Whore' and 'It Doesn't Go' respectively (so I suppose from a Spanish perspective, the term Supernova is kind of like the exact opposite from what is actually happening).
That doesn't mean that the pun in this case wasn't sick, disrespectful and entirely uncalled for, just that I think that this 'feels' more racist than it actually is.
-
Well well, what do we have here...
I suppose the thing is, on the Colbert sketch he comes up with more Korean names that are working on the very same trick, only executed with the 'right' sort of name-structure. He also projects it from a position of obvious satire, his show is unabashedly satirical in nature. Because of that, that kind of thing is tolerated more because it is being presented from a 'you were warned' standpoint.
I think confusing Chinese names with Korean names is ignorant, and I can even understand how it could be considered casual racism, but never leave too small a margin for just 'dumb'. I'd consider it more of a cultural faux-pas than an act of casual racism, it's not really assigning a stereotype based on an assumption, more a case of simply not knowing the difference between the two cultures names.
Edit : And I'll note, a Cultural Faux Pas is not anything less offensive and unpleasant than Racism is, I'm not trying to play down the act, I simply have concerns that, as far as the name thing was concerned, it seems missing the barb of intent, and assumption based more on simple lack of knowledge than anything I could define as hurtful. I suppose it could be argued that the ignorance is not a defence, or even that it was the tool with which the Racism was implemented, but I'm not sure it is feasible for every person to understand every structure of every naming system, which is what would be required in order to avoid it.
I do see Karas' concern, of some intern thinking to himself 'I need some Korean names' and then just grabbing 'Asian Sounding' words out of the air, I can see how that is belittling to bundle all Asian cultures up into one, when there are vast differences between them, but I suspect he was no more aware that he was making Chinese names than he was aware he was not making Korean ones.
Yeah, I suppose that's a fair way of looking at it. Like I said, I tend to see a distinction between the list itself (obviously racist) and the person behind it who is just ignorant of the racist connotations of his list (and who probably would say he's not racist and use many of the same arguments people on this thread have used).
I should point out that I haven't seen Colbert's video cause I'm traveling and unable to view Youtube videos at the moment. I do think you can make racist jokes and not offend people of that race. It really does depend on the context. That's one reason why I mentioned Chris Rock's stand up. Since he's black he could get away with a lot of that stuff. A white comedian could get away with it if people knew he wasn't racist but without context it could easily be seen as very, very racist.
Which brings us back to the news report. You have a white newsreader, reading out a list of racist names on a news report about a plane crash where people died. Of course that's going to come off as racist.
Still, all said and done, at least the newsreader involved in this can remind herself that there's another newsreader who did a worse job (http://shanghaiist.com/2013/07/08/korean_newscaster_calls_chinese_asiana_airlines_deaths_a_relief.php) with the same news story. :p
Do my eyes deceive me? People actually *gasp* listening to each other and being friendly, on a topic about racism? There's hope for this place yet! :nod:
For me, I'm with Flipside all the way. That's exactly how I feel and for me it's the best post on this whole discussion. Brilliant post, Flipside. And Karajorma, I guess you and I started this whole thing off, and I am happy with your post too.
The annoying thing is, it kind of feels racist, but what I think it actually is, is the globalization of the homophonic pun.
I think we need to evaluate very carefully whether a play on words based on the fact that two words sound the same but mean different things is racist if different languages are involved, because it's going to be discovered more and more often. For example, Spanish speaking countries find car names such as the Mazda LaPuta or the Chevrolet Nova hilarious, because they mean 'The Whore' and 'It Doesn't Go' respectively.
That doesn't mean that the pun in this case wasn't sick, disrespectful and entirely uncalled for, just that I think that this 'feels' more racist than it actually is.
For me, it never felt racist, but the reason is precisely what you've been saying. I've also come to understand better why others might see it as racist, when in the beginning, I couldn't understand it at all.
In fact, with one notable exception, everyone in this thread has argued their points in a good, genuine spirit and with an open mind for me. I sincerely hope they too have learned something from this and feel the same way I do about the way this has gone. Isn't it nice to have a thread of this nature actually be productive? Who'd have thunk it? :lol: :D
-
Well, in truth there is a subtle difference, as in a lot of presumptions are made about what constitutes an 'Asian Sounding Name', If someone were to ask me whether thinking that picking whatever phonetic you liked out of the air constituted naming an Asian person was casual racism, I'd be on less solid ground, so to say the pun itself is entirely without racism is not something I could comfortably answer. Someone feeling that they can approach a culture in that manner is kind of blurring the line between Faux-Pas and Casual Racism. But then, in a similar manner there is the 'psuedo-swedish' of the Swedish Chef, is that inherently racist, or just parody?
As I said before, I think it's more complex than Yes/No.
-
It comes down to the intent behind it at the end of the day, doesn't it. And for me, there was no racist intent. Oh, I think there was malice, but in terms of racism, no.
-
The thing that complicates matters is that Casual Racism doesn't always have an intent, but the other thing about Casual Racism as I understand it, is that it has an impact.
For example, staying on the subject of names, there is absolutely an impact on the chances of getting a job interview depending on your name in the UK, someone with a name like 'Graham' or 'Simon' is far more likely in most cases to get a job interview than someone called 'Abdul' or 'Njembe', so much so that people have actually changed their names by deed poll to improve their chances of getting a job. This wasn't an intentional act by employers, as such, just an over-arching passive effect caused by sub-conscious racism.
I suppose, in summary it's the sort of thing that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, the way and time this was presented makes it a rather insulting sledgehammer bought down in the middle of a very sad event, and it's obvious that passions run high about the matter. This, from a cultural interaction viewpoint, is something we should at least be aware of.
