h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"We don't say 'You tall...'"

Speak for yourself. I've been called a lanky streak of somethingorother more times than I care to imagine.

It's par for the course for some five foot Napoleon to walk into me in a pub, give me a glare and say "you're a tall/massive/big c***/b*****, aren't you"?

Bless 'em.

OK. Tall was a bad example

But do you get my basic point?

Yeah, I get it. I just wanted to bitch about short people.

Like this?

Short People - Randy Newman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

I'm not sure we do get your general point, EtB. Once again:

"This stereotyping *generally* (not always) happens with race. We don't say 'You tall...' or 'You tie-wearing...'. "

And you then went on to provide a bunch of other counter-examples which you accept do happen, which seems to undermine the point you're trying to make.

I say: if you're trying to insult someone, you will do so on the basis of some difference you perceive in them that you regard as undesirable. You will likely pick the most obvious. In doing so, you are NOT, necessarily, demonstrating that you're prejudiced against all people with that attribute. You may very well be, but it's not a given.

However, political correctness dictates that if the feature you pick is race, then you ARE a racist. This, to me, runs counter to common sense. It seems self-evident that if I call someone who's just carved me up at a roundabout a "fat b'tard" I'm not outing myself as rabidly anti-fat people, I'm just outing myself as angry at that, specific fat b'tard in that moment. Or am I? Is my selection of that characteristic indicative of prejudice? I obviously regard it negatively... don't I?

You hardly ever hear someone angrily referring to "that good-looking git", never hear a woman bemoaning "that charismatic well-dressed bitch" or whatever.

But... is there a difference between considering a point of difference as a negative, and being prejudiced against all people in that group?

Then again... I'm not sure the "I've got a black/Jewish/ginger/fat friend" is, as you say a cop out, necessarily. On the one hand, you've got someone who, on the face of it, appears racist. You say so, and what they hear is "You hate all black people without exception." Isn't that what you MEAN when you call someone racist. They "cop out" by saying "but I've got a black friend". What they mean is - their attitude is more complex than the simplistic characterisation you've made of them. You've reduced them to a label - "racist" - and they're protesting that the label doesn't fit. And they're right. Is that a cop out? Or is it fair?

I reckon people can say racist things without being racist. Just as they can say homophobic, sexist and sectarian things without necessarily holding those views.

If I tell a joke, am I a comedian?

Well, fair enough. I was basically agreeing.

That was @Hoo.

swl - you point touches on someting else. The 'Is a racist'/'isn't a racist' binary.

I don't think that's how it works. It's more gradated and nuanced. Surely?

btw...We've been using 'Ginger' and 'Fat' and 'Tall' as analogies for Racism. But are they good ones? I'm not at all convinced.

It goes without saying that, historically, the black experience of, say, segregation or (see OP) slavery has been somewhat different to anything meted out to fat or ginger or tall people, both in severity and quality. Unless we are convinced that this historical legacy is fully dead and buried, do we not have to accept that racism *is* in a slightly different category? And that we know it is.

It would be *nice* if repeatedly referring to someone's colour could genuinely be an affectionate attempt to defuse a tense situation...

The problem there is you're imputing racist intent on the basis of the reaction of the *victim*. If the victim says it was a racist incident, then it was a racist incident. And indeed this is apparently the way the law requires it to be dealt with so that's fair enough...

Except... that's not how it works, in reality, is it?

I say something to you because of MY attitudes, beliefs, feelings etc. *Your* personal historical perspective on it has precisely diddly squat to do with the words I choose. If I call you a fat b'tard, or a black b'tard, then it's because I think you're a b'tard, and I've observed that you're fat, or black, and I think that calling you those things will upset you. I'm not doing it because I have any concern for "the black experience of segregation" or any such nonsense. You really are over-thinking it. You're making out that racism is something complex and political. I don't believe it is. It's something simple, visceral, and no, I don't think it is special or different. Not for the majority of actual racists.

Watch this video, and tell me that the young man being interviewed has a nuanced historical perspective on his dislike of the people he's marching to protest about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuNuqIev8M

We've been through this many times, but I still abhor anyone's implication that I've personally got anything to apologise for with respect to the historical slave trade. I wasn't involved in it, and neither was my dad, or my grandad. And neither was yours. So it's now time to get over it. Eventually, in about a hundred years, someone's going to have to have the same conversation about the Holocaust. It's reasonable, while there are still LIVING victims, that the LIVING perpetrators should be punished, and those who enabled them should apologise. But responsibility is not hereditary, not any more. All that "sins of the father" crap is something civilisation has left behind, or should have. In any case, whatever anyone thinks, I shalln't be apologising for anything my great-great grandfather was most likely too dirt-poor to have had any hand in anyway.

End on a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU

>>We've been through this many times, but I still abhor anyone's implication that I've personally got anything to apologise for with respect to the historical slave trade. I wasn't involved in it, and neither was my dad, or my grandad.


