Where is racism today?

I live in the South-East part of the United States, in Florida, and I've observed that racism isn't too common. Every once in a while you'll hear someone maybe make a controversial joke, but no real hate. It seems that political correctness has driven out the expressions of people on regards to race, and it seems as whites are actually starting to be discriminated against. It seems colored people are starting to look down to whites, and that they're superior.

As far as discrimination based on other features than skin color I have seen nearly none of, but then again I live in a very good part of the city, and I'm somewhat sheltered.

krazzikk said:

I live in the South-East part of the United States, in Florida, and I've observed that racism isn't too common. Every once in a while you'll hear someone maybe make a controversial joke, but no real hate. It seems that political correctness has driven out the expressions of people on regards to race, and it seems as whites are actually starting to be discriminated against. It seems colored people are starting to look down to whites, and that they're superior.

As far as discrimination based on other features than skin color I have seen nearly none of, but then again I live in a very good part of the city, and I'm somewhat sheltered.

Click to expand...

I've always heard that using the term "colored" can make you seem old fashioned when talking about race, that "black", "African-American", or "people of color" are usually going to keep people from making inferences based on your language usage, i.e., thinking you have old fashioned ideas about race. Is that not the case in the South / areas near the South?

Is "people of colour" a euphemism for black people or does it apply to all minorities? I always found it to be clunky and distancing.

Hms...

I think that racism is largely marginalized nowadays because racists tend to be very sheltered and sequestered from the real world. For example, you have people whose only knowledge of <insert race here> people comes from equally sheltered people, or perhaps their experience with the one person of <insert race here> happened to be a jerk, so the sum total of their experience with that race is bad.

But the reason why they're racist is also what makes them harmless. People who ever hope to have any significance or make a difference in life will have to get out into the real world, and in the process they'll learn that you can't paint everyone with the same brush, even if they have the same skin color. But of course, there's always a few people who slip between the cracks...

But other than that I think racism is pretty harmless. But then again maybe I'm just one of the lucky few minorities who has never really experienced it. Or maybe I did and I just didn't care enough to notice...

BlahISuck said:

Is "people of colour" a euphemism for black people or does it apply to all minorities? I always found it to be clunky and distancing.

Click to expand...

it applies to anyone who isn't white iirc
and it's not 'distancing'
it's inclusive, an umbrella term that essentially includes anyone who feels they are PoC

zomgitscathy said:

But other than that I think racism is pretty harmless.

Click to expand...

please go into the real world

Harlequin said:

it applies to anyone who isn't white iirc
and it's not 'distancing'
it's inclusive, an umbrella term that essentially includes anyone who feels they are PoC

Click to expand...

Oh, I meant distancing in that like ... it's kind of indirect and vague sounding and impersonal. I'd prefer non-white, the only reason it matters to be a "person of colour" is that we're not white people. If it didn't matter that we're not white people, then what's the point of having a word that makes us distinct?

BlahISuck said:

Oh, I meant distancing in that like ... it's kind of indirect and vague sounding and impersonal. I'd prefer non-white, the only reason it matters to be a "person of colour" is that we're not white people. If it didn't matter that we're not white people, then what's the point of having a word that makes us distinct?

Click to expand...

My guess is that "people of color" is preferred over "non-white" because "non-white" is still referencing white people and that even if "people of color" is still tied to white people in a way, it's not as directly defined in terms of white people. I assume it would be like if we said "non-straight". Of course this is arguing semantics (as much as I love arguing semantics).

I was doing some reading yesterday and it got me thinking that instead of (well, maybe not instead of, but in addition to) talking about racism we should be talking more about white privilege since that gets more to the heart of racism. Thinking about some stuff I read, it seems like there are no problems that white people have that are specific to white people. If you're a person of color then you're going to have a lot of the same problems white people have (making enough money for rent, relationship troubles, etc.) but you'll have additional problems that white people like me don't experience and don't necessarily notice so it doesn't inform our decisions and actions.

Scarf said:

My guess is that "people of color" is preferred over "non-white" because "non-white" is still referencing white people and that even if "people of color" is still tied to white people in a way, it's not as directly defined in terms of white people. I assume it would be like if we said "non-straight". Of course this is arguing semantics (as much as I love arguing semantics).

