First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.
With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.
First, a few starter questions.
- How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
- Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
- Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
- Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
- Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?
Also, a personal question from me.
- Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?
edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf
@Kostya: That's for countries without de facto free academic-level public education. Unless you decided to go for a private university in one of those countries, I suppose.
No longer a forum herald
So a couple of terms for poor white-skinned people who live in parts the Southeastern U.S. is 100% classism, despite the regional and cultural elements of these terms. My face has come to know my desk very well.
For example (from Wikipedia), "redneck" began as a colloquial term for a group of Presbyterian Scottish immigrants who settled in the Carolinas. (Because they wore red scarfs around their necks.) It spread from there to refer to all Scottish immigrants, and since many of them settled in the Southeast U.S. (and got sunburned necks), it jumped to referring to all Southerners, particularly those who supported the Democratic Party (back when it was on the wrong aka racist side of Reconstruction). It wasn't until the 1970s that people started trying to reclaim the term, wearing with pride. Meanwhile, it also loan-worded itself into Afrikaans as "Rooinek", where it's used by dark-skinned natives to refer to people of English descent who moved there (and supposedly weren't prepared for the sun).
If you're going to toss around things like #HistoricalContextMatters, make sure you actually know said context. And said context is not just classist.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Jupiterian Local
I also dislike the idea that it's not racist if people of the same race use it for each other. Which also gets into the larger question of "what is 'the same race' anyway?" If a Chinese person uses a racial slur for a Japanese person or vice versa, is it not racist because they're both Asian?
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's still Racist. Same as if a Scot says something racist to someone from England...
Wouldn't a bigoted Chinese person use a racial slur for a Japanese person because they're Japanese instead of because they're Asian? In that case, it seems more like nationalism/xenophobia to me.
It's splitting hairs at that point, because the Chinese person would probably consider Japanese (and Korean, Vietnamese, and etc.) to be a different "race" anyway. Bigots in the UK already do that with Eastern Europeans, Italians, and Spaniards, and used to with Germans.
Modern conceptions of racial categories of white, black, East Asian, South Asian, Arab, "Latin", etc. are a pretty new thing, and in a lot of cases a highly Americentric if not Eurocentric paradigm.
edited 8th Sep '16 2:53:12 PM by AlleyOop
Yup. Nationalism in Korea and Japan is pretty much just ethnonationalism.
edited 8th Sep '16 3:16:02 PM by majoraoftime
The argument Franchesca makes is that both the terms "cracker" and "white trash" were either invented or popularized by upper-class white people to denigrate lower-class white people, in a manner that was all about their class and not about their race. And since the terms were meant to denigrate based on class rather than race, the terms are classist rather than racist.
As for "redneck," that same Wikipedia article also makes it clear that the Scottish connotation is a theory suggested by certain historians, rather than universally acknowledged fact (although I don't like to use Wikipedia for my facts, generally speaking). If the term was indeed originally a slur meant to insult the Scottish, then it would be essentially rooted in racism. However, the earliest confirmed citation does describe it as a term referring to low-class workers with sunburned necks - again, going back to classism rather than racism.
A potentially effective counterargument would be to postulate that modern usage matters more than historical origin, and that what the phrases were intended to mean hundreds of years ago is outweighed by the way they're used today.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
Jupiterian Local
Both Japan and China are very ethnically homogeneous. China is 92% Han Chinese
and Japan is 98% well... Japanese. It's nigh impossible to separate nationalism from racism in those cases.
All of which is besides the point I was making, which is that racism against your own race is a thing. Saying that a racially-charge epitaph doesn't count as racism because it's upper-class [race] using it for lower-class [race] doesn't make it not racially-charged.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
They're not the same race. Genetically, Japanese and Koreans are closer than the Han or Manchu are to either. Not that either of the Koreas or Japan will ever admit their relationship, even if the alternative were an attack of little green men with lasers. 
