'Positive Racism' - the same as 'Negative Racism'? [theoretical/philosophical]

[SparksNow]

Hi folks! I thought I might start off with a delicate issue...


On the terms used here:
- 'Negative Racism' = "normal" racism (ie. attributing negative attributes to a certain 'race')
- 'Positive Rasicm' = attributing positive attributes to a certain 'race'
note: added this thanks to chriscase's input


My take on racism:
Nowadays negative racism is seen as a defensive efford/mechanism to block out own failures of anyone's mind-set, replacing that failure with a compulsive focus towards others; and in this case (= negative racism) people that don't look "similar" regarding skin, hair and whatnot one can think of, if one is eager to find differencies rather than similarities.


Now to 'Positive Rasicm':
Everyone knows examples of positive racism... X are good at this, Y are better at this, Z are (whatever)...

I won't name or list any... not because of political correctness, but because naming/listing any is, if you hang on for a while, in effect a kind of subliminal positive racism.

Imho positive rasicm - ie. the labelling of any positive features to anyone because of a specific culture, class or geographic origin (or that of some of their ancestry) - is the antipole of negative racism.


THE THESIS/IDEA HERE:
[A] If attaching negative attributes to anyone because of a specific culture, class or geographic origin (or that of some of their ancestry) is seen as wrong and racist...
[B] Then attaching positive attributes to anyone because of a specific culture, class or geographic origin (or that of some of their ancestry) also has to be wrong and racist also.


Possible negative effects of 'Positive Rasicm':
- prejudices - due to stigmatisation or generalisation
- unreasonableness - due to belief in positive attributes of the 'race' of someone else*
- narrowmindedness - due to belief in positive attributes of oneself's 'race'*
- lack of reasonability - if the positive rasicm is subconsciously acknowledged as true
- (subtle) negative rasicm - as positive rasicm requires a 'race' with positive attributes (as acknowledged when having a 'positive rasicm' set-of-mind), which thus includes that that 'race' must then also have negative attributes. (Otherwise it would be an über-'race', and that idea in itself would be pure negative racism)
* "due to.."-reasoning interchangeable


The idea here in relation to the common practice (of positive racism):
- I assume positive racism is used everyday between friends or in a casual, non-racist manner without anyone being offened; if that's the rule and it has no negative vibe to it (and no subliminal effects), that's that then.


Assumption:
What I was thinking about was/is, that positive racism can - as a kind of negative/antipole of negative racism - have similar consequenese as negative racism, and even foster negative racism, as it requires a 'race' of 'others' that has certain attributes.

[chriscase]

Generalizations of the type you describe seem to be to be almost entirely tangential to the real substance of racism. As a socio-political doctrine and policy, racism is about discrimination: restricted access based on race. The rest is window dressing. It doesn't matter whether the guy who won't give you a job talks about his doubt as to your people's hygiene or what great athletes your people are. In either case he's a gatekeeper and you are on the outside.

On an individual basis, it's even less relevant. Every one of these statements is a generalization. IMO generalizations like this tend to be rather useless in private life.

[SparksNow]

Hi!

Generalizations of the type you describe seem to be to be almost entirely tangential to the real substance of racism.

I wasn't posting on racism - which I labelled (negative) racism in my above post.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was generalizing and disregarding racism. That wasn't the issue of my post and not my intent.
But I'm also not sure why you come to such a conclusion? I wasn't posting on racism, but on 'positive racism' (-> see the OP). And doing so I don't deny racism, but my thread/post is simply not about (negative) racism.

As a socio-political doctrine and policy, racism is about discrimination: restricted access based on race. The rest is window dressing. It doesn't matter whether the guy who won't give you a job talks about his doubt as to your people's hygiene or what great athletes your people are. In either case he's a gatekeeper and you are on the outside.

Sorry, but you misread my thread/intent and the title. I'm with you that racism is a widespread fact... but I'm posting on 'positive racism' - eg. X are good at math, Y are good at hunting or Z can drink alot etc.

On an individual basis, it's even less relevant. Every one of these statements is a generalization. IMO generalizations like this tend to be rather useless in private life.

Sorry, but what generalizations are you talking about? Where did I generalize? I'm a little confused.

