[Sandwich]

Personally I think it's hilarious, and completely non-offensive. So no, I don't think that's racist.

[redsniper]

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.

[Apollo]

*reads list*

'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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.")

[Luis Dias]

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!

[Apollo]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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).

[Apollo]

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.

[Apollo]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.