And, that's not touching the Ainu and Polynesian questions hidden in Japan's darker attitudes and history. <_<
"Asian" is as much of a catch-all term for hundreds of different peoples as "African" is. <_< Heck, even "South Asian" or "East Asian" are vague.
edited 8th Sep '16 6:57:13 PM by Euodiachloris
Homicidal Editor
These kinds of things always end up ticking me off. Japan seems to think of America as worse than them or at least vile because of Vietnam or Native American. Completely blind to their own war crimes or poor treatment of minorities. Sorry, I'm still ticked off from watching Concrete Revolutio, the so-called best anime of 2015/2016. Its fans don't help the matter, too.
Back on topic, such things are common among "Asians" in general, though. China has their own terms for those of lower class. India and some parts of Indonesia actually even have a caste-based society. Of course, other parts of Asia have their own messes. If that isn't bad enough, racism in Asia isn't only fueled by nationalism. It's also fueled by old grudges, so it can get pretty bad here.
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
From what I've gathered there are still historical revisionists in Japan who like to downplay their atrocities or pretend they didn't happen. Unlike Germany they didnt make that illegal.
Worse those people are our politicians. :/
Does it matter what words like cracker and redneck were invented for, if they are used for entirely different reasons now? For example, there are legitimate uses for the word "Zionist", but when neo-nazis use it to call every Jew everywhere no matter what their stance on Israel is, isn't that racist?
Some people still use Zionist in a positive context so I don't know about that.
And some people are proud members and defenders of redneck culture.
United Earth
In Israel, Zionist equals Patriot. They take objection to folks like Rupert Murdock being called a Zionist, for example.
The Mod with the Migraine
Apparently there's a whole book out about how math supports racist policies. (No, the solution isn't less math.)
In a new book, "Weapons of Math Destruction," Cathy O'Neil details all the ways that math is essentially being used for evil (my word, not hers).
From targeted advertising and insurance to education and policing, O'Neil looks at how algorithms and big data are targeting the poor, reinforcing racism and amplifying inequality.
These "WM Ds," as she calls them, have three key features: They are opaque, scalable and unfair.
Denied a job because of a personality test? Too bad — the algorithm said you wouldn't be a good fit. Charged a higher rate for a loan? Well, people in your zip code tend to be riskier borrowers. Received a harsher prison sentence? Here's the thing: Your friends and family have criminal records too, so you're likely to be a repeat offender. (Spoiler: The people on the receiving end of these messages don't actually get an explanation.)
The models O'Neil writes about all use proxies for what they're actually trying to measure. The police analyze zip codes to deploy officers, employers use credit scores to gauge responsibility, payday lenders assess grammar to determine credit worthiness. But zip codes are also a stand-in for race, credit scores for wealth, and poor grammar for immigrants.
O'Neil, who has a Ph D in mathematics from Harvard, has done stints in academia, at a hedge fund during the financial crisis and as a data scientist at a startup. It was there — in conjunction with work she was doing with Occupy Wall Street — that she become disillusioned by how people were using data.
"I worried about the separation between technical models and real people, and about the moral repercussions of that separation," O'Neill writes.
She started blogging — at mathbabe.org — about her frustrations, which eventually turned into "Weapons of Math Destruction."
One of the book's most compelling sections is on "recidivism models." For years, criminal sentencing was inconsistent and biased against minorities. So some states started using recidivism models to guide sentencing. These take into account things like prior convictions, where you live, drug and alcohol use, previous police encounters, and criminal records of friends and family. These scores are then used to determine sentencing.
"This is unjust," O'Neil writes. "Indeed, if a prosecutor attempted to tar a defendant by mentioning his brother's criminal record or the high crime rate in his neighborhood, a decent defense attorney would roar, 'Objection, Your Honor!'"
But in this case, the person is unlikely to know the mix of factors that influenced his or her sentencing — and has absolutely no recourse to contest them.
Or consider the fact that nearly half of U.S. employers ask potential hires for their credit report, equating a good credit score with responsibility or trustworthiness.
This "creates a dangerous poverty cycle," O'Neil writes. "If you can't get a job because of your credit record, that record will likely get worse, making it even harder to work." This cycle falls along racial lines, she argues, given the wealth gap between black and white households. This means African Americans have less of a cushion to fall back on and are more likely to see their credit slip.
And yet employers see a credit report as data rich and superior to human judgment — never questioning the assumptions that get baked in.
