What makes you think you're not a racist?

[hackneyvi]

Children (and quite a few adults) urgently need educating in what the term 'racism' actually means: a white person from England is not being racist when he/she insults a fellow white European.

Racism seems now to include nationality so that antipathy to the English by a Scot can be classed as such. What then is racism if racial difference plays no part in the prejudice? Birthplace is taken to presume some fundamental difference and the difference - if logic can be applied to the explanation of prejudice - can only either be biological or cultural, can't it? What else is it that can be responded to?

If anti-English prejudice by a Scot is racism - as now defined -, is it about what the Englishman is or what he is not? It may be both, but may it be the absence of a quality, the absence of 'Scottishness'? Likewise, anti-Scots prejudice by an Englishman. Belgian by French? English by French? French by English?

It would generally be regarded as a form of madness to be prejudiced against someone on the grounds of geography if the geographical point wasn't a signifier of something else. So what does the geography - Scotland, England - signify? Is it home?

[french frank]

So what does the geography - Scotland, England - signify? Is it home?

It could be ethnicity. On the other hand, it could be simply Not Us - however we define ourselves. What's racism when football supporters take baseball bats to the rival fans?

[Pilchardman]

Racism seems now to include nationality so that antipathy to the English by a Scot can be classed as such.

Indeed. This is because "race" is not a very good scientific category. It isn't consistent, doesn't create mutually exclusive categories, and couldn't be applied to other animals. What constitutes a race is not agreed, it is not even agreed how I would decide which race I might belong to. I am simultaneously "white", European, Scottish, Scots-Irish, Caucasian, and mixed. These are not different tiers in the classification system, but interchangeable. That's crap biology. Whatever the scientific basis for it (ie none), many people do seem keen to have racial categories.

As FF says, "not us" is probably enough. As a Scot, I am well used to people calling me a Catholic despite knowing I'm an atheist. I even had a teacher at school who insisted on calling me Irish, despite my family connection with Ireland having been more than a century before my birth.

So there does seem to be a deep-seated need to distinguish "the other" in the human condition. Whether it's a necessary part or not is another question. Whether it necessarily entails bigotry is yet another. I suggest not.

[Lateralthinking1]

Quote - What's racism when football supporters take baseball bats to the rival fans? The answer must surely be another form of conflict. Unfortunately conflict is a part of human behaviour and one that is enjoyed by many. Just ask a Guardian reader what her view is of The Sun. One of the problems with conflict is that it emanates from approximations. Conservatives clearly believe strongly enough in their similarities that they proactively subscribe to that clan. As soon as one looks at the detailed differences between them, a more complicated truth is revealed. Clarity of purpose requires blurring the distinctions. This is less confusing for being understandable but more confusing for not being an accurate depiction of how things are. In the longer term greater confusion arises from the mythology. After the war, the British had an almost irrational admiration for the Germans in their post-war reconstruction while at the very same time holding on to anti-German feelings. Meanwhile the divisions between unions and bosses here became at times more like a war. So once we were approximately all one as a country against another country. Suddenly, the halfway line on the pitch was inside Britain and based on class. Ah, some might say but there were very clear differences in class. Conflict arises when and where people are not like our families. But then one recalls how some of the biggest wars occur inside families, for example between siblings. Generally, they don't speak a different language or have different coloured skins or have huge wealth advantages. Regrettably, from my perspective but not necessarily theirs, that is just the way things often are.

As I came over the local hill earlier in the fog, a teenager in a hoody headed towards me, his hands in pockets. There is that moment in a situation when you realise that the other person has no intention of moving from his chosen course. It was clear from his demeanour that he was expecting me to get out of his way which I duly did. My parents would shrug their shoulders and say "well, that's youth today". However, back in 1977 when on holiday in Austria - our only time as a family abroad - they noticed how groups of people "just walked at us". In each case, they declared them to be Germans. They were probably right but I can't say that I noticed much. At that moment, historical experience mattered - theirs but nothing that had been a part of my life. I decided on getting home that the hoody who had indicated that the pavement was his would ultimately end up in senior management. He had that absence of accommodating behaviour about him that the modern system loves. It was also my view that he had siblings with whom he had to compete for space and attention in the home. He needed to establish who was boss there on a daily basis. Of course, my experience in the workplace partially led me to the first view. As for the second, I was an only child. There would have been a time many years ago when I would have been a bit troubled by his behaviour. There was I with an outlook that expected everyone to enjoy harmony. I generally promoted it. Anxiety would have been linked to confusion about motivation.