-
For example, staying on the subject of names, there is absolutely an impact on the chances of getting a job interview depending on your name in the UK, someone with a name like 'Graham' or 'Simon' is far more likely in most cases to get a job interview than someone called 'Abdul' or 'Njembe', so much so that people have actually changed their names by deed poll to improve their chances of getting a job. This wasn't an intentional act by employers, as such, just an over-arching passive effect caused by sub-conscious racism.
Wouldn't this be fully conscious and intentional racism? A person's name is completely irrelevant, only their credentials.
-
Never underestimate a humans ability to falsely justify their own actions to themselves without even realizing they are doing it ;)
People will make all sort of reasons to not interview someone without even realizing that the name at the top made them look for those reasons in the first place. It's one of the reasons less and less details are needed on a CV, because all sorts of information can subconsciously affect the decision-making system.
It's a situation that is present in several countries, some countries have a 'Nationals First' policy, which is slightly different, but the UK does still have a problem with this kind of casual racism.
-
Well, I do know the problem itself is very real regardless of what is behind it.
I'd like to think I'd be completely impartial if I was ever interviewing people. It certainly makes sense, I'd simply want the best person for the job, and everything else would be completely irrelevant. That's what I firmly believe consciously anyway.
-
I'd like to think I'd be completely impartial if I was ever interviewing people. It certainly makes sense, I'd simply want the best person for the job, and everything else would be completely irrelevant. That's what I firmly believe consciously anyway.
You won't be, however. You will be biased all through the process, and you will not be able to separate personal issues from objective ones during the interview.
It is utterly impossible for human beings to evaluate other human beings based on objective criteria alone.
(Hint: Just like your claim to be uninfluenced by advertising, this is more hope than actual reality, and actually opens you up to some nasty pitfalls in terms of your ability to evaluate your own decisions)
-
I'd like to think I'd be completely impartial if I was ever interviewing people. It certainly makes sense, I'd simply want the best person for the job, and everything else would be completely irrelevant. That's what I firmly believe consciously anyway.
You won't be, however. You will be biased all through the process, and you will not be able to separate personal issues from objective ones during the interview.
It is utterly impossible for human beings to evaluate other human beings based on objective criteria alone.
(Hint: Just like your claim to be uninfluenced by advertising, this is more hope than actual reality, and actually opens you up to some nasty pitfalls in terms of your ability to evaluate your own decisions)
I am supremely confident about the advertising thing. I've never been burned by advertisements.
However, I could not say with certainty I would be completely objective as an interviewer, even though I have strong beliefs on the merits of such an attitude to life. Everyone forms creeping positive and negative associations.
What pitfalls?
-
Well, let's take the advertising thing. You're saying "I won't be swayed by advertising, ever" means that you've already convinced yourself of your immunity, and that means that any objective evaluation you do of your own decision making has to overcome that particular bias.
Same thing with saying "I'd simply want the best person for the job, and everything else would be completely irrelevant.". You've already biased yourself towards evaluating your actual decisions in a certain way.
EDIT: I am not saying I, or anyone really, is free of these biases, of these attitudes and assumptions we carry around in our heads. The difference is whether we blindly accept this, or whether we actually make an effort to understand what's going on inside our minds.
-
Oh, I never said that. I've never claimed to be able to predict the future like that, only that so far I've been safe. There's no reason not to be confident in my ability to stay safe.
I would put a heavy emphasis on trying to be objective. That's what I can promise. It's a strong belief of mine. I'll give anyone a chance in life.
-
I suppose a good example of the risk would actually involve my stance on the Nationals-First policy. It is policy which is nationalistic in it's most literal form, if Racism is discrimination on the basis of race, then the most literal form of Nationalism is the same thing on basis of Nation.
The Conservative side of me can see how this makes a kind of sense, those that play the more active role in the countries well-being should be first to be considered to get returns from it.
The Liberal side of me is perfectly aware of the fact that, as a white, middle-aged man who was born here, casual racism may well be playing a role in that opinion.
The Socialist side of me has grave doubts about supporting any kind of system that divides people up by 'worthiness'
The truth is, I will never, ever truly know which side is actually the truth, I can only be aware that all three positions exist.
-
Yes, I also find Zacam's accusation of "inherently racist" even if one is unconscious or ignorant about it is, I think, rather over-the-top criteria for racism. People see racism everywhere. It's like a favorite hammer of a sorts, and then everything appears like a nail.
I think you're failing to distinguish between an act that is racist, and a person who is a racist. If I copy and paste something from someone else into this post and don't notice that I've included the bit later on where the guy goes into a racist diatribe, then I've posted something racist, but that doesn't necessarily make me a racist.
And I think you failed to notice that the failure of distinguishing precisely that was Zacam's, not mine. One question is if the prank is racist. I for one think that idea is just bull****. But even if we were to agree on that, I would still think Zacam's criteria completely over the top precisely for the reasons you outlined so eloquently up here.
Returning to the list itself. Yeah, of course the list is racist.
I just absolutely disagree. I think we are getting nowhere here. Look, of course I understand the gripes one korean might have by being "confused" by a chinese (and we would then have to diagnose whether if that "gripe" wasn't also racist by itself! AH, now we would be getting deeper), just as I experience it myself many many times in the internets where people confuse me for a spanish and keep calling me Luiz Diaz or some form of that. Do I take it as "racist"? That would be immensely stupid on my part. I don't expect people to learn every single foreign culture's idiossincracies! I do get annoyed, but I do understand.
And so should you. The prank was bad taste, but it wasn't racist.
I think we should just agree to disagree perhaps.
-
Is there any hope of this thread moving on from this particular point? Because it seems to me that it's getting rather shouty in here.