PS: This thread is about 'positive racism', and if it results in (negative) racism and/or is the antipole of (negative) racism.

[chriscase]

I dunno man, I thought my post was pretty clear. The idea that race makes you better or worse in some way is not, to my mind, particularly pertinent to racism. It's incidental. So, to your distinction between "positive" and "negative" characterizations of ethnic groups, I don't see either as necessarily related to the socio-political realities of racism. It's possible in theory to have an egalitarian society, in which access is not influenced by race whatsoever, but beliefs exist about the advantages or disadvantages of belonging to one race or another. It might be on another planet, but it's possible.

So I guess if this thread isn't about that, it's not actually about racism of any variety, but rather about some superficial stuff people might think. Not that the phenomenae you want to discuss are completely uninteresting, but without some grounding in the actual realities of racial discrimination, there's not a whole lot there to talk about.

[SparksNow]

I dunno man, I thought my post was pretty clear. The idea that race makes you better or worse in some way is not, to my mind, particularly pertinent to racism.

What? I may get you wrong here, but it seems you are posting a pretty good definition of racism - and showing that you are racist?! Did it get you wrong? I'm confused.

It's incidental. So, to your point, I don't see either as necessarily related to the socio-political realities of racism. It's possible in theory to have an egalitarian society, in which access is not influenced by race whatsoever, but beliefs exist about the advantages or disadvantage of belonging to one race or another. It might be on another planet, but it's possible.

First off: This thread ISN'T about racism as such.
[EDIT: I'm not discussing current social conditions regarding racism; see "PS" further down]

It's that belief (= that there are different 'races' of humans) I'm referring to when mentioning positive racism.

In my view 'race' is a construct of a set of mind. Scientifically speaking there are no 'races'; there are no X-race or Y-race or Z-race genes - that's a simple fact.
Also from a ethnological view there are no 'races'... Humans in all geographic regions fade into each other. There are (biologically) no X-people or Y-people or Z-people... saying that is the case is a personal set of mind.
All people always interbreed, as eg. horses or dogs do... I can't really see any 'race' anywhere.

If there were 'races', then there ought to be a definition/border where 'race'-X and 'race'-Y are separated. If you can find such a border, then you'll surely get a noble prize for that.


PS: to avoid much more off-topic debate...

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT: If positive Racism is the same as negative racism? It's NOT about [classic] racism.

[Blau&Gruen]

Positive Racism - the same as Racism?

You are limiting the freedoms of others when you lable them.

[SparksNow]

You have opened a thread with the apparent thesis that generalizing about race in a "positive" way may be just as "racist" as someone else generalizing about race in a "negative" way.

What I am telling you is that in a society where a person can get and keep a good job, raise his kids in a good town, and live a satisfying life, he is generally not going to care whether you think he smells funny or runs fast on account of his ethnicity. Both are irrelevant to him, and only show the person doing the generalizing to be rather shallow.

You may think this sort of "racism" is terrible, but it hardly deserves to be called racism at all. The word you are missing here is discrimination. If there is racial discrimination, that is the problem. Whether it is accompanied by "negative" or "positive" generalizations about race or ethnicity is incidental.

Ok, there seems to be a general misunderstanding here, chriscase. That said, I stand to every word I wrote so far...

To be cleare: This thread IS NOT ABOUT RACISM and the everyday implications of racism! I don't judge people by feeble ideas as 'race'. If other people do so - and I am aware that many do so - that has nothing to do with me or this thread.

This thread is designed as a debate about the implications of positive racism, ie. attributing positive attributes to a 'race' may or may not result in negative racism (see OP/#1post for details).
If you want, it's a philosophical thread and not a political thread (thats why I posted it here!).

To be quite honest, chriscase, it seems you are transporting an issue into this thread that isn't related to this thread.

I deliberately posted this thread in the Ethos-forum and not the Political Mudpit, as this isn't a political thread about racism, but a thread about the possible implications of positive racism.

If you are disgusted by (negative) racism... so am I!!

PS: chriscase, please read the OP (and perhaps my following posts) again with what I just wrote in mind. I guess this is a misunderstanding. But again: I stand up to everything I wrote so far.

You are limiting the freedoms of others when you lable them.

Hi, Blau&Gruen!