Click to expand...

Ehhh the main idea is that white people have privilege and "people of colour" don't because they're not white. Not wanting to reference white people even though that's the issue of hand just seems really indirect and superficial and actually avoiding the issue (since you're too afraid to call it out by name). It rubs off the wrong attitude. I mean, call me for what I am, but if the issue is about being treated differently for not being white, then call it out for what it is.

I don't know what I think about white privilege. It's a recognition of positive discrimination, yes? that while we by rights and laws are "equal" it's easier for white people to do certain things?

BlahISuck said:

Ehhh the main idea is that white people have privilege and "people of colour" don't because they're not white. Not wanting to reference white people even though that's the issue of hand just seems really indirect and superficial and actually avoiding the issue (since you're too afraid to call it out by name). It rubs off the wrong attitude. I mean, call me for what I am, but if the issue is about being treated differently for not being white, then call it out for what it is.

I don't know what I think about white privilege. It's a recognition of positive discrimination, yes? that while we by rights and laws are "equal" it's easier for white people to do certain things?

Click to expand...

One of the things about white privilege is that white people don't always notice it so I may not be the best person to talk about, but I think it's a mix of things - positive discrimination maybe not as much as it is about ignorant discrimination toward non-whites and active discrimination. Like, white people getting jobs because the person hiring looked at a non-white person's name and figured they couldn't speak English or something. White person benefits by default. Or like when a white kid misbehaves in public people just put it down to them being annoying or maybe bad parents, but if a black kid does the same thing people say that there are too many black women having too many kids and that sort of thing. I dunno. Like I said, not the best person.

I don't think anyone notices it really, just that white people have things relatively easier. It goes both ways - if you saw the name Smith or MacArthur you'd be like okay he's white let's hire him. If his last name is Jenkins though - could be black doe. Let's put it in the maybe pile.

Slayr231 said:

You have to be extremely careful when getting your sources from the media. Like with the Zimmerman case, the media kept using a picture of Tray Von Martin from when he was fourteen. This made it seem as if Zimmerman had just killed a little kid. Actually, Martin was eighteen and a big, muscular dude. Easily capable of beating someone within an inch of their life if he really wanted to.

Click to expand...

That's really stupid.

One of the other problems with that trial was the reaction to when Rachel Jeantel delivered her testimony in Ebonics. She's a heavy-set girl who resembles Gabourey Sidibe as Precious. She also couldn't read cursive and she had an attitude problem - it didn't help that she posted a picture of her "court nails" on Facebook. The black community in the US was pretty mad. Which brings me to my point...

Knowing that certain people fit certain ethnic stereotypes can be a problem for those who do not fit those stereotypes. My aunt's ex-husband and his illegitimate son boast about having participated in the Sydney protests related to the film Innocence of Muslims - my ex-uncle even says that it was Allah's willing. Then again, I don't trust him or his trashy, college-expelled son (thank heavens he's not my cousin). Personally, I am sick of seeing my co-religionists protesting everything that is offensive. It makes us look like a bunch of ignorant lunatics. I admit, that film was very offensive, but it doesn't mean we should kill the moron who created it. As for Rachel Jeantel, I can see why some people might take offence to someone acting in a stereotypical manner. It doesn't do justice for the community. (It was made worse by the fact that pro-Zimmerman white media mocked the girl for racist reasons. I agree that it was ridiculous for her to be using Ebonics, but I don't think we should heckle her for it.)

(Don't ask why my ex-uncle has an illegitimate son - my ex-uncle is a huge hypocrite when it comes to religion. He reconnected with this son after my mum's sister threw him out. Those two guys deserve each other.)

Harlequin said:

please go into the real world

Click to expand...

As opposed to what, the fake world? You really should read the stuff I said before "other than that"...

zomgitscathy said:

As opposed to what, the fake world? You really should read the stuff I said before "other than that"...

Click to expand...

