Under Pol Pot weren’t people rounded up and executed if they wore glasses? Therefore by the same logic calling someone “four-eyes”, because of the history, is as bad as racism
----
That was due to a perceived link between glasses and intelligence not just because they wore them.

Equally in Na$i invasions of Eastern Europe many people were enslaved because they had big noses – and were mistaken for being Jewish. They were not Jewish – they were rounded up and sent to concentration camps purely on the basis that they had large noses. Therefore surely by your logic calling someone “Big Conk” is as bad as racism?
-----
No because like you've already said it was because they thought they were Jewish because of the big noses, they weren't killed purely for having big noses.

I might respond to the rest later if I can be bothered.

I think you are trying too hard to justify this… it doesn’t work.
So people were punished not because they wore glasses in itself because of a perceived link between glasses and intelligence.
Whether they were intelligent or not – they were rounded up and killed because they wore glasses. You are looking beyond that now though and saying it is important what is behind the motivation for them being enslaved or killed.
So if black people were rounded up and killed not because of the colour of their skin but because of the perceived damage their perceived ‘subhuman’ traits could do to society… then it isn’t the colour of the skin that is the reason for their enslavement and or murder but the damage to society.
The same with Jewish people – it wasn’t that they were Jewish but the fact that their practices and lifestyle were perceived to be damaging to the pure German lifestyle.

"That was due to a perceived link between glasses and intelligence not just because they wore them."

There's absolutely no difference between the two there for me. I'm sure someone who treats someone differently because of the colour of their skin could come up with an equally 'rational' explanation.

HenrysCat - exactly!

It's a false distinction.

I think a lot of people do think that racism is worse than other forms of abuse - but only because we are socially conditioned to be more sensitive of it.

to it - not of it.

OK, let me explain something to you Mr Mortimer,
History is important when it comes to racism because 'name calling' was what kept people enslaved and controlled.

Let me explain, when people where enslaved from Africa, the 1st thing that the slave mastered did was strip them off of everything they knew, they wasn't allowed to speak their language, they changed their names, they was forced to forget about everything about their history, they wasn't allowed to be educated etc...

They were 'name called' to keep them suppressed, to feel inferior, to feel different, to feel not human, that the white man is better than them. They did all this so that they could keep them enslaved, so they won't rise against their slave masters and be free.

So even though slavery had been abolished this mentality continued and continues today.

So even though to you being called a black @£*$ is nothing, to the accused it conjured up feelings of "Am I not equal to you? am I not value?

Do you know that the red Indians in the US still feel inferior after so many generations, they don't even feel worthy in going in a white mans shop.

The black people in the US (more than in the UK) have a complex if you are dark because back in slavery days you were more accepted if you were light skinned with a straight nose. Even in India and Africa people 'bleach' their skin to be light as it's more accepted in their society.

So there is something in a name, it's what that name calling represents and there is a big history of it that still affects people today. If you tell a child that they are useless every day, do you think that would help them be successful, and this happened to a whole generation for years and still happens today.

I know a guy that him other black pupils wasn't allowed to do their O'levels because the teachers thought they wasn't bright enough to pass them.

I urge you to read the book by malorie blackman, Noughts and Crosses, it's a story where she reverses racism and it will give you a good idea from the other side what it is like.

pp1212



Astute comments as always!

PP1212

I think you have misunderstood the points I’ve been making.
Firstly, yes slaves were treated badly, no one is denying that. I am sure most on the slave ships were kept in line with chains and violence rather than harsh words though but let’s take your example for a second and assume that some people used language as a tool to try and keep people down.
Has language been used exclusively to keep black people down? Is it not anti-women too? Anti-homosexuals? Is it not classist? Have working class people not been punished by the rich in society, kept uneducated and unfairly punished? Has language not been used to suppress many different groups in society? Ginger people are made to feel different, and that other hair colours are better. Bald people are made to feel inferior, short people are made to feel inferior because they aren’t ‘normal’ height. Let’s not forget illegitimate people too – haven’t they suffered at the hands of persecution and abuse? If language is a tool of oppression it has not been used exclusively against black people.

“So even though slavery had been abolished this mentality continued and continues today. So even though to you being called a black @£*$ is nothing, to the accused it conjured up feelings of Am I not equal to you? am I not value?”

You have missed the point I’m making. Yes there will be some ethnic minorities who feel the way you describe, I am sure equally there are many ethnic minorities which hold no such doubts concerning their ‘value’. I don’t think many people growing up nowadays give race a second thought.
Yes racial abuse can cause offence… lots of different types of abuse can. What about people of illegitimate birth? They may be highly offended by people calling them “bar stewards” – it may conjure up the feeling that they are not equal… why is it different for race?