Now I just tend to view it as bizarre that others have to develop in that way although I can understand it. Over the decades, everyone acquires stances and groupings for social reasons or even basic survival. There is conflict inherent in every one and yet the idyll for me is still probably a remote desert island. An island that others would either find very boring or simply not have the background ever to have known and hence ever have as a future aspiration. So much is surely about interpretation and it depends on where someone is coming from in their mind. For one person a football match is a place for criticising the referee, for another a chance to criticise their own team members, for another still an opportunity to have a go at the perceived opposition. Aligning with one team once supported my fantasy of everyone in that team being harmonious with each other. But where is Blatter? He was unequivocally off message. It is more important to represent all correct opinion when in an organization, particularly as the head of it. However, I can see that his attempt to place a racist remark in the same context as, say, a player running at another and knocking him flat was an attempt to minimise conflict. While racism is wrong and anti-racism is right, the existence of the former requires in the latter a similar level of conflict, albeit one prompted by a perpetrator and in response. The difference with Blatter is that he thinks that conflict is diminished by shrugging something off. Others feel that it isn't and encourages such conflict to get worse. To use the word racist in regard to him isn't wholly wrong but it is an approximation, hence a debate not without conflict.

[scottycelt]

It's tribal/territorial really ... whether it's a nation or a street-gang.

Whenever I'm in the Scottish Highlands I have this feeling of immense pride that this is MY country ... stunning beauty with that ever-present feeling of wild independence ... silly really as the huge lumps of rocks and endless pools of water have absolutely nothing to do with me, and the aura of 'romance' is a comforting fiction of my imagination, quickly realised when the brutal reality of the past eventually comes to mind. Furthermore, I have now lived happily in England much longer than I ever did in Scotland.

I think we may all have this need to 'belong' to something ...

[Pabmusic]

It's tribal/territorial really ... whether it's a nation or a street-gang.

Whenever I'm in the Scottish Highlands I have this feeling of immense pride that this is MY country ... stunning beauty with that ever-present feeling of wild independence ... silly really as the huge lumps of rocks and endless pools of water have absolutely nothing to do with me, and the aura of 'romance' is a comforting fiction of my imagination, quickly realised when the brutal reality of the past eventually comes to mind. Furthermore, I have now lived happily in England much longer than I ever did in Scotland.

I think we may all have this need to 'belong' to something ...

Yes. There's almost certainly a genetic basis to this. Evolution will favour groupings of close kin because they share so many genes (50% in the case of parent/child, and an average of 50% for siblings), so there's a very good chance that those genes will be passed on. There will therefore be a natural desire to preserve such groupings; in earlier times, this would have extended to quite big tribal groups, who shared a large proportion of genes. There would also have been a natural tendency to distrust those from other groups, who might dilute the gene pool. These tribal groupings to preserve a gene pool have now disappeared in almost all humans because the population has become too large to sustain them, but our brains are hard-wired to favour them, nevertheless, and it's easy to substitute 'national identity', 'racial identity', 'supporter of X or Y', or some other cultural rationalisation.

As I said in no. 41, this doesn't afford an excuse for racism (or any form of tribalism) because evolution has also provided us with large brains and the ability to understand the world around us, including our own actions and their consequences. It's also left us with the ability to appreciate the beauty of the Highlands, which must be good.

[ahinton]

It's tribal/territorial really ... whether it's a nation or a street-gang.

Whenever I'm in the Scottish Highlands I have this feeling of immense pride that this is MY country ... stunning beauty with that ever-present feeling of wild independence ... silly really as the huge lumps of rocks and endless pools of water have absolutely nothing to do with me, and the aura of 'romance' is a comforting fiction of my imagination, quickly realised when the brutal reality of the past eventually comes to mind. Furthermore, I have now lived happily in England much longer than I ever did in Scotland.

I think we may all have this need to 'belong' to something ...

I have also lived in England far longer than I have done in my native Scotland - and I yield to none in a love of the Scottish highlands that I share with you - but surely even any "need to 'belong'" to something such as you mention here does not of itself presume the need to "own" it in the sense implied by the expression "MY" country?

[mangerton]

It's tribal/territorial really ... whether it's a nation or a street-gang.

Whenever I'm in the Scottish Highlands I have this feeling of immense pride that this is MY country ... stunning beauty with that ever-present feeling of wild independence ... silly really as the huge lumps of rocks and endless pools of water have absolutely nothing to do with me, and the aura of 'romance' is a comforting fiction of my imagination, quickly realised when the brutal reality of the past eventually comes to mind. Furthermore, I have now lived happily in England much longer than I ever did in Scotland.

I think we may all have this need to 'belong' to something ...

As your namesake said, "Breathes there the man with soul so dead......"

[Flosshilde]

I have also lived in England far longer than I have done in my native Scotland - and I yield to none in a love of the Scottish highlands that I share with you - but surely even any "need to 'belong'" to something such as you mention here does not of itself presume the need to "own" it in the sense implied by the expression "MY" country?