No. That isn't what I meant at all. What I meant is that present day racism is the legacy of power relationships that were established by, amongst other things, slavery. (And also other economic inequalities). It is perpetuated by those who themselves, as you say, had no personal involvement in slavery.

I hope you understand that I'm not making the 'we must atone for slavery' argument here.



>>You're making out that racism is something complex and political. I don't believe it is. It's something simple, visceral, and no, I don't think it is special or different. Not for the majority of actual racists.

Perhaps. But where are the marches by people with a visceral hatred of fat, ginger or tall people?

There was an interesting interview with John Mackie in the Gruan over Xmas. Mackie was guilty of racially abusing a fellow professional footballer back in 2002, and if taken at face value, it does seem like an example of someone who is not a racist who nevertheless made a racially abusive remark, and paid the price for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/23/john-mackie-race-storm

As Ed says, the 'binary' version where someone either is or is not a racist isn't very helpful or illuminating. I think it's sometimes better to think in terms of prejudices about race (or gender, or religion, or sexuality, or disability etc and so on) rather than being a racist. Everyone has prejudices, and I wouldn't believe anyone who says that they don't. There are, of course, some people who just are out-and-out self-proclaimed racists, some people who are racists-in-denial, and some who are good people at heart but believe what they read in the Daily Hate.

In the Suarez case, he's not accused of being a racist, but of using racially abuse language. My suspicion is that he's just someone who will take any advantage (fairly or unfairly) that he can get on the football field, whether that's diving, feigning injury, screaming in pretend agony, deliberately handling the ball etc and so on. Only this time he's gone too far. As everyone except Liverpool and their delusional fans seem to realise.

"where are the marches by people with a visceral hatred of fat, ginger or tall people?"

Dunno. If I was *organising* one I'd try to make sure it went through the ghettoes where those people all choose to live together... Oh, hang on, that doesn't happen does it. Because fat, ginger, and tall people are spread pretty evenly about the place, rather than gathering together in small, introspective enclaves. So you'd have a hard time picking somewhere to march where anyone would actually care, I think.

"he's just someone who will take any advantage (fairly or unfairly) "

He's a professional football player. My impression from watching only a very little bit, played at the very highest level, is that the "sport" consists of cheating as much as possible, and supporting the sport means decrying dishonourable cheating when it's the opposition, but supporting dishonourable cheating when it's done in your team's favour. I know of no other sport where the most visible, most highly paid practitioners openly and unashamedly cheat, and where the sport's governing bodies actively resist making rule changes to prevent this appalling behaviour. It's one of many reasons why I'm baffled that anyone watches.

Well, yes and no. There's a certain amount of low level cheating that everyone seems to engage in - automatically appealing for any corner/throw in/goal kick decision, for example, even if the player appealing must know that it's the decision shouldn't go their way. There's low level jostling in the penalty area, and I'm sure there's a fair amount of 'sledging' that goes on.

Then there's 'winning' free kicks, or going down a bit too easily. Or inviting the contact and then making the most of it. Or my personal favourite 'drawing' the foul. This is generally in a slightly different category, and most players do this. Some cases are cheating, some are cases of tricking an opponent into fouling them. Again, most players do this.

But not all players dive. Not all players simulate injury. Not all players try to get their opponents yellow carded or sent off. Not all teams surround the referee at the slightest excuse. I imagine the distinction isn't obvious or apparent to someone who's not a football fan, but it's there.

Well, SoRB, we will probably flat out disagree about whether ghettoisation is a matter of malicious personal choice or a symptom of wider socio-political issues.

Is the fact that we don't have fat/ginger/tall ghettos of no significance?

"Is the fact that we don't have fat/ginger/tall ghettos of no significance?"

Quite the opposite. Even now, it's socially acceptable to voice a dislike of gingers, or fat people, in a way one might, fifty years ago, have said "I don't like darkies" without apparent shame. And yet we don't, as a society, exclude those people to the point that they all go and live together in small easily identifiable groups. Indeed, they don't even tend apparently to gather in such groups.

It's also acceptable to stereotype poor people, and they're pretty effectively ghettoised as well, and not by choice. We do have poor ghettos... significant?

C'mon. Don't be silly. If you really want to maintain that there is no political dimension to racism and that race is in the same category as fat/ginger/tall I'm going to have to insist on historical (or current, if you like) examples of fat/ginger/tall pogroms, segregation...whatever.

OK - so in Britain we no longer do pogroms and only the mildest variant of segregation. Admittedly it is possible that racism was once political but has now magically metamorphosised. However...

"If you really want to maintain that there is no political dimension to racism "

I didn't say there's NO political dimension. There are those who have thought through political opinions about the undesirability of multiculturalism. But the crowds they are generally addressing at their rallies would, in the main, have trouble even reading the previous sentence out loud in one try. And they (the leaders) know it. And if you're honest, you know it too. Racists, in the main, are not "political" - they're dumb. Dumb as a box of rocks. It's not an excuse, but I really believe you're over-analysing it to the point of simply being wrong if you characterise their opinions as "political".

,