“The black people in the US (more than in the UK) have a complex if you are dark because back in slavery days you were more accepted if you were light skinned with a straight nose. Even in India and Africa people 'bleach' their skin to be light as it's more accepted in their society.”
The black people in the US have a complex? Be careful that could easily be confused as racism… you have just generalised for an entire group of people and suggested they all think alike!


“So there is something in a name, it's what that name calling represents and there is a big history of it that still affects people today. If you tell a child that they are useless every day, do you think that would help them be successful, and this happened to a whole generation for years and still happens today.”
Again… why have you singled race out? If a child is small, or has a gammy leg or some other such feature which is the cause of him to be told he is useless everyday is that more acceptable because it doesn’t involve race?

“I urge you to read the book by malorie blackman, Noughts and Crosses, it's a story where she reverses racism and it will give you a good idea from the other side what it is like.”
I don’t think you have understood the argument at all. This is not a justification of racism! This is a condemnation of abuse as I would condemn all abuse.

Mr Mortimer - I thought your question was about why certain types of abuse is different to others, you are trying to saying that calling someone fat or ginger is the same as calling someone a black *(£*$Y(. I'm trying to tell there is a big difference because of the reasons laid out before.

You clearly don't understand the points I'm making that is why I'm told you to read the book, because through the book you will see how words and actions are used to oppress people and keep people in a certain mental state. If you see if from a point of a white person maybe you would be able to understand a bit more.

With the US black people having a complex, you haven't understood my comment. What I meant to say is that being light skinned, and having European type of hair is more accepted amongst the masses than those who are darker skinned with afro hair etc...
The reason I mentioned it is to try and explain how years of verbal abuse and treatment has got them thinking with this mentality! And it's not racist to generalise, obviously not all of them think that way but it's something that is prevalent in that society.

pp1212



Astute comments as always!
=====

PP1212
I am sorry but I don’t think your response answers the question.
If it is because abuse can make someone feel unworthy or devalued – then surely that applies to lots of abuse. People will react to abuse in different ways – each individual will have a different level of tolerance to abuse and may have different buzzwords that offend them.
Surely we can all accept that some black people will be utterly unaffected by being called a black so and so, whilst someone being called a ginger so and so could be hugely offended? Should we judge the offensiveness of a remark by the offence caused or by some abstract notion that racism is automatically worse than other forms of abuse?
People have been persecuted for a number of reasons throughout history… and yes that persecution is wrong but it is wrong because the persecution is based on ignorance – and I think the belief that racial abuse is inherently worse than other forms of abuse is also a belief which is born out of ignorance.
You have attached a history to the abuse which I don’t think is necessarily important. If a black person racially abuses a white person… is that not racism but without the history you have described? Is racial abuse of a white person not as serious? What about two people who have no knowledge of slavery or history… if they use insults based on colour (with none of the historical connotations) is that as bad?
I am trying hard to understand your point but it would help a great deal if you could explain why you feel racism is worse than any other form of abuse.
It clearly isn’t because of the offense caused – because I’m sure we can all agree some other comments could cause far more offence. So what is it?


I understand the point that language is used as a tool… I am saying to you that if language is a tool that has been used to oppress people, has it not been used to oppress other groups too? Why are you limiting it to blacks?

“With the US black people having a complex, you haven't understood my comment.”
I was perhaps being mischievous but I have understood your comment. My point was you have grouped all black people together and assumed they all think a certain way.
If I was giving it a serious response I would again say that yes that may be true… but it is utterly irrelevant. It is also often proposed that a woman with an hourglass figure is more attractive… it is also proposed that being physically fit is important… and that having straight white teeth is a sign of beauty… it is in the psyche – what is different to that and abuse of “ugly” “fat” people with “bad teeth”?
Why have you limited it to race? Please explain…

MrMortimer - I don't just limit racial abuse to white on black, there are many instances, with the red Indians, Maoris, Aboriginals etc.. I suppose with the Egyptians and Israelites during bible times too, it really depends what society is the more dominant at the time.

However I feel I've explained it sufficiently why I think certain types of abuse is different, if you don't understand there is nothing I can do about it.
But unless you are in their shoes you would never understand especially when you haven't had that type of abuse done to you.

However racism is more than just verbal abuse, it's done through many aspects of our society blatantly and hidden.

