[houndred]

Who here had said anything about "frankfurt school and her interpretation of term "racism"

Your interpretation IS the Frankfurt school interpretation. Hardly surprising given that you are a Marxist but all the same your definition is a politicised variant not the definition.

[fuser]

Your interpretation IS the Frankfurt school interpretation

What kind of my interpretation is, is totally irrelevant here unless you can show the invalidity of that interpretation.

Hardly surprising given that you are a Marxist but all the same your definition is a politicised variant not the definition.

Are you are aware that this school is largely discredited among Marxist circle?

[houndred]

Are you are aware that this school is largely discredited among Marxist circle?

Its still Marxist

What kind of my interpretation is, is totally irrelevant here unless you can show the invalidity of that interpretation.

Completely relevant .You define 'racism' as about a power relationship. This is not the original meaning and not one I recognise. You don't get to redefine it.

[fuser]

This is not the original meaning and not one I recognise.

Rather than just repeating a plain 'no', it would be better if you can tell us about the original meaning and why I or any one should concede to that. Also, original in the sense, 'first definition' doesn't gives something some sort of complete validity.

[Soixante-Retard]

If you’re anti-anti-racism that means you’re pro-racism!

Right off the bat that conclusion assumes all options have been exhausted. It assumes a dichotomy (a false one) between "racist" and "anti-racist" and that if you're not "anti-racist" you are ipso facto a "racist". However, can't you be "anti-racist" and not be "racist"?

It's similar to that of affirmative action. If you oppose affirmative action, people who are not happy with your opposition could label you as a racist - regardless of whether you oppose affirmative action based on the principle of equal process, in other words regardless of the fact that you aren't a racist.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html

Either p or q.
Not-p.
Therefore, q.

The argument is valid (the conclusion follows the premises), though the premises (specifically #1) is false (it hasn't exhausted all possibilities) and so the argument is not sound.

[Wolfman]

Right off the bat that conclusion assumes all options have been exhausted. It assumes a dichotomy (a false one) between "racist" and "anti-racist" and that if you're not "anti-racist" you are ipso facto a "racist". However, can't you be "anti-racist" and not be "racist".

In order for something to be a false dichotomy, there has to be a third option.

[Soixante-Retard]

In order for something to be a false dichotomy, there has to be a third option.

I thought the sentence,

However, can't you be "anti-racist" and not be "racist"?

especially with my example of affirmative action was an example of a third option. On closer examination, I find most dichotomies tend to be false. But it is very natural to immediately react to a black-white situation, whereas it is often "grayish".

[Plaro]

In basic anti-racism is indeed racism, as it still runs on the idea of race. It is in a sense a different side of the same coin. So for example affirmative actions is actually a racist or a racialist policy as its function is dependent on the concept of race. Therefore for anti-racism truly to be what it is, it must reject the concept of race all together, perhaps rather it has to be "anti-race".

[Soixante-Retard]

So for example affirmative actions is actually a racist or a racialist policy as its function is dependent on the concept of race.

True that it pertains to race. So then, can't we conclude that proponents and opponents of affirmative action are both racists? I think the problem here is that we are using two different definitions of the term "racist". I was using it as a noun, whereas you are using it as an adjective:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist

[Jeliza-Rose]

Technically, the sign on the left is accurate. Think about it. Though I doubt that the sign holder knows why

fyi....

The Czars of Russia ruled between 1325 to 1917.

The USSR existed from 1922 and 1991.

[starcraftzzz]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100064191/sorry-to-break-the-bad-news-but-anti-racism-is-actually-racist/ Yesterday, after I wrote that “the EU, multiculturalism, the Equalities Act, anti-racism, hate crimes, bastardised human rights, Marx, Marxist feminism, Marcuse and Gramsci” all belong in history’s dustbin, lots of people screamed: “If you’re anti-anti-racism that means you’re pro-racism!”

“Anti-racism” is not the same as being opposed to racism; rather it is the name sometimes given to a particular authoritarian view of what racism is, and how it can be combated.


“Anti-racism” means something altogether different, and is best explained by the Civitas book Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics, an account of the Salem-like events that gripped Britain in the 1990s. The authors cite the example of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW), which in 1991 set out the implementation of its new Diploma in Social Work.

The first tenet was “the self-evident truth” that “racism is endemic in the values, attitudes and structures of British society”.

The training manual then stated “steps need to be taken to promote permeation of all aspects of the curriculum by an anti-racist analysis”. All “racist materials” had to be withdrawn from the syllabus and CCETSW would decide what was racist.

In the rules there would be no freedom of speech for opinions that can be constructed as “racist” or favourable to “racism”, and “anti-racist practice requires the adoption of explicit values”. The first value is that individual problems have roots in “political structures” and “not in individual or cultural pathology”. (In other words, if different groups have different outcomes in terms of education or crime levels, it is all the fault of British racism, not of individuals).

So if you consider yourself an “anti-racist”, you are, in fact, a racist.
What else to say, decision is all yours.

