There doesn't need to be one for it to be racist. pnathan seemed to be saying that either it wasn't racist, or it didn't matter that it was racist, because there was a point.
My is that whether or not that's true is immaterial (and demonstrably false): the person created this fictional Honest Achmed -- a play on the stereotype of Arabs as untrustworthy in business dealings. He further went on to capitalize on a number of other stereotypes about Arabs as he presented his completed app.
If I wrote the same thing, but from the perspective of the fictional Jim I mentioned above, I don't think you would have any question about how racist it was. If I littered my post with a bunch of stereotypes about black Americans, don't you think that would be racist?
"a play on the stereotype" - this makes it humorous, not racist.
Please, please, please, oh dear people. Try to be a little bit less busy with the showdown maquillage of political correctness and overthinking. Putting variables X, Y, Z instead of any real references in this passage would have made it politically correct, but would sterilize the point away from it.
The stereotypes are useful in being able to predictably and easily recreate a vivid image that can give the backdrop for the core message.
This all has nothing to do with Arabs and everything to do with certificates.
Those particularly concerned are welcome recreate the same scenario using the image of the "new-russian" Ivan, a representative of the Russian Business Investment Network.
> "a play on the stereotype" - this makes it humorous, not racist.
It makes it humor based on a racial stereotype.
---
This comment is easy to make when you aren't the one who is painted by the stereotypes. If you have to contend with people's pre-existing impressions of you -- one that is derived from these stereotypes -- you might not be dismissive of them.
Only someone who is not negatively affected by racial stereotypes would have the audacity to claim that complaints over them are merely for show, or political correctness.
Try belonging to a race that is targeted for violence by people who subscribe to these stereotypes. Or try being a decent human and consider that not everyone enjoys the a priori assumption of competence and individuality that you are afforded. Other people have to contend with the a priori assumption of being Achmed.
The second question even respectable strangers tend to ask me after "where you are from ?" is "you must be really into drinking vodka ?", so the effect of stereotypes on me is mostly amusement. Another example is my wife who is an entrepreneur, and tells plenty of stories of how it is to be a blond woman - because the other party a-priori tends to think of usual "blonde" stereotypes. She also says this lasts for approximately 5 first minutes into the conversation and then she gains more respect than if she'd be a man in a suite, we speculated.
This "positive" view of stereotypes made me skewed, I think, so again - excuse me.
The people who seriously and blindly apply the stereotypes deserve more education than they were able to get. And those who feel the impact of those people taking the stereotypes seriously, do deserve to be in a more intelligent company too - it's unfortunate if they can not rectify that by changing the circle of acquaintances.
> This could've easily been say "P-Diddy's Certificate and Ho Emporium", "certificats pour les snobs par francois" or "Jenkins Tea, Crumpets and Certs".
The assumption here is that perpetuating English and French stereotypes is morally equivalent to doing the same to black American. Apart from the fact that being known for drinking tea and eating biscuits is not nearly as embarrassing or damaging as being thought of as a pimp or ho, there's another problem here: every non-white person can hold this assumption about French and English people and the French and English will not have a problem getting around in society. The same is not true with your P-Diddy example, if believed by every non-black person.
> If it wasn't for stereotyping we'd loose a valuable source of comedy all over the world.
This is tantamount to saying "I have a right to perpetuate racially-based stereotypes, despite any claimed or real negative effect they have, because my ability to be funny depends on it."
> The assumption here is that perpetuating English and French stereotypes is morally equivalent to doing the same to black American.
But it is, that is the essence of a stereotype. If we take out the ethnicity factor and go into personalities your argument is the same as saying that it is embarrassing and damaging for Librarians to be labelled as boring and strict, for Managers to be labelled as conniving bastards and idiots, for Artists to be labelled as always high on drugs, for Nerds to be labelled as outcasts and acne ridden.
I consider your argument flawed in that stereotyping will always have an element of "there's some truth in your fiction and some fiction in your truth".
Fiction and Fact are two completely different things. It's a good thing many people appreciate fact.
> This is tantamount to saying "I have a right to perpetuate racially-based stereotypes, despite any claimed or real negative effect they have, because my ability to be funny depends on it."
Not just my ability but also that of the Film Industry, TV Productions, Stage Plays, Books, Music, which all continue to use any form of stereotyping for good or bad.
There are too many errors here to deal with. Just the fact that you think being an Arab is analogous to being a librarian for these purposes raises a number of questions in any reasonable reader's mind. Perhaps you think that some people are made librarians from birth and have no choice about the matter.