-
So, I can't figure out if this is real or not, but it's hilarious nonetheless.
clicky. (http://slothed.com/2013/07/23/korean-news-station-pokes-fun-at-ktvu-with-fake-american-pilot-names-after-southwest-airlines-landing-gear-failure/)
Also begs the question, now that the shoe is on the other foot: is it racist? If it isn't, why not?
-
So, I can't figure out if this is real or not, but it's hilarious nonetheless.
clicky. (http://slothed.com/2013/07/23/korean-news-station-pokes-fun-at-ktvu-with-fake-american-pilot-names-after-southwest-airlines-landing-gear-failure/)
Also begs the question, now that the shoe is on the other foot: is it racist? If it isn't, why not?
Apparently it is a Korean joke news station. Kind of like the Onion.
-
So, not real, at least. Latter question still stands.
-
Also begs the question, now that the shoe is on the other foot: is it racist? If it isn't, why not?
I suspect that there are a few Americans in Korea who would be annoyed about it, given how racist Koreans can be about foreigners.
-
Personally I think it's hilarious, and completely non-offensive. So no, I don't think that's racist.
-
I think it's racist and I think it's hilarious. I appreciate the effort of the Koreans to make puns in a foreign language. :p
-
*reads list* :lol:
'American' isn't really a race, and naming is a cultural thing, so I don't think it's racist.
Hard to really know without meeting the writers, though.
-
Try living in a country where everyone who is white is considered to be the same and you'd soon realise how wrong that comment is.
What you're failing to consider is that you're using the American cultural perceptions where we consider someone who is a white American to be someone from a different culture from someone who is white Canadian. In China (and I'm sure Korea) this is not necessarily true. If you're not Chinese in China you are waiguoren and therefore are all very similar. I've never been to Korea but I've heard the same concept pretty much exists over there.
I remember an occasion where a friend of mine was asked to communicate with some Russians since they couldn't speak Chinese. Upon attempting to talk to them, he found they couldn't speak English either. His friends however were puzzled that he couldn't just speak "white" to them. Was that meant in a nasty fashion? No. Was it racist to assume that he could communicate with them just cause he was white? Yeah, of course it was.
In China (and probably Korea) exposure to Western culture is mainly exposure to American culture. As a result anyone from outside China is considered to be like Americans. Especially, but not limited to, white people. It's the exact mirror of the point I made earlier that people are often largely ignorant of the massive cultural differences between Chinese people and Koreans.
The author of this joke (Which I'm not saying wasn't amusing) is probably educated enough to know the difference since the joke is in English rather than a joke where the name sounds funny in Korean. But it would be interesting to see what would have happened had the plane been French or German and someone was trying to make a joke in Korean.
-
I remember an occasion where a friend of mine was asked to communicate with some Russians since they couldn't speak Chinese. Upon attempting to talk to them, he found they couldn't speak English either. His friends however were puzzled that he couldn't just speak "white" to them. Was that meant in a nasty fashion? No. Was it racist to assume that he could communicate with them just cause he was white? Yeah, of course it was.
I don't call this racism. I call it ignorance. It's not racism, they just didn't know any better. I wonder what others think.
-
You do realise that racism is largely based on ignorance, right?
Pretty much any racist view can simply be waved away with "Well that's just ignorant." What makes so objectionable isn't the ignorance, but the degree of nastiness involved in not being willing to learn the truth. Bigots would rather repeat their ignorant views than learn the truth about why they are wrong.
-
That is quite good Kara, it gives us a hint where we could separate the good racist jokes from the bad ones: the formers expose the current ignorance of people about other ethnics, etc. and make us laugh about our own ignorance, etc., while the "bad ones" just delight on racist stereotypes, reinforce and further establish them as true, etc.
This is probably why people didn't call Colbert's gig racist, for example.
-
I'm a little reluctant to wade into this thread, but there's a point that kara is touching on (but no stating explicitly) that needs elaboration.
The quote that Lorric has just asserted is not racist very much is.
What those of you who don't think the flight joke was 'racist' are missing is that racism comes in several forms (list not exhaustive; note that exampels are merely that and do not reflect my personal beliefs):
1. Nasty, intentional racism (also called explicit racism) where the differences between 'races' are used as a means of ridicule, demeaning, or justification for negative treatment of a particular racial group. Example: "Blacks are stupid and usually criminals."
2. Implicit racism - internalized or systemic beliefs ingrained within a person concerning differences between races. Basically, the existence of stereotypes about racial groups. EVERYONE has some implicitly racist beliefs - these are a human heuristic shortcut, but we recognize that they are not generally valid. These can be positive or negative. Example: "Asians are smart."
3. Intentional racism not intended to cause harm - This is where jokes like the names of the flight crew fit. The joke would not be funny without the specific association of the phonetic sound and spelling of names of Koreans or Chinese and the way they sound funny to English-speaking people. It highlights a difference between people purely based on racial characteristics (e.g. it would not have been as amusing had the names been listed as flight crew for a British airline, for example). Mocking of particular Asian accents - specifically where "L" is pronounced as "R" - like in one of the Lethal Weapon films, or like the Kim Jong-Il meme blog feed - are another example. They aren't intended to be malicious, but it's still racism.
All of these things are racist - racism is merely the arbitrary association of visual characteristics of a 'race' with certain stereotypes. It doesn't mean it's always harmful, or always ill-intentioned, but it can be. Like I said earlier, everyone has some racist beliefs whether they realize it or not (especially people who make statements like "I don't see colour.")
-
There is something really wrong about the sweeping over-generalization that MP outlines up here, but I can't quite put my finger on to it. It sounds rigorous and semantically correct, etc., but it feels overwhelmingly wrong. Such a lack of tolerance in that kind of criteria would render *any* joke racist or something socially equivalent (like "mysoginist" or "denigrating youth" or "descriminating profession X" or whatever other prejudice). If this is the case, and I wouldn't exactly be against this point per se, then the accusation renders itself somewhat moot and pointless: it's just a description of what jokes themselves are.