In a vacuum, these models are bad enough, but O'Neil emphasizes, "they're feeding on each other." Education, job prospects, debt and incarceration are all connected, and the way big data is used makes them more inclined to stay that way.
"Poor people are more likely to have bad credit and live in high-crime neighborhoods, surrounded by other poor people," she writes. "Once ... WM Ds digest that data, it showers them with subprime loans or for-profit schools. It sends more police to arrest them and when they're convicted it sentences them to longer terms." In turn, a new set of WM Ds uses this data to charge higher rates for mortgages, loans and insurance.
So, you see, it's easy to be discouraged.
And yet O'Neil is hopeful, because people are starting to pay attention. There's a growing community of lawyers, sociologists and statisticians committed to finding places where data is used for harm and figuring out how to fix it.
She's optimistic that laws like HIPAA and the Americans with Disabilities Act will be modernized to cover and protect more of your personal data, that regulators like the CFPB and FTC will increase their monitoring, and that there will be standardized transparency requirements.
And then there's the fact that these models actually have so much potential.
Imagine if you used recidivist models to provide the at-risk inmates with counseling and job training while in prison. Or if police doubled down on foot patrols in high crime zip codes — working to build relationships with the community instead of arresting people for minor offenses.
You might notice there's a human element to these solutions. Because really that's the key. Algorithms can inform and illuminate and supplement our decisions and policies. But to get not-evil results, humans and data really have to work together.
"Big Data processes codify the past," O'Neil writes. "They do not invent the future. Doing that requires moral imagination, and that's something only humans can provide."
It makes more sense than that "math (as in the subject itself, not the job market related to it) is too masculine" weirdness that certain feminists espouse.
edited 9th Sep '16 7:59:16 AM by nervmeister
United Earth
There's a lot more uncertainty, teamwork, and trial and error to Math than its traditional advocates would like you to believe. The problem isn't with math themselves, they're only a language skill. It's with the way they're taught, and the way the math field works as a society of researchers and teachers.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Homicidal Editor
Now, racism ruin math too. Someone needs to make a campaign with one simple message: Racism please stop ruin everything.
Humanity really do have a pathological need to be better than others. It can be good if channeled correctly to make you work harder to advance yourself in life and other inspirational stuff. But, sure, lets just use it for racism, classism, and oppressing the minorities.
edited 9th Sep '16 7:55:42 AM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.
The problem is, those people don't want to be better than others as complete self-realized individuals, but as a collective based on a shared, shallow trait or characteristic.
edited 9th Sep '16 8:35:39 AM by nervmeister
No longer a forum herald
To be more precise, humans feel like they have to have some intrinsic value attached to their lives and lifestyles. Which is really hard when you are at the very bottom of the socio-economic totem pole. The result is typically an attempt to jump through mental hoops to convince yourself you're not really at the bottom. Unfortunately, it's easier for a lot of people to tell themselves "there's someone worse off than me" than to convince themselves of their own worth in the face of so many people implicitly or explicitly saying "you have no real worth".
Then you throw in people higher up the totem pole, who exploit the situation (either intentionally or unconsciously) for their own benefit. Poof, you've got the basis for the majority of racism and classism, right there.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
@Handle: Not really, math isn't at fault, or capacity to gather data is. Any sociological or economic question could be, with sufficient data and processing power, reduced to "simple" physics. That is beyond our or any forseeable future society's capacity however, so we must contend with abstractions and heuristics.
Ah yes, forgot about that - sorry.
An examination of the idea that the terms "cracker," "white trash," and "redneck" are in and of themselves racial slurs. The conclusion? No. When viewed within the proper historical context (#HistoricalContextMatters), the terms were created by other white people to denigrate white people of the lower classes. As such, their origin lies in classism rather than racism. While the terms were racialized overtime, the class connotation still remains the primary one.
Franchesca still doesn't actually condone the use of these terms - because classism is still an "ism," and just because something isn't a racial slur doesn't mean it isn't hurtful and ultimately harmful. (Not that her legions of Twitter trolls are interested in hearing that, but it's obvious that the majority of them didn't even watch her video before rushing to nonsensically lambast her.)
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."