Your final statement is not even a rebuttal, it's merely an appeal to popularity.
> Just the fact that you think being an Arab is analogous to being a librarian for these purposes raises a number of questions in any reasonable reader's mind.
Pretty much is man, it's just a label. That's all it is regardless of race, sex, color, religion, profession. For better or for worse. The root of the problem is people clinging to this fiction as fact. Time and understanding will fix that.
Given my origin and the situations that come with it at times this philosophy is what works out best for me and those who are willing to listen, if not it's high time to find a more receptive audience.
Foremost we're all individuals. And you know if you can't laugh at yourself... :)
> Perhaps you think that some people are made librarians from birth and have no choice about the matter.
I think that given certain genetic dispositions and the environment where a child grows up that is quite possible.
> Your final statement is not even a rebuttal, it's merely an appeal to popularity.
Turn on any source of information, labels on everyone everywhere. All neatly grouped and organised.
Not pandering to popularity, Just stating fact.
This is making less and less sense. The insight that labels are not the same thing as the thing, itself is a pretty thin one when you water it down like that. You’re taking a truth and turning it into a nihilistic premise that no label is meaningful, just because it’s a label.
If that’s the case, programming must be a hellish experience for you, since it mostly consists of labeling things well.
I understand that you are trying to promote a vision of colorblind equanimity. While your intention may be genuine, you are, frankly, hugely mistaken in your assessment of the impact of racism.
Let's apply your declaration of labels as meaningless is arbitrary to another situation:
Surely you don't spend your time convincing women that the difference between consensual and forcible sex is a void label? That the concept of consent is a futile attempt to manifest an utter and complete abstraction with no inherent value or meaning.
Would you insist that it doesn't matter if a woman -- clinging to the delusion that consent matters -- might be offended when you act on your conviction that consent is an illusion. Circumstances and context are irrelevant, after all!
No. You would be a sociopath or worse, for pretending that a meaningful abstract act -- consent -- is meaningless because you can't understand it or are inconvenienced by it.
Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination. Consider, then, that you are greatly unqualified to be dictating to anyone the nature of such experiences. The authority with which you deign to define racism -- or dismiss it as non-existent -- is astounding.
That would be taking my commentary completely out of context as I'm clearly applying it to stereotyping and nothing else.
Stereotyping would have happened way before the act of intercourse as 2 adults check off all the boxes on their mental wish lists of what they look for in a mate.
After that, it's up to proper courtship and etiquette. A completely different matter.
> Your entire argument is flawed by fallacious and/or bad reasoning. Based on what you've written, it's obvious that you've never been significantly hurt or impacted by racial discrimination.
A bold claim, you assume that just because I have not shared a "woe is me" chronology that I have not suffered the impact of trauma, severe depression, isolation and been thru my share of misfortune. I would almost dare to say that you are discriminating me in this instance because you cannot apply your regular check list for what you would deem a victim of racism.
But I can understand why. I will agree that perhaps my reasoning could be better and I may not deal with matters in the most conventional way but permit me to share what I have learned on my journey so far. Perhaps it will bring clarity.
I concluded that by removing layers and layers of abstraction, applying for the most part pure logic and what I've learned from human behaviour, that a lot of events become predictable and in its essence very understandable. Applying the method of abstraction to stereotyping, and your particular argument of racism, the end outcome is that one is left with the pure individual. Which to me matters most.
Humans are still very much like animals, we fear that which we don't know and understand. Until people understand empathy and ego, judging an individual on a feature set isn't going away anytime soon.
With that said, I give it a high probability that you will still say I am breaking all the rules.
Breaking all the rules made me a more functioning person.
No, sorry, I don't view you as some kind of revolutionary with a novel or even challenging viewpoint. You aren't breaking any rules, you conform to the same mold as most others here.
You are another person on this thread who knows absolutely nothing about the impacts of racism. There is nothing bold about this claim. You don't show any level of understanding of the issue. The convenience with which you dismiss the application of your logic to another abstraction merely reveals how arbitrary you are. That you think it's such an enlightened view of the world demonstrates how disconnected your approach is.
Perhaps because your mind is your most developed tool, to the neglect of your emotional intelligence, you think that sophistry and intellectual gymnastics can reframe the situation in a way that denies the claims of other people and doesn't require you to seriously contend with the fact that you might have racist attitudes. There's nothing new about that and you are hardly unique for it.
Your "woe is me" comment is telling, and perhaps the only glimpse of the truth you've given here. You obviously don't think that people who claim to be impacted by racism are honest or competent, preferring instead to believe that they are allowing themselves to be victimized by attachment to illusory labels.