To me, when someone describes a certain joke as being racist, I know it in two forms: either it's an obvious harmless point about the particular joke, or it's an accusation that something was out of order. However, when I read these accusations I always take it to be the latter. Perhaps that's a mistake of mine, but you see the point, if someone is saying Joke X is racist, he's most probably accusing the joke to be socially harmful and that it should be shunned, etc. If this is the case, then having sweeping generalizations like MP's is not useful here for then all jokes are shunned.
And I ****ing love jokes. So there!
-
Try living in a country where everyone who is white is considered to be the same and you'd soon realise how wrong that comment is.
What you're failing to consider is that you're using the American cultural perceptions where we consider someone who is a white American to be someone from a different culture from someone who is white Canadian. In China (and I'm sure Korea) this is not necessarily true. If you're not Chinese in China you are waiguoren and therefore are all very similar. I've never been to Korea but I've heard the same concept pretty much exists over there.
I remember an occasion where a friend of mine was asked to communicate with some Russians since they couldn't speak Chinese. Upon attempting to talk to them, he found they couldn't speak English either. His friends however were puzzled that he couldn't just speak "white" to them. Was that meant in a nasty fashion? No. Was it racist to assume that he could communicate with them just cause he was white? Yeah, of course it was.
In China (and probably Korea) exposure to Western culture is mainly exposure to American culture. As a result anyone from outside China is considered to be like Americans. Especially, but not limited to, white people. It's the exact mirror of the point I made earlier that people are often largely ignorant of the massive cultural differences between Chinese people and Koreans.
I think it would be correct to call that racism, though of a relatively minor sort. They are applying the same ethnic characteristics to all white people.
The author of this joke (Which I'm not saying wasn't amusing) is probably educated enough to know the difference since the joke is in English rather than a joke where the name sounds funny in Korean. But it would be interesting to see what would have happened had the plane been French or German and someone was trying to make a joke in Korean.
On the other hand, this particular joke is based on cultural differences, not racial features like skin color. Thus, it is not inherently racist, provided the speaker understands that not every white person shares that culture.
-
There is something really wrong about the sweeping over-generalization that MP outlines up here, but I can't quite put my finger on to it. It sounds rigorous and semantically correct, etc., but it feels overwhelmingly wrong. Such a lack of tolerance in that kind of criteria would render *any* joke racist or something socially equivalent (like "mysoginist" or "denigrating youth" or "descriminating profession X" or whatever other prejudice). If this is the case, and I wouldn't exactly be against this point per se, then the accusation renders itself somewhat moot and pointless: it's just a description of what jokes themselves are.
To me, when someone describes a certain joke as being racist, I know it in two forms: either it's an obvious harmless point about the particular joke, or it's an accusation that something was out of order. However, when I read these accusations I always take it to be the latter. Perhaps that's a mistake of mine, but you see the point, if someone is saying Joke X is racist, he's most probably accusing the joke to be socially harmful and that it should be shunned, etc. If this is the case, then having sweeping generalizations like MP's is not useful here for then all jokes are shunned.
And I ****ing love jokes. So there!
I might know what you mean, I don't know. For me, the word racism has always meant wrong, often deeply wrong. That if you use it on someone, it's a grave accusation. I've never seen it used any other way, and I guess I don't like that. It's such a strong word, I don't like seeing it used on things that might be harmless. The thought process for me would basically go Is it wrong? and then if the answer to that question is yes, Is it racist? And if there's another yes, then it's racist to me. And that probably applies to all forms of "ist" with me.
-
You do realise that racism is largely based on ignorance, right?
Pretty much any racist view can simply be waved away with "Well that's just ignorant." What makes so objectionable isn't the ignorance, but the degree of nastiness involved in not being willing to learn the truth. Bigots would rather repeat their ignorant views than learn the truth about why they are wrong.
This... seems wrong. Racism, in my book, is a *sense of superiority* over people from a different race. TBH, I don't see ignorance having anything to do with it at all. I've studied and worked with people from all over the world, about whose countries of origin (India, China, Iran, Syria, Guyana, Togo, to name a few) I know very little - but I have always treated them as equals, and AFAIK, I have never been perceived as racist. On the other end of the spectrum, I think everyone can agree that South Africa's apartheid regime was absolutely racist; and with all the international pressure on them, the ruling party must have known full well what they were doing. So really, I don't see any link between ignorance and racism.
-
This... seems wrong. Racism, in my book, is a *sense of superiority* over people from a different race.
Why would you assume a false superiority, save for being ignorant?
-
I might know what you mean, I don't know. For me, the word racism has always meant wrong, often deeply wrong. That if you use it on someone, it's a grave accusation. I've never seen it used any other way, and I guess I don't like that. It's such a strong word, I don't like seeing it used on things that might be harmless. The thought process for me would basically go Is it wrong? and then if the answer to that question is yes, Is it racist? And if there's another yes, then it's racist to me. And that probably applies to all forms of "ist" with me.
The semantic and sociological definition of racism does not explicitly denote 'harm.' Some forms of racism are outrageously wrong, but all of us maintain at least some racist beliefs (whether we care to admit it or not). Acknowledging that something is mildly racist does not imply the speaker is inherently a bad person.
You're using only the definition of explicit racism as your operational definition; that is only one part of racism, generally.
-
I think the whole idea that racism stems from ignorance is very dangerous, borderline inherently racist by itself. I understand the idea behind it: "If only everyone knew how closely related we all are, we would all forgo racism and welcome everyone as our true brothers and sisters, etc". Well, that is kinda dangerous, for it naturalizes the argument. Imagine that we would find that actually blacks were dumber than whites, that jews were smarter than everyone else, that chinese were better at something than the whites not for cultural but for genetic reasons.
