Why are you allowed to be "Positively Racist"?

Let's knock the elephant in the room. I, nor anyone else, should advocate that racism is a good thing. No matter what form is takes, it's as ugly as any other form.

What I don't get is this: why are we allowed to be (what I call) "positively racist"?

Let me flesh out what I mean. Here is a standard Oxford definition of racism:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"

That's a fairly accurate definition. It's not my own, but one procured from Google Dictionary.

Let that assumption ring true.

Why is it, then, that we are allowed to make statements such as, "Germans are extremely punctual people and who have a love of order". The question is -- why isn't this statement equally as racist as saying, "Germans are extremely unpunctual people and who have a hate of order".

In other words, the positive racist reference is accepted (as it is a generalized characteristic against the entire German population), but if a negative reference is made toward all Germans, it is roundly considered racist.

The question is this: why does this double standard exist!?

If we are truly honest, the positive attribution should be considered equally as racist as the negative attribution -- but this is never deemed the case; and I do not understand why.

So, why are you allowed to be a positive racist, but not a negative racist?

The conclusion is this: racism is accepted in society, except when it is negative. That conclusion alone is troubling.

biZrb

Nationality and race are two different things

biZrb

biZrb wrote: »

Nationality and race are two different things

How does that work though?

I mean, if I were to say:

Nigerians are hard-working people that contribute much to society.

...that would be considered acceptable, even though it is a generalisation.

If I were to say the abhorrent:

Nigerians are lazy people who don't contribute anything to society.

...that would rightly be considered inimically racist, even though it too, like the above, is a generalisation.

Why is one accepted as racist, but not the other?

Surely, for the purposes of consistency, both should be considered racist.

James Brown

It's a mix. The difference is white people passing comment on other predominantly white people. Most people don't like to be tied to any stereotype positive or negative.
Black people don't enjoy being assumed to be good at sports.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's a mix. The difference is white people passing comment on other predominantly white people. Most people don't like to be tied to any stereotype positive or negative.
Black people don't enjoy being assumed to be good at sports.

Dare I say, isn't that established as biologically and statistically true?

Think of your Usain Bolts, for example.

If I were a member of that community, I would celebrate that fact and -- if anything -- use it to my advantage in a sporting career.

jjpep

Your still mixing up race and nationality.

White people (or black, or brown etc) can come from very many different countries all with different cultural norms. So a German person who is culturally normative will probably be punctual. A culturally normative Italian person may be less so. They are this way because that's the culture they were brought up in encouraged them to be. Their ethnicity doesn't come into play.

mr_fegelien

I think the difference is that saying "Germans are punctual people" doesn't put down any other race/nationality but saying that "white girls are the most attractive" does.

Just my two cents.

jjpep

jjpep wrote: »

Your still mixing up race and nationality.

White people (or black, or brown etc) can come from very many different countries all with different cultural norms. So a German person who is culturally normative will probably be punctual. A culturally normative Italian person may be less so. They are this way because that's the culture they were brought up in encouraged them to be. Their ethnicity doesn't come into play.

That's not exactly true though.

I mean, in my example, I'm not suggesting the German people are somehow a uniform type -- white etc. There are black Germans, Turkic Germans etc. who are just as German as the "whitest" German.

Ultimately, the stereotypes persist. But if those stereotypes are negative, we almost never accept them or we are coy to admit this.

James Brown

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dare I say, isn't that established as biologically and statistically true?

Think of your Usain Bolts, for example.

If I were a member of that community, I would celebrate that fact and -- if anything -- use it to my advantage in a sporting career.

No.
Bolt is hardly common.
All jamaicans are world class athletes?
Stereotypes aren't enjoyed by most. It simplifies the complexity of the individual. Its lazy positive or negative.
Talking on the traits of nations, like a government, is based on past actions and policy not DNA.

amadangomor

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No.
Bolt is hardly common.
All jamaicans are world class athletes?
Stereotypes aren't enjoyed by most. It simplifies the complexity of the individual. Its lazy positive or negative.
Talking on the traits of nations, like a government, is based on past actions and policy not DNA.

Eh no, you've picked a really bad example here

https://elitetrack.com/blogs-details-4075/

"Sprinters usually have the single or double copy of the ACTN3 gene. This gene has been linked with protein syntehesis and the high speed muscular contractions necessary for sprinting. It is very unlikely that an elite sprinter will not have one or both copies of this gene. Startlingly, the double copy of the ACTN 3 gene is found in 72% of Jamaican citizens. To put this in to perspective, the gene is found in 76% of Olympians. The single copy of the ACTN3 is found in 26% of ordinary Jamaicans and 23% of Olympians. If you do the math, this means that 98% of all Jamaicans have one or both copies of the gene that is recognized as being necessary to compete at the highest levels in a sprint event. For further perspective, twenty percent of Europeans lack this gene. !

Racism is more about hate and negative portrayal imo. Negative stereotypes are pretty hateful. Compliments are not. To me saying something positive about a race is never really racism. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Bobblehats

Before the lines are any more blurred it is still possible to make observations though. I could say on the whole Pakistanis have really substantial noses, but is that a positive or a negative?

amadangomor

Deleted User wrote: »

Racism is more about hate and negative portrayal imo. Negative stereotypes are pretty hateful. Compliments are not. To me saying something positive about a race is never really racism. It doesn't hurt anyone.

Depends on your perspective what is positive or negative. I was positive in mentioning the fact that the vast majority of sprinters are of West African origin and that is due to the genetics to a West African man and he took a bit of offence at it.

James Brown

amadangomor wrote: »

Depends on your perspective what is positive or negative. I was positive in mentioning the fact that the vast majority of sprinters are of West African origin and that is due to the genetics to a West African man and he took a bit of offence at it.

Because it dehumanises the individual. No stereotype is 'positive' imo.

Beasty

Another trolling thread