Congratulations Siddhartha; you could have saved a lot of typing by initially stating that you don't think racism is a real phenomenon, despite having no first hand experience with it, and you therefore insist on your right to make racially-derived stereotypes. And, in the interest of preserving your assumptions and avoid having them challenge, you should have initially declared your refusal to listen to people who claim to have been impacted by racism, preferring to dismiss their experiences as delusional.
Nobody would have responded to you if you had simply been this honest up front.
There's nothing unique about my viewpoint, I'm certain that somewhere else someone has come to a similar conclusion given a set of events and influences. It's just rare to see it expressed so here we are.
I find it worrying that you continue to use your measurement stick to say "you must be this hurt" to understand racism. I've outlined that we will continue to have stereotypes and that's it's not correct to use fiction as established fact. That a label can be true or false. That racism comes down to labelling an individual for perceived inadequacies. That racism will continue to be an ongoing issue given human nature. Been there and still there.
I don't doubt a persons integrity in any fashion, what I do find alarming is that those victimised start accepting a label as a fact and thereby continuing this negative themselves. Hence if a label no longer has the emotional attachment nor the emotional impact that is intended by those with ill will how can this not be a good thing ? Certainly it will not heal scars of the past but it will make for a better future.
If it was up to you it would for example mean I couldn't write childrens books such as "Fei-Long the fisherman from China", "Jenkins from England buys a top-hat", "Ela from India goes to the Temple". By that token I stand by my opinion that a stereotype is permissable in an entertainment context for good and bad. I can entertain the thought, and then discard it for what it is, a piece of fiction. Since not all Chinese are fishermen, not all English people wear top-hats, not all from India have the same belief and for good measure not all Black people are Gangsters. List goes on.
If I didn't want to listen or gain insight into another persons viewpoint we wouldn't be here in this instance. What disappoints me is that despite my best efforts to understand and communicate, it would appear I have failed in this.
I've stated how I've become who I am today and still you claim that I have no experience with the matter, well I'm sorry if your measurement stick doesn't work on me. By that token it would mean that only your personal experience is what defines racism and how only you can decree what it's definition is in it's experience, speech, thought and writing on the matter.
I've been honest the entire journey, yet you responded at each passage.
For this I love you and thank you friend, it's been informative.
I'm afraid that the measuring stick is working just fine.
You certainly don't need to be hurt to understand racism, but if you have been hurt you will understand it. And if you haven't, you won't understand it until you acknowledge that your initial perceptions of racism are not founded in experience.
Tim Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wise) is one such person, who is not discriminated or attacked because of his race -- nor does he belong to a race that is frequently attacked or stereotyped negatively, at least not in the US -- and nonetheless has an excellent understanding.
What you've put on display here is well-intentioned talk about transcending labels, or equating "wears top-hats" with "dishonest cheater" as if the difference between the two -- which any simpleton can grasp -- doesn't exist. Your demonstrated understanding of racism has nothing to do with the experiences of real people, which seem to mean less to you than intellectual abstractions.
Thanks for your sisyphean efforts in explaining to this unsympathetic audience why sexing up your bug report with racist caricatures is simply not cool, jessedhillon.
Generally, the people who entertain these stereotypes are those who aren't affected negatively by any stereotypes. It's part of what is sometimes referred to in sociology as the folk theory of racism, which is built on three tenets:
1) race is a significant biological fact, whereas most sociologists agree that it is entirely a political fact
2) racism only exists where people specifically intend to be racist, i.e. that it is entirely a manifestation of individual belief, and
3) that racism is a natural and unavoidable result of the human condition.
You can see the manifestations of this theory on this thread, especially points 2 and 3. Consider the responses here to the effect that because there was a greater point about certificate authorities being made (and thus no specific racist intent exists) no racism is present.
And also consider the responses to the effect that stereotypes are a necessary part of humor, without which apparently no effective communication would be possible. It's practically a claim to the right to stereotype other races. In another response, a commenter points out that there also exist stereotypes of English and French people, as though all stereotypes are morally equivalent.
My is that whether or not that's true is immaterial (and demonstrably false): the person created this fictional Honest Achmed -- a play on the stereotype of Arabs as untrustworthy in business dealings. He further went on to capitalize on a number of other stereotypes about Arabs as he presented his completed app.
If I wrote the same thing, but from the perspective of the fictional Jim I mentioned above, I don't think you would have any question about how racist it was. If I littered my post with a bunch of stereotypes about black Americans, don't you think that would be racist?