You know what I like to do? I like to argue the benefits and reasons for certain policies on their merits, not on dome ideological screw of how I can make it seem like supporters of certain policies are racists.
So I'll do just that
Hate crimes.
The motive behind why someone does a crime should be considered in the punishment and it already is in every court room. Some one who kills someone in self defense does not deserve the same punishment as someone who goes and randomly kills someone. People who commit hate crimes are more likely to commit more hate crimes and are harder to rehabilitate because they choose to attack a group of people instead of had a lapse in judgment while drunk at a bar.
Affirmative action
The theory of affirmative action is that racism causes minorities to appear not as qualified as whites. In order to prove this theory one would have to analysis the people getting into schools partly due to affirmative action. The only study that did this found that those people received higher grades afterwords, were more likely to get masters and higher degrees, were more likely to do community service and more likely to finish school earlier
The Equalities Act
1) Employment should be based on merit not on some outside factor such as sex, or race. When you base employment on other things besides merit it results in less productive people getting jobs which results in a worse economy for everyone. Meaning banning discrimination helps the economy. Why should we hurt the economy just to make it so bigots can discriminate against people?

[Nima Wahid Azal]

Any thing becomes its inverse if fanatical enough.

The best intentions, to crush the tyrants, brought unto us Robespierre and Stalin, both tyrants.

In the name of safety and security Adolph Hitler was elected with 98% of the popular vote, and then destroyed the country with war.

In the name of anti-racism, injustice can also be perpetuated.

[SE23]

Any thing becomes its inverse if fanatical enough.

The best intentions, to crush the tyrants, brought unto us Robespierre and Stalin, both tyrants.

In the name of safety and security Adolph Hitler was elected with 98% of the popular vote, and then destroyed the country with war.

In the name of anti-racism, injustice can also be perpetuated.

Agreed a very good point !

[SpaciousBox]

Could I just say how nice it is to see a discussion about race that hasn’t descended into rubbish. I certainly applaud the level of discussion in this thread. I want to challenge all interpretations of race, racism, and anti-racism that have been put forward so far. There appears to be a language game going on here. Our disagreements and/or agreements are probably not stemming from how racist or otherwise we are, but more what we define to be racist, or anti-racist. I can see this starting from the first post:

The conventional definition of racism is the belief that “race” (however one defines that) is a primary or significant cause of differences between men; that some of these races are superior to others; and that it is acceptable to discriminate on grounds of race, or to behave unpleasantly to someone because of their race. The term dates to the 1930s, although “racialist” and “racialism” go back to the Edwardian period.

This is a good start, but it isn’t actually the whole issue. Racism isn’t about the genetic differences in humans; it’s the idea that innate characteristics such as morality, personality, culture, etc are also genetic. You won’t find anyone who denies there are strong genetic differences between ethnicities – that is basic science. But to then state that someone’s ethnicity defines and limits them to a certain behavioural pattern – which for racists will always be negative – is simply absurd and objectively false. In short; racism cannot in of itself be based off fact. That would make it genetics, and not racism.

Let’s take this to an example: From this year’s Olympics, you may have seen particular ethic groups or nationalities doing better at certain events. In many cases this is due to the culture or funding that a particular sport receives in that nation, however in many areas it can also come down to the muscle design of that ethnic group. There are plenty of studies that go into this further, if you happen to be interested. Pointing out these differences is not racist. It doesn’t make any judgement of an individual’s intellectual, moral, or cultural limitations – it’s simply pointing out that like some of us have blue eyes, some of us are black, some of us have different body structure, and that this stems from genetics. If we were however, to then go on to say that those of a particular ethnic group were innately inferior to us based on their skin colour, we would be defying the obvious facts that no genetic group is innately superior and as a result be putting forward a racist argument.

It is important to understand the term has changed – racialism is not the same thing as racism. Racialism is the science of genetic groupings which we have come to know as race; racism is taking that science to a point of hierarchy that is not supported through fact. If you’re looking for a group of humans who are somehow “superior” you should probably join the Inuit. I believe I read somewhere that the Inuit are the group who have the least in common with our common ancestor. (Long live the Eskimo Reich)

So, to be Anti-racist, is to be against the values of racism. There is a big difference between being anti-racist, and believing that we should take measures to counter racism. It is a big jump to assume that those who do not support racism also support a particular method of combatting it. For example: I am anti-war in general, that doesn’t make me a pacifist though. Nowhere in the simple statement of being against racism, do we conclude how to deal with the idea of racism itself, or those who might be racist. Along with this point, it is important to accept that the understanding of different human characteristics based on genetic groupings – which some people choose to call race – is in no way related to being racist, or to being anti-racist. We can all tell that some people are black, and some people are white. Why does this matter though? Of course most of us will say it doesn’t. Spotting those differences is a long step from concluding that we can draw ethnic based assumptions about a person.

The only ethical way to end racism is to end the entire concept of "race"

Do you believe we ourselves can end this concept? From a purely empirical point of view, it would seem like race is something we can’t affect without the total removal of genetic groupings. Whilst I personally have no issue with this, it would take generations of breeding to be unable to draw distinct differences between two people. And in the end, why do we care anyway? Why is it so important to people anyway? I am a proud anti-racist, and believe most people in this topic arguing either way probably are too.