[SypheDMar]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Lorric]

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 with the same news story.

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! 

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? 

[Flipside]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[The E]

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)

[Lorric]

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?

[The E]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Scotty]

So, I can't figure out if this is real or not, but it's hilarious nonetheless.

clicky.

Also begs the question, now that the shoe is on the other foot: is it racist?  If it isn't, why not?

[Dark Hunter]

So, I can't figure out if this is real or not, but it's hilarious nonetheless.

clicky.

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.

[Scotty]

So, not real, at least.  Latter question still stands.

[karajorma]

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.