By proclaiming that racism stems from empirical truths, one exposes himself to this kind of naturalistic lottery. What if nature is way more racist than we would like it to be? Would then racism be justified? I don't think so. I happen to think that racism should be fought in idealistic terms, in utopian terms, and not in naturalistic ones. Because then you are rendered trapped within this scientific shenanigans "Well there's this peer-reviewed paper that tells us that whites are genetic superior to blacks in this way and the other...". No. This line of reasoning should be closed off from the get go. Never allow this kind of justification even enter the possibility of debate.
-
The problem with that is there is no scientific basis for it, so arguing from the possibility of some future basis is inherently flawed.
But then so is arguing on the basis of creating some future utopia. We are, to borrow a phrase from a group that has tried that, all post-millennials here. The Soviet Union promised a communist utopia if only all would work towards it a little longer, a little harder; but it never came. The 1920s believed that if everyone would just try a little harder and believe a little harder, the US could end society's ills and live in peace and harmony; instead they got Prohibition's rampant criminality, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. Everyone wanted to turn back the clock to Rome during the Middle Ages, but creating the Holy Roman Empire didn't make things better.
Utopia never comes through. We as a species know that by now. You can only lead people along by the nose with the promise of the Glorious Future for a little while. If you want permanency, you need to turn to something more than pure idealism. For idealism always yields to reality.
-
I think either you missed my point or you failed to think it through. Again, your reasoning boils down to "Empiricism tells us racism is false", and you are relieved that this is the case. You also say some ignorant things about the very concept of Utopia (the very idea of utopia is precisely that it is unattainable by design, but nevertheless you strive for it. To say that utopia is never reachable isn't exactly an intelligent criticism of it).
What you fail to grasp is that by reasoning in this manner, you fall prey to the scientific contingencies of each era. To say that we have no empirical evidence for genetic differences in humans is ignorant itself. There have been a lot of tentative hypothesis and many correlation studies that claim that this is in fact the case ("The Bell Curve" as a recent example of this), but the people who try to porsue or develop this kind of reasoning are usually shunned for racist ideas (and I think this shunning exercise, while slightly anti-scientific, is healthy in a sense). It is also a dead give away: If the scientific evidence was actually undeniably giving us the idea that we have indeed genetic differences that make a certain color more this or that or the other, then I am left with the idea that you would be a racist, for that would be where the evidence was driving you.
But the problem of racism isn't empirical, isn't about facts. It's about values. And values, however informed by facts, are never derived from facts. They are always derived from other values. This is why utopia is valuable: it is about the world you want to live in, not the world where you live in. This is why the fight against racism is an idealistic struggle, not a scientific one.
Another example: egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is, empirically speaking, an absurdity. People are different, period. But the ideal of egalitarianism is not about possibilities or facts or physics or whatever. It's about an utopian drive ideal that guides our values towards the society we want to live in. (These ideals are always brought down by facts and brute physics, etc., but that's a given).
-
I think the whole idea that racism stems from ignorance is very dangerous, borderline inherently racist by itself. I understand the idea behind it: "If only everyone knew how closely related we all are, we would all forgo racism and welcome everyone as our true brothers and sisters, etc". Well, that is kinda dangerous, for it naturalizes the argument. Imagine that we would find that actually blacks were dumber than whites, that jews were smarter than everyone else, that chinese were better at something than the whites not for cultural but for genetic reasons.
By proclaiming that racism stems from empirical truths, one exposes himself to this kind of naturalistic lottery. What if nature is way more racist than we would like it to be? Would then racism be justified? I don't think so. I happen to think that racism should be fought in idealistic terms, in utopian terms, and not in naturalistic ones. Because then you are rendered trapped within this scientific shenanigans "Well there's this peer-reviewed paper that tells us that whites are genetic superior to blacks in this way and the other...". No. This line of reasoning should be closed off from the get go. Never allow this kind of justification even enter the possibility of debate.
But racism does stem from ignorance. A lot of racial stereotypes are cultural differences that were exaggerated and written off to race when there were many other, much more plausible explanations that were not considered because people wanted to feel superior to others. Supremacy should be combated on a scientific and logical level as well as a moral one.
I can immediately think of a wide variety of situations where whites have proven themselves just as capable of stupidity, superstition, and barbarism as Africans, Asians or any other race. A whole chunk of the white countries remain nearly as bad, and they were once far worse. The white Europeans, despite their scientific progress, had a more savage culture than the Native Americans.
It is not at all uncommon for individuals of the same race to be very different from each other, and very similar to people of other races. Now, people can argue about genetics all day long, but they are absolutely not the whole story. Environment is a very important factor, even in intellectual development. Someone growing up in poverty with crappy schooling and gunshots outside their house every night and exposure to negative racial stereotypes about themselves is inherently disadvantaged compared to a middle-class person of a race that holds cultural advantages and is seen as very intelligent by the larger society.
I can see all these things because I have examined many racist arguments, and found them lacking. I will not claim to be completely immune to stereotyping, but I have the knowledge to recognize them for what they are and make a conscious effort to reject them, which is a necessity for someone as surrounded by racism as me.
Without a logical basis, belief in equality is only emotional, and thus fragile. That's one of the problems with America's race relations--we rarely hear racial bigotry challenged except on moral grounds. There is no understanding of its logical failings. A white supremacist can, by playing to cultural prejudices and utilizing pseudoscientific arguments, appear more intelligent and reasonable than his opponents. It is thus neccesary for anti-racists to have arguments beyond simple insults.
