Habs fire Martin; Cunneyworth named as H.C.

All I'm saying is that discrimination based on language or nationality should not be described using the same term that is used to describe discrimination based on skin color. The reason is obvious. Why are we debating this? Are you seriously going to compare the disputes between the English and French (which, true, have escalated to war over the years) to what happened between the whites and people of color?

wprager wrote:All I'm saying is that discrimination based on language or nationality should not be described using the same term that is used to describe discrimination based on skin color.

I'd agree. There should be a different term. I'm just saying that "racism" is only useful in a loose usage since it's always misused.

wprager wrote:The reason is obvious.

That's an odd one. Why is the reason obvious? Why is skin colour such a relevant distinction, while religion or nationality is not?

wprager wrote:Why are we debating this?

Uh...I'm not exactly sure. Because we disagree about the usefulness of the term?

wprager wrote:Are you seriously going to compare the disputes between the English and French (which, true, have escalated to war over the years) to what happened between the whites and people of color?

I don't recall comparing those things. First of all, I only chimed in regarding the relevance of the term. That doesn't mean that I equate things. If you say that you ate a cafeteria sandwich for lunch, and I say I ate a porterhouse, does that mean that, since I used the same term (ate) for both, that I'm equating the two? A porterhouse does not equal a sandwich and French/English relations do not equal the Civil Rights Movement. They certainly aren't equal because of an ad hominem argument based on the operative word used in each sentence.

The term "racism" applies very strongly to discrimination based on the color of the skin. Because of slavery it is a *big deal*. A frenchman calling an englishman "silly english knnnnnnight" or telling him that his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of eldeberries is name calling, and I, for one, would avoid applying the name "racism" to that. I hope that makes it more clear.

wprager wrote:The term "racism" applies very strongly to discrimination based on the color of the skin. Because of slavery it is a *big deal*. A frenchman calling an englishman "silly english knnnnnnight" or telling him that his mother was a hamster and his father smelled of eldeberries is name calling, and I, for one, would avoid applying the name "racism" to that. I hope that makes it more clear.

I actually wrote a paper on what we're (kind of) talking about here. The idea that there's a hierarchy of suffering (or "competitive memory") can be dangerous. There have been a few cases where Jewish and Black leaders have argued that the Holocaust or Slave Trade was the worst act of atrocity ever sanctioned by a state. The result of these sort of arguments is never positive.

Regardless, we're kind of on different pages here. Juxtaposition is not equation. When I use the term "discrimination" to refer to racism as it applies to Black people, that doesn't mean that I'm equating that treatment to other forms of discrimination. There are degrees of discrimination. The Slave Trade certainly represented an extreme form of discrimination, but that doesn't change the fact that the term "racism" implies a biological truth that does not exist. Because the term can't be used correctly, it is necessary to use it loosely. Using it to describe two different events in no way means that the two events are the same. The sky is blue and so is my shirt. No one would argue that I'm suggesting that they're the same. The fact that the term "racism" applies (colloquially) to both discrimination based on nation and colour in no way implies that both forms are equal.