do you consider your native country racist?

Ben Reilly wrote:If a country includes ALL the people who live in it (and why shouldn't it?) then no country is racist, because that would be saying that victims of racism are racist themselves. Which, of course, they can be, but that's another point ...

If by racist you mean, there's a lot of racial strife, or racism is a problem in that country, then that's a different story.

So I'd ask you to clarify, please.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If a country includes ALL the people who live in it (and why shouldn't it?) then no country is racist, because that would be saying that victims of racism are racist themselves. Which, of course, they can be, but that's another point ...

If by racist you mean, there's a lot of racial strife, or racism is a problem in that country, then that's a different story.

So I'd ask you to clarify, please.

Another definition would lead to another conclusion:

If your country has racial problems, then objectively. that's a racist country.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Another definition would lead to another conclusion:

If your country has racial problems, then objectively. that's a racist country.

Then every country is both racist and anti-racist and it becomes a pointless definition.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Another definition would lead to another conclusion:

If your country has racial problems, then objectively. that's a racist country.

Then every country is both racist and anti-racist and it becomes a pointless definition.

Why?  Frankly, I think it's the only point by which to define racism.  Racism is significant, only because of the racial problems.  We wouldn't even recognize it if it were otherwise.

We can clearly recognize racist countries by their history.  South Africa, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Burundi, and the US.  Many countries had status problems with ethnicity, but the US had abject slavery, and SA and Rhodesia had the same class issue.

Ben Reilly wrote:If a country includes ALL the people who live in it (and why shouldn't it?) then no country is racist, because that would be saying that victims of racism are racist themselves. Which, of course, they can be, but that's another point ...

If by racist you mean, there's a lot of racial strife, or racism is a problem in that country, then that's a different story.

So I'd ask you to clarify, please.

Syl wrote:There seems to be more division between black and white now than ever there was.
In real life i dont see racism, my neighbours are Indian, Chinese, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, no problems.

Reading watching the news, TV and social media....that's a different story.

Eilzel wrote:A country as a whole can't be racist. That said, there are a huge amount of racist people in the UK. Not the majority by a long way, and mostly passive racists (people who will say racist things among family and friends but would be all smiles in public, and almost certainly vote either UKIP or Tory - not saying all their voters are racist btw, but if one is racist, one most likely is not a Labour or Liberal voter ).

I know people who are exactly like this, sadly.

inmyopinion wrote:

Eilzel wrote:A country as a whole can't be racist. That said, there are a huge amount of racist people in the UK. Not the majority by a long way, and mostly passive racists (people who will say racist things among family and friends but would be all smiles in public, and almost certainly vote either UKIP or Tory - not saying all their voters are racist btw, but if one is racist, one most likely is not a Labour or Liberal voter ).

I know people who are exactly like this, sadly.

I have heard people say the uk is "inherently" racist, would you agree with that.
by the way blm are the biggest racist group going and I an sure they did not vote UKIP or Tory.

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

I have heard people say the uk is "inherently" racist, would you agree with that.
by the way blm are the biggest racist group going and I an sure they did not vote UKIP or Tory.

No, I do not think the UK is 'inherently racist'. I think some people are, millions of them. But not the whole country by a long way.

BLM is a loose term for a movement. It has racist members for sure, but I doubt most who support BLM are racist.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why? Frankly, I think it's the only point by which to define racism. Racism is significant, only because of the racial problems. We wouldn't even recognize it if it were otherwise.

We can clearly recognize racist countries by their history. South Africa, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Burundi, and the US. Many countries had status problems with ethnicity, but the US had abject slavery, and SA and Rhodesia had the same class issue.

Defining a country as racist or not discounts the views of millions of people who may actively fight against (or for) racism. You can call an institution racism (be it the government, the law, individual policies, companies, etc) but a whole country? Setting yourself up to fall there.

England has millions of racists, that doesn't make the whole country racist.

Original Quill wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Defining a country as racist or not discounts the views of millions of people who may actively fight against (or for) racism. You can call an institution racism (be it the government, the law, individual policies, companies, etc) but a whole country? Setting yourself up to fall there.

England has millions of racists, that doesn't make the whole country racist.

Well, of course it discounts the individuals (opponent) within the nation.  The question was about the nation, not the individuals within the nation.  You cannot generalize without leaving behind individual details.  I didn't ask the question; I gave my answer...and explained the reasoning.

Incidentally, you're proving my point: Why do the non-racists have to "actively fight against....racism" if the nation is not racist?  First comes the problem, then comes the problem-solving.  One doesn't waste time on non-problems.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, of course it discounts the individuals (opponent) within the nation.  The question was about the nation, not the individuals within the nation.  You cannot generalize without leaving behind individual details.  I didn't ask the question; I gave my answer...and explained the reasoning.

Incidentally, you're proving my point: Why do the non-racists have to "actively fight against....racism" if the nation is not racist?  First comes the problem, then comes the problem-solving.  One doesn't waste time on non-problems.

people often fight against what they perceive as racism, homophobia, islamophobia, just because it exists in their minds it does not mean it actually does.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

people often fight against what they perceive as racism, homophobia, islamophobia, just because it exists in their minds it does not mean it actually does.

You miss the point.  Les is arguing that there are people who oppose the racism, and my point is that doesn't make the nation free of racism.  In both cases racism is the predicate.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You miss the point.  Les is arguing that there are people who oppose the racism, and my point is that doesn't make the nation free of racism.  In both cases racism is the predicate.

no I get your point but none of it means any pf it actually exists. It does mean the opinion may exist