EDIT: Note that I am not using racism in its most inclusive and broad sense, because then the word becomes useless.
-
You know, when you think about it, every family could be thought of as its own race. Perhaps even every individual. They're certainly more different than what we usually think of as "races".
This nicely defeats every idea of "racial purity" that has ever been expressed.
-
You are obviously ignoring the whole point about there being the hugely possible scientific or empirical evidence for justifying racial prejudice. It matters little for this possibility if there is also a cultural and educational causation. If there are genetic differences then there are genetic differences, and there will also be cultural differences. IOW, one does not deny the other.
I say the possibility is huge, for I really do not believe that if one suss this whole shenanigan out between various ethnicities we won't find *any* difference whatsoever. That would be a miracle by itself, perhaps. I have little idea, but it matters little to me. The reason why is that my anti-racism does not stem from these empirical observations, but from my values.
When people shift the conversation from values to observations, then you are already losing the war and that's precisely why you say that some times it appears to you that "white supremacists" seem to win the argument: because you are valuing more this "factual" war than the war about values. If you deny them that territory is even arguable, then they lose by fiat. And this is not "whimsical" at all. That's nonsense. We have long established egalitarianism and non-racism as core values of our societies and calling them "emotions" or "fads" or other shenanigan is just ignorant waffle. Might as well call "liberty" or "democracy" as "emotional arguments" or whatever.
-
Well, this conversation has taken an interesting turn. I'm arguing against racial supremacy with an anti-racist who doesn't support it anyway.
You are obviously ignoring the whole point about there being the hugely possible scientific or empirical evidence for justifying racial prejudice. It matters little for this possibility if there is also a cultural and educational causation. If there are genetic differences then there are genetic differences, and there will also be cultural differences. IOW, one does not deny the other.
I say the possibility is huge, for I really do not believe that if one suss this whole shenanigan out between various ethnicities we won't find *any* difference whatsoever. That would be a miracle by itself, perhaps. I have little idea, but it matters little to me. The reason why is that my anti-racism does not stem from these empirical observations, but from my values.
Obviously, different races and ethnic groups are not completely identical in every way imaginable. I can accept that and still oppose racial supremacy and hierarchies.
I previously said that I am not using racism in its broadest sense because, technically, if you stretch it far enough, the belief that black people have black skin and whites have white skin could be considered racist. This is hardly important for most discussions, which is why I am speaking of bigotry and supremacy.
While they vary in appearance, whites, blacks, and Asians are all capable of the same achievements. They have displayed a wide range of values and attitudes. Individuals and groups of whites can resemble individuals and groups of blacks more than other groups and individuals of whites. The Caucasian world has historically been as barbaric as any other, and not always the most advanced, particularly in terms of moral development. These facts alone justify my position.
I oppose all forms of racial bigotry, institutionalized racism, and the vast majority of stereotypes because I believe they are immoral. However, I also find them extremely lacking in logic, and I think it is important to point that out.
When people shift the conversation from values to observations, then you are already losing the war and that's precisely why you say that some times it appears to you that "white supremacists" seem to win the argument: because you are valuing more this "factual" war than the war about values. If you deny them that territory is even arguable, then they lose by fiat. And this is not "whimsical" at all. That's nonsense. We have long established egalitarianism and non-racism as core values of our societies and calling them "emotions" or "fads" or other shenanigan is just ignorant waffle. Might as well call "liberty" or "democracy" as "emotional arguments" or whatever.
No, they sometimes seem to win the argument because no one in the room has enough information to counter their bull****. My opposition to them is part moral and part logical, for all the reasons I have outlined. I am not "losing the war" by daring to fight these ideas from more than one perspective.
Unfortunately, many people will still resort to lazy stereotyping as a means of classifying others. Any method that does not combat this is, at the very least, disadvantaged. It will have a harder time defeating institutionalized racism, which feeds off these stereotypes.
Emotional arguments can serve a useful purpose, and form the basis of any moral system. However, when you can bolster them with logic, it is best to do so. Does the statement "women are be just as smart as men" weaken arguments for gender equality?
EDIT: Grammar fixes for great justice.
-
I see disconnected ideas here. Logic is about connecting arguments and piercing them together, to say that you justify your values with "logic" is not really saying anything other than "my ideas are coherent". Well that is something, but it doesn't inform us where you derive your morals from. "Emotional arguments" is something I also don't really care much about, I suspect you bring it up because you think that my arguments are emotionally justified. Why do you think that is the case?
What I am saying in this thread could be summed up as the naturalistic fallacy: you cannot derive an is from an ought (lol and vice versa). And if you think this is a smart thing to do, then you are really not understanding the moral problem at all.
-
You also say some ignorant things about the very concept of Utopia (the very idea of utopia is precisely that it is unattainable by design, but nevertheless you strive for it. To say that utopia is never reachable isn't exactly an intelligent criticism of it).
No, it's actually very erudite things you just don't seem to want to hear. Arguing from a utopian "let's make the world a better place" perspective is an argument that will simply not appeal to large segments of the population. You can't make the world sing its kumbayas in perfect harmony; everyone knows it, nobody will accept it as a valid reason to do anything.
Utopian arguments are a charade, a method of leading the populace by the nose, but they do not have long-term staying power. For that you need something more tangible. Your arguments against racism on these grounds would thus come with a time-to-failure even among those who find them persuasive.
In short, your argument, made purely of your own idealism, will not impact the majority of people who would otherwise engage in racist behaviors; and will eventually trigger a backlash among those it did convince.
-
I see disconnected ideas here. Logic is about connecting arguments and piercing them together, to say that you justify your values with "logic" is not really saying anything other than "my ideas are coherent". Well that is something, but it doesn't inform us where you derive your morals from. "Emotional arguments" is something I also don't really care much about, I suspect you bring it up because you think that my arguments are emotionally justified. Why do you think that is the case?
