When were you last inspired by a British politician?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Guru
Race, in the context of racism, may refer to any ethnic or cultural group which is subject to general discrimination or prejudice.

I like it, but can we have the word 'racial' in there as well ... 'any racial, ethnic, or cultural group'.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
I like it, but can we have the word 'racial' in there as well ... 'any racial, ethnic, or cultural group'.

No because then we're defining race in terms of itself.

'Race may refer to any racial group'
 

monkers

Guru
No because then we're defining race in terms of itself.

'Race may refer to any racial group'

OK national? It's just that ethnicity doesn't relate to either a person's country of origin, or the country of origin of their ancestors?
 

monkers

Guru
No because then we're defining race in terms of itself.

'Race may refer to any racial group'

But how can we have a definition of race without the country of the person's origin or the country of their ancestor's origin?
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Then @monkers has given you an explanation of racism, or more specifically racial discrimination, which covers what Abbott said.

Words develop over time and there is no reason, other than semantics or pedantry, why the definition of racism cannot cover wider aspects of discrimination than that based on the strict definition of race.

I don’t think there IS a strict definition of race actually.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
I don't think it an easy thing to grapple with because if one person attacks another based on difference, it's important to know what they perceived.

Ethnicity is not precisely the same as race, but does a racist thug care about the distinction before they give someone a kicking? I think probably not.

Race used to be just thought of belonging to or from a place. But the big melting pot has changed that. Race, nationality, ethnicity, religious belief all inextricably intertwined.

Under common law, what Abbott said is more aligned with ethnicity than race. However we don't have a single simple word like 'racism' for prejudice on the basis of ethnicity. The courts have ruled that Jewishness is an ethnicity, where others may think of it as a religion. A British Jew therefore has two identifying characteristics, so if beaten up by thugs when abroad, the attack could be racially motivated because he is British, but then if they are beaten by people from some other faith, then the attack is motivated by some anti-ethnic sentiment.

So I think the only available word is 'difference', and if we put 'difference' into working for a definition, then we'd be on our way. But then because people share a language, or a culture, then any definition will need to encompass that too.

Who thought it would be easy?

In all of the examples you quote, in my simple mind, the behaviour is simply unacceptable, no matter what the “motivation” is.

But, that’s it for me,
 
Not easy, this definition that everyone can agree with, lark is it?

I bet Shep knows.
 

monkers

Guru
Not easy, this definition that everyone can agree with, lark is it?

Indeed not. Race is not even about who you happen to be, but also who your ancestors were. I'm in Hampshire, I'm entitled to live in the Republic of Ireland, and to apply for Irish citizenship. If I had an Irish granny, it would be pretty automatic, and I'd be a citizen of the EU. If I then wanted to I could stop being a British citizen. So if we define race by what is written in a passport, we can change it anyway.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
OK national? It's just that ethnicity doesn't relate to either a person's country of origin, or the country of origin of their ancestors?

But how can we have a definition of race without the country of the person's origin or the country of their ancestor's origin?

Nation and country are extremely arbitrary divisions. And all our ancestors come from a small region somewhere in East Africa.

I think we just have to accept that race is whatever we decide it is, that at any given point in time in a particular society there's a broad consensus and we all sort of know what it means even if we can't give a strict definition which is satisfactory in all circumstances.

To define it too strictly is itself a racist endeavour and risks removing people's identity. As I've pointed out before, I can trace my ancestry down my mother's paternal line to a small village on the coast of Ireland. In the 18th century that part of the family was Irish. I am English. At some point the family crossed from being one to the other, but where exactly? Some would say that 'Irish' isn't even a race. So can we draw a line between Irish race, Irish nationality, English nationality and... whatever 'race' I am?
 

monkers

Guru
Nation and country are extremely arbitrary divisions. And all our ancestors come from a small region somewhere in East Africa.

I think we just have to accept that race is whatever we decide it is, that at any given point in time in a particular society there's a broad consensus and we all sort of know what it means even if we can't give a strict definition which is satisfactory in all circumstances.

To define it too strictly is itself a racist endeavour and risks removing people's identity. As I've pointed out before, I can trace my ancestry down my mother's paternal line to a small village on the coast of Ireland. In the 18th century that part of the family was Irish. I am English. At some point the family crossed from being one to the other, but where exactly? Some would say that 'Irish' isn't even a race. So can we draw a line between Irish race, Irish nationality, English nationality and... whatever 'race' I am?

We obviously agree - it's just that we cross-posted.
 
Top Bottom