The other stuff about ignorance being relatively harmless? I don't know. Ignorance can be pretty dangerous. Imagine a small town somewhere that's all white and a black person moves in. The townspeople aren't used to black people, haven't really ever interacted with black people, so they say a bunch of ignorant stuff that's off-putting, and they generally treat the black person like an other, perhaps questioning any attempts the person makes to do normal stuff like, I dunno, get a gym membership or something. All in all it can be dangerous because any single buffoon who wants to do something bad can and the one black person wouldn't have anyone to turn to. That's all a very odd example, but it's the kind of thing you might see happen with ignorance.

In my country? Everywhere. If you're not white (here Asian, Muslim, etc. don't matter, but your "whiteness"), you're in trouble. The government has been trying to change that, but it will be difficult.

Cerberus87 said:

In my country? Everywhere. If you're not white (here Asian, Muslim, etc. don't matter, but your "whiteness"), you're in trouble. The government has been trying to change that, but it will be difficult.

Click to expand...

Strange...I've been to Brazil and the white people were pretty nice to me. Then again, I'm considered white there.

My Brazilian relatives have faced discrimination since they're Muslim and not Christian. After the Rio de Janeiro shooting perpetrated by a convert to Islam, a few of my cousins got bullied. Still, they do have many Christian friends of all colours. But finding religious services is a problem since Muslims are a small minority there. I have relatives in Colombia and Argentina too. My Colombian relatives live in a large city, and they have a mosque in theirs. But my Argentine relatives live away from Buenos Aires, and they're surrounded by Catholics. Some of my Latin American relatives ended up marrying Christians because Muslims were hard to find (though as far as I know they've raised the kids Muslim).

(If you're curious as to which state my Brazilian relatives live in...most of them live in Parana. Some of them live in Foz do Iguacu, which has a mosque. But others live in towns that don't have mosques.)

Blacks are not represented well in Brazilian media. Black Brazilian celebrities like Pele and Tais Araujo are lucky that they get to have good careers (Pele was even married to a white Brazilian woman at one point). Turn on any Brazilian TV show and count the blacks and notice how few there are. I mean, if half of the people in the country are at least partially black, they should be represented. And the models...there are hardly any black models in Brazil. It's mostly whites like Gisele Bundchen, many of whom are blonde (though to be fair, Latin America's entertainment industry is saturated with bleach blondes). There are some light-skinned black Brazilian models, but I can't think of any dark black Brazilian models by name.

Still, at least white people in Brazil don't throw bananas at black soccer players like they do in Russia and Germany.

zomgitscathy said:

Hms...

I think that racism is largely marginalized nowadays because racists tend to be very sheltered and sequestered from the real world. For example, you have people whose only knowledge of <insert race here> people comes from equally sheltered people, or perhaps their experience with the one person of <insert race here> happened to be a jerk, so the sum total of their experience with that race is bad.

But the reason why they're racist is also what makes them harmless. People who ever hope to have any significance or make a difference in life will have to get out into the real world, and in the process they'll learn that you can't paint everyone with the same brush, even if they have the same skin color. But of course, there's always a few people who slip between the cracks...

But other than that I think racism is pretty harmless. But then again maybe I'm just one of the lucky few minorities who has never really experienced it. Or maybe I did and I just didn't care enough to notice...

Click to expand...

Racism? Harmless? Those two words do not go into the same sentence.

It's arguable if something like Hitler could ever happen again given the advent of globalization and human rights.

Seattle said:

Racism? Harmless? Those two words do not go into the same sentence.

Click to expand...

You have to admit, racism is one of the most universally impugned things in society. You can't get away with racial profiling without getting seriously sued, and a crime carries a heavier penalty if it can be proven that it was motivated by racism. There's people who fall through the cracks, but for the most part racists have been forced into their caves, with very little chance of having any real influence on society.

And let's face it...most racists aren't too bright.

BlahISuck said:

It's arguable if something like Hitler could ever happen again given the advent of globalization and human rights.

Click to expand...

It's already happened. Albeit on a lesser scale, 500 thousand to 1 million deaths isn't something to ignore. I'm talking about Rwandan genocide, by the way.

But I see your point in general. Sure, fight against racism has gone a long way and today's situation is better than it was many years ago, but to say that racism is harmless is something entirely different and a notion that I completely disagree with.