Most white supremacists try to justify their arguments with statements like "whites are smarter than anybody else" or "white people have always been the most civilized race in the world". I believe that every individual should (ideally) have an equal chance at success, so neither of these things would justify institutionalized racism. However, as best as I can determine, they are false. And it is important to point that out.
When I first encountered white supremacist arguments, I examined them honestly. They were flawed on so many levels that I was amazed how popular they had once been.
Any moral system relies on emotions for justification. However, bits and pieces of them can be based on objective, logical statements. White supremacism stems from both the emotional desire to feel superior and the bad logic of racial hierarchies. Racial equality is justified on moral grounds, but it has the advantage of being more compatible with science. Both perspectives must be employed for a system to be as persuasive and effective as possible.
What I am saying in this thread could be summed up as the naturalistic fallacy: you cannot derive an is from an ought. And if you think this is a smart thing to do, then you are really not understanding the moral problem at all.
Bigots often employ the naturalistic fallacy themselves. I am not using it, I am simply pointing out that racial supremacy fails even on those grounds.
EDIT: Grammar fixes (because writing when hyped on caffeine makes them typos)
-
NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.
-
NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.
I believe slavery was ended by the cotton gin, was it not.
-
NG, What on earth are you babbling about. The whole racism and slavery struggle was largely won by idealistic revolutions and movements. Do you really think it was the cynics and the "down to earths" that changed anything in history? Do you really think that it was a scientific argument that made people be aware of the wrongness of racism? That's nonsensical. It was both the ideal of egalitarianism in christianity (a double sword that one) or the scream of egalitarianism by secular writers, philosophers and politicians. Dry scientific reasoning barely made a dent in convencing anyone of anything in history.
You are describing initiators and claiming them to be what carries movements through to the finish line.
The slavery struggle, like the modern struggle for gay rights is currently being won, was won on the back of visibility, on the empirical evidence of one's own eyes that these are people and not different enough for slavery to be justified for them unless also justified for oneself. That's science of the most basic and most obvious sort.
We are long past the point where pure idealism can carry the movement. We are past the point where basic observational science can carry the movement. Your desire to deny it useful tools because they might be tainted in some unspecified and deeply unlikely future is a detriment to the cause and deeply irresponsible if you hold these ideals so dear.
-
You are obviously ignoring the whole point about there being the hugely possible scientific or empirical evidence for justifying racial prejudice. It matters little for this possibility if there is also a cultural and educational causation. If there are genetic differences then there are genetic differences, and there will also be cultural differences. IOW, one does not deny the other.
I say the possibility is huge, for I really do not believe that if one suss this whole shenanigan out between various ethnicities we won't find *any* difference whatsoever. That would be a miracle by itself, perhaps. I have little idea, but it matters little to me. The reason why is that my anti-racism does not stem from these empirical observations, but from my values.
The scientific differences between the races are so small as to be unimportant when it comes to racism. It's like arguing that because women are in general physically weaker than men, they should be prevented from entering the army. While there is a truth at the core, it has been distorted in size and then used as the core of an ignorant argument.
Without the ignorance, racism can't survive. It's built on a series of lies. No scientific research will ever prove racism to be correct to a degree where any of the fundamental concepts involved in racism are even remotely close to true.
I can however see your point that you can't argue against racism based on an unscientific truism like "We're all the same under the skin." But that doesn't need to be said in order to still feel that racism does derive from ignorance. Pretty much any racist statement has a huge amount of ignorance involved in it. That's why so many people feel that racists are stupid. We simply can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view.
On the other end of the spectrum, I think everyone can agree that South Africa's apartheid regime was absolutely racist; and with all the international pressure on them, the ruling party must have known full well what they were doing. So really, I don't see any link between ignorance and racism.
I think you're making the assumption here that the apartheid system at that point existed only due to racism. Which of course it didn't. There were a large variety of political and socio-economic reasons why the South African government wanted to continue apartheid long after it should have ended it.
You're also assuming ignorance goes away just cause a lot of people tell you it's ignorant. I only wish it was that simple to convince people.
-
We are long past the point where pure idealism can carry the movement. We are past the point where basic observational science can carry the movement. Your desire to deny it useful tools because they might be tainted in some unspecified and deeply unlikely future is a detriment to the cause and deeply irresponsible if you hold these ideals so dear.
Yeah nice goalpost change. Now you already admit the importance of idealism "but not for today". I don't agree at all with this chronologic assessment. The primacy of idealism is in the logical framework, not in the "chronological" or "historical". Idealism is always at the core, you then can dress it all up with all the tools you like. What I say here is that you can't ever forget this core is at the core, if you drift and only care about the "tools", then you will also forget why on earth you are in the "struggle" in the first place, and will commit several big mistakes on the way.
The scientific differences between the races are so small as to be unimportant when it comes to racism.
Yeah, I get that. It's fortunate that nature is less racist than we are.
It's like arguing that because women are in general physically weaker than men, they should be prevented from entering the army. While there is a truth at the core, it has been distorted in size and then used as the core of an ignorant argument.
Not the best example since it's well known that discrimination in the army is a very real thing: women get to enter it but are not expected to the same degree of endurance that men are. If this were a racial thing, we would have to conclude the army was amazingly racist...
Without the ignorance, racism can't survive. It's built on a series of lies. No scientific research will ever prove racism to be correct to a degree where any of the fundamental concepts involved in racism are even remotely close to true.
This is a faith-based claim. Genetics is exponentially increasing in its efficiency as a scientific field of research, and it will probably reach a whole lot of truths that are quite uncomfortable for us all (not thinking about racism per se, but also about consciousness, behaviors, diseases, what "we are" and so on) in not such a long time frame. It could well find out that there is a lot of scientific facts that provide good talking points for the racists. How you dismiss it a priori is something that I can't exactly follow you.