I don't think that Scotty meant 'my' in the sense of posession - more, perhaps, that it was the country he belonged to. I have similar feelings when I go to see my mother; although where she lives now isn't where I was brought up, it's close enough to feel like 'home', even though I moved away (to London) in 1974, & then to Scotland in 1994.

[scottycelt]

I have also lived in England far longer than I have done in my native Scotland - and I yield to none in a love of the Scottish highlands that I share with you - but surely even any "need to 'belong'" to something such as you mention here does not of itself presume the need to "own" it in the sense implied by the expression "MY" country?

Well, didn't I sort of suggest that?

By an accident of birth (in the 19th Century my great-grandfather emigrated from Northern Italy to Scotland like so many others) I was born in Glasgow to Aberdonian parents, so even in a Scottish context my connection with the Highlands is somewhat tenuous.

Yet, it has always been MY country possibly because as a youth Loch Lomond was only a 20-mile bike ride away in then uncluttered roads. Maybe it just seemed like heaven away from the hell of a horribly grimy city, however magnificent that city may have been otherwise.

Maybe these inexplicable almost spiritual things are fashioned and ingrained from the experience of youth ... ? (if you excuse the rather contradictory-sounding phrase!)

[scottycelt]

As your namesake said, "Breathes there the man with soul so dead......"

Yes, he could certainly sum it up much better than me, mangerton ... !

[Serial_Apologist]

I think we may all have this need to 'belong' to something ...

I think that's because we really are part of where we are and whence we have come. We are inseparable from the air we breathe and the food we take in. We are both, and so much more. Mystics of all spiritual traditions and none have always recognised this. Peer group pressure is a way of telling us how we MUST belong. So we have to make a stand. The trouble lies in the mediation of that belonging - even words can get in the way.

[Simon]

Yes, most of our physical and psychological needs we have indeed inherited. Did you consciously decide amateur, that you needed water to live, or did you inherit that need by virtue of the fact that you are 70% water?


At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs amateur51, the vast majority of people need interaction with other humans to stay sane (haven't they shown that extended solitary confinement doesn't benefit one's sanity?). You don't necessarily need children, though surprise surprise, the majority seem to end up wanting and rearing them! Not many people aspire to become religious hermits and go live in caves.


I think I'll ignore responding to any further infantile "logic" from now on !!!

Yes, Boilk. I would too! You've learnt very quickly.

The dear fellow is distictly logically challenged and it's frustrating when he completely misses the point - but in his defence, I think that generally he means well.

[Flosshilde]

I think that it's Simon who has rather missed the point (as well as Boilk).

Originally Posted by amateur51
Lordy we can inherit needs now?

Whatever will they think of next?

Yes, most of our physical and psychological needs we have indeed inherited. Did you consciously decide amateur, that you needed water to live, or did you inherit that need by virtue of the fact that you are 70% water?

The need for water is a physiological need common to all living things - it's inherited only in the sense that it has been present since life evolved. Nobody decides, consciously or unconsciously, that they need water, any more than they decide that they need to breath. To be racist, however, is a conscious decision - otherwise how do you explain the fact that some people - otherwise the same- are & some aren't?

Originally Posted by amateur51
So explain people who lead very happy lives sans children, sans partner to me please. It all sounds a bit reductive to me, a bit like an organised religion

At the risk of teaching you to suck eggs amateur51, the vast majority of people need interaction with other humans to stay sane (haven't they shown that extended solitary confinement doesn't benefit one's sanity?). You don't necessarily need children, though surprise surprise, the majority seem to end up wanting and rearing them! Not many people aspire to become religious hermits and go live in caves.


I think I'll ignore responding to any further infantile "logic" from now on !!!

Yes, I, & I'm sure Amateur, recognise that we need the company of other people, & that people in solitary confinement for any length of time develop psychological problems. Unfortunatel Boilk's logic is faulty, as he/she believes that companionship can only come from a spouse (or civil partner) and/or children. There are a great many people with neither who have a wide circle of friends who give them all the companionship they need.

If I were you, Boilk, I'd ignore Simon's advice - he's not widely known for engaging in discussion or using much logic himself.

[Pilchardman]

The need for water is a physiological need common to all living things - it's inherited only in the sense that it has been present since life evolved. Nobody decides, consciously or unconsciously, that they need water, any more than they decide that they need to breath. To be racist, however, is a conscious decision - otherwise how do you explain the fact that some people - otherwise the same- are & some aren't?

While I agree that it is indeed a conscious decision to be racist, it does not follow that because some people are and some people aren't that it must be a conscious decision.

Some people have red hair and some people don't, but while it is a conscious decision for some of them, for many it is not.