I'm not sure what you mean with "labeling", as - iirc - I dídn't label at all.

Please specify your statement!

Thanks!

[Blau&Gruen]

I meant with "labeling" to attach attributes.

What I was thinking about was/is, that 'positive racism' can - as a kind of negative/antipole of (negative) racism - have similar consequenese as (negative) racism, and even foster (negative) racism, as it requires a 'race' of 'others' that has certain attributes.

This is correct because racism remains a failed concept based on mistaken assumptions independant of its use.

[chriscase]

You have opened a thread with the apparent thesis that generalizing about race in a "positive" way may be just as "racist" as someone else generalizing about race in a "negative" way.

What I am telling you is that in a society where a person can get and keep a good job, raise his kids in a good town, and live a satisfying life, he is generally not going to care whether you think he smells funny or runs fast on account of his ethnicity. Both are irrelevant to him, and only show the person doing the generalizing to be rather shallow.

You may think this sort of "racism" is terrible, but it hardly deserves to be called racism at all. The word you are missing here is discrimination. If there is racial discrimination, that is the problem. Whether it is accompanied by "negative" or "positive" generalizations about race or ethnicity is incidental.

[fkizz]

It's still racism, except people are given artificial advantages to them. Still discriminatory and won't bring a more multiculturalist society.

[Phier]

So wait, Chinese people are not good at math?

[The spartan]

So wait, Chinese people are not good at math?

Actually no. The average Chinese person is probably worse than the average American at math. The difference being the average American person has had more education.

[Col. Tartleton]

Actually no. The average Chinese person is probably worse than the average American at math. The difference being the average American person has had more education.

Unfortunately we've almost never seen the poor uneducated backwater superstitious Chinese peasants who through the laws of averages totally outshine our poor uneducated backwater superstitious American white trash.

The only Chinese people we run into are the elite ones who get to come to America because they're so elite.

Alternatively all other people see of America are the stupid ones who get to be on TV because they're so stupid.

From TLC's Honey Boo Boo to Professional Racist Al Sharpton to actor/lunatic Kirk Cameron to pop icon Jessica Simpson to Fox's Andrea Tantaros. Really stupid people fill our airwaves.

The only smart Americans on the air are in comedy. When you realize you're the only not retarded person in the room of self declared experts and pop icons you realize you could make a lot of money making fun of them.

Like obviously the smartest guy on FOX is Gutfeld. Why? Because he's got to basically moderate 2 loony right wingers, comparably objective adorable Bush press secretary, and a slightly deranged democrat counterpoint with a history of drug and alcohol abuse every single weekday for an hour and still make people laugh at the incredulity of life. That or Red Eye is actually entertaining.

[Phier]

IQ's of "native" peoples by region.



Begin racist thoughts.

Its averages vrs individuals, but the Chinese are not known for being stupid, even though there are stupid Chinese people.

[Himster]

It's the same, but ethically positive racism has less of a negative effect so it's the lesser of the two evils.

[The spartan]

MFW they only tested Chinese people in urban areas. Also, if that map is based on self reporting statistics, I will lul.

[mongrel]

MFW they only tested Chinese people in urban areas. Also, if that map is based on self reporting statistics, I will lul.

And there are almost 3 score ethnic groups in China. Curiously enough the Chinese were seen as unintelligent in the early 20th century.


The OP hasn't defined the key parameter, what is a race. Given that this is the 21st century, and genetic studies have unearthed a fair view things about human genetic patterns I am curious to see how the OP can do this. Race Science is as valid as intelligence design, that is not at all.

[The Despondent Mind]

geographic origin

So if I assume someone from Russia likes Vodka , then I'm racist ?

[Col. Tartleton]

So if I assume someone from Russia likes Vodka , then I'm racist ?

No, because it's also popular among non Russians. You'd have to assume that they like Vodka because they're Russian. You're just assuming they like vodka.

I like vodka. Not as much as whiskey. Would it be racist to assume I like whiskey because I'm American?

[Enzo]

IQ isn't purely genetic there will be cultural factors affecting it. It also depends on the people who write the tests. I doubt the average IQ for Australian Aborigines is really 60 they just probably didn't know what they were going on about. Profoundly retarded people wouldn't invent a hunting stick that comes back to you.