I'd even speculate that your optimism in this point is actually generated by your own idealism and not exactly from your most objective assessment of possibilities. That is, I speculate that people hope this is the case, and this hope stems from idealistic values. If it turns out to be true, we would then get a "sigh" of relief and then proclaim without a missing heartbeat "We all knew this was the case!" If it doesn't turn out to be "true", then we will all continue saying the evidence is not strong enough, etc.,etc.
-
That's why so many people feel that racists are stupid. We simply can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view.
Now, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but while sometimes you can tell a person is stupid and that their racism is a product of that stupidity, or perhaps hate because of what someone/s of that race have done (for instance I once knew a woman, who was one of the nicest people I've ever met, except if she had the power, she would wipe the Japanese off the face of the Earth, as she believed them an evil race for what they did in WW2.)
However, in general, precisely because of can't believe that in this day and age, someone could still hold such an ignorant view I tend to view racists in general as people possessed of a malicious nature, using it as a means to an end, to keep people down, keep people being viewed in a negative light to cut competition for jobs and the like, to keep more opportunities open in life for themselves and advance their own interests by cutting other races out of the equation.
-
Or sometimes it's because it's just how they were brought up and they've never really considered any other viewpoint. So we call that ignorance.
-
This is a faith-based claim. Genetics is exponentially increasing in its efficiency as a scientific field of research, and it will probably reach a whole lot of truths that are quite uncomfortable for us all (not thinking about racism per se, but also about consciousness, behaviors, diseases, what "we are" and so on) in not such a long time frame. It could well find out that there is a lot of scientific facts that provide good talking points for the racists. How you dismiss it a priori is something that I can't exactly follow you.
Quite simply the genetic effects of race are quite obviously not that large or they'd be much more obvious. That's one reason I quoted the difference between men and women in physical strength. You don't need a scientific study to prove it, it's plainly obvious and always has been.
Whatever effect race has, it's pretty minor. For instance, if Asians really are smarter, it's by an average of an IQ point or two, a small enough number that it gets swamped out by a variety of environmental factors. It's never going to be a big enough difference to make a difference when it comes to schooling or hiring people for jobs.
Basically I'm saying that racism isn't ever going to be a suitable excuse for discrimination even based on science cause the effects have already been shown to be too small.
-
Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.
-
Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.
That really controversial book about IQ and race?
I find myself immediately wanting to throw my standard "IQ is not an entirely accurate measure of intelligence and it is greatly influenced by environmental factors" argument at it, but I think I'll read it first. Amazon has it for a fairly low price.
-
Your intuition is a good one, Apollo. I did come to know "The Bell Curve" precisely by reading Gould's "The mismeasure of Man" which is also a terrific book.
-
Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.
I haven't. But mainly cause I trust Stephen Jay Gould when he said it was a load of bollocks.
Seriously though. I still don't buy the argument that the difference is big enough to justify racism, and you haven't provided a single example where it does.
-
Your intuition is a good one, Apollo. I did come to know "The Bell Curve" precisely by reading Gould's "The mismeasure of Man" which is also a terrific book.
I should probably read both, then.
I've never found this subject as uncomfortable as many people I know. I guess it's because I understand that, since every race has produced a very diverse array of personalities and skillsets, some possible differences in attributes are not an effective argument for supremacy or superiority.
Of course, I understand it as an environmental adaptation that fails to consistently differentiate people outside of physical characteristics like skin color, not some divinely-ordained hierarchy of humanity.
-
Clearly you never read "The Bell Curve". I wish it was that easy, Kara.
I haven't. But mainly cause I trust Stephen Jay Gould when he said it was a load of bollocks.
I will as soon as I can buy it (and its counterpart). At this point it would be tremendously hypocritical of me to just dismiss it on ideological grounds.
Seriously though. I still don't buy the argument that the difference is big enough to justify racism, and you haven't provided a single example where it does.
It's no more justifiable than having different laws for different families because they display different capabilities (which they do, to a much greater extent than any of the commonly-defined "races").
-
But Luis is arguing that it is (or at least one day may be found to be) a big enough difference.
-
But Luis is arguing that it is (or at least one day may be found to be) a big enough difference.
It actually sounds like he's concerned we may find big enough differences to make it seem acceptable to many people. I haven't gotten the sense that he would personally condone discrimination in that case.
-
But Luis is arguing that it is (or at least one day may be found to be) a big enough difference.
It actually sounds like he's concerned we may find big enough differences to make it seem acceptable to many people. I haven't gotten the sense that he would personally condone discrimination in that case.
And to me, I took it that he is simply saying that the different races are different, and that that should be acknowledged, not that it's grounds for racism.
-
It actually sounds like he's concerned we may find big enough differences to make it seem acceptable to many people.
Only to ignorant people. Which brings us right back to where we started. :p
-
We have genetic markers for race already. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp) Racism is still just as ignorant as ever. (http://genapha.icapture.ubc.ca/briskGEN/snpGene.do;jsessionid=966DB59D2FE6C6B75FC037A43DD7F52D)
-
I was actually able to follow this up until about three pages ago. Now I just have a headache.
So could someone just tell me if I was a bad person for finding the joke funny simply because of how it was able to get onto air without anyone's common sense kicking in?
-
you're not a bad person
-
So could someone just tell me if I was a bad person for finding the joke funny simply because of how it was able to get onto air without anyone's common sense kicking in?
In that context, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
-
you're not a bad person
That's good to know. Now I'll just go back to eating this bowl of puppy hearts...
-
Oh god this is too funny. How could they think this was serious?