I think you are trying too hard to justify this… it doesn’t work.
So people were punished not because they wore glasses in itself because of a perceived link between glasses and intelligence.
Whether they were intelligent or not – they were rounded up and killed because they wore glasses. You are looking beyond that now though and saying it is important what is behind the motivation for them being enslaved or killed.
----
You argued that calling someone 'four eyes' was as bad as racism because of Pol Pot but if they weren't killed for wearing glasses but for perceived intelligence I can't see any basis for that argument as they weren't killed for wearing glasses but because he believed they were smart.
.
So if black people were rounded up and killed not because of the colour of their skin but because of the perceived damage their perceived ‘subhuman’ traits could do to society… then it isn’t the colour of the skin that is the reason for their enslavement and or murder but the damage to society.
---
Other than them being a different colour what reason would someone to have to believe they have subhuman traits?

The same with Jewish people – it wasn’t that they were Jewish but the fact that their practices and lifestyle were perceived to be damaging to the pure German lifestyle.
---
Jewish practices and lifestyles?

PP let me get this straight, racial abuse is more offensive if it is the minority being abused? If a member of a racial minority racially abuses a member of the ‘dominant’ group in society it isn’t as bad?
I am sure you think you have explained but you really haven’t. You haven’t actually given a justification of the point you have asserted, and have not answered any of my questions when trying to clarify the situation. I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the point I am making… I’m not for one second defending racism, or racial abuse.

If a person is racially abused you seem to think it is worse because they will feel unvalued. I believe that is the case for a number of different types of abuse. You have quoted family history and things gone on in the past which are true for a great number of people but largely irrelevant to this discussion.
The assumption that racial abuse is worse than other forms of abuse is I think fundamentally flawed. Look at it this way:-
If someone is shot dead because they are black, is that a worse crime than if someone is shot dead because they are ginger?
Surely both crimes are as mindless and senseless and un-defendable. What is it that makes shooting dead a ginger person less bad? That is essentially what you are saying with abuse.

Godleebarnes

You argued that calling someone 'four eyes' was as bad as racism because of Pol Pot but if they weren't killed for wearing glasses but for perceived intelligence I can't see any basis for that argument as they weren't killed for wearing glasses but because he believed they were smart.”

We can accept that Pol Pot rounded up and killed people who wore glasses. Whether they are intelligent or not they were rounded up. Intelligence isn’t the reason they were rounded up – it was the fact the wore glasses.
In this example though you have looked beyond the initial reason to the justification behind that reason… (that he believed glasses was a sign of intelligence).

Slave owners – they rounded up black people… was it just because of the colour of their skin or because they believed the colour of the skin was an indication of something else – (they could justify it as lacking intelligence or not having the natural rights that white people have or a host of reasons… I’m not for a second suggesting that these reasons are right and proper – just as I’m sure you don’t really believe people should be rounded up and killed for being intelligent!)

Pol Pot rounded up and killed those who wore glasses (because he believed it to be a sign of intelligence) as he felt they were a threat to society and order.

A slave owner might round up and kill black people because he believed their skin colour because he felt they were a threat to society and order.

Surely the reasoning for the both of them are the same… yet you seek to justify Pol Pot on a different level for some reason.

“Other than them being a different colour what reason would someone to have to believe they have subhuman traits?”

Remember this isn’t me suggesting that black people are subhuman! Many scientists and political thinkers in previous centuries did believe this though…
Yes now we see it as ridiculous, it is just as ridiculous as claiming people who wear glasses are intelligent!


“Jewish practices and lifestyles?”
Yes – again this isn’t my justification… just as you aren’t justifying killing people because they wear glasses. Surely you know there existed a school of thought that Jewish people corrupted and tainted society. Adolf didn’t just start the holocaust on a whim – there was a theory behind it.

If someone is shot dead because they are black, is that a worse crime than if someone is shot dead because they are ginger?
======
If someone is shot dead, it's full stop bad, period!

But are you saying that someone has been shot dead because they are ginger or that they were shot dead and happened to be ginger. I don't get you!

If it is the former, please let me know who has been shot dead because they have been ginger.

And no, I don't get the points you are trying to make apart from saying that calling someone a black $%$£ is no more offensive than calling someone a fat idiot, or ginger whatever!

Which I disagree! As I said before, unless you are in the shoes of those affected you wont ever understand!

I think the point is this person is being called a "ginger $%$£" - and whilst I think we agree white folk may not understand the experiance of black folk, is it not fair that a black guy won't understand the experiance of a ginger guy either? Unless you're in HIS shoes you won't ever understand that either.

Personally, I feel sorry for the black, ginger, fat guy I see walking to the station in the morning - man that guy looks like he has the world on his shoulders.

"But are you saying that someone has been shot dead because they are ginger or that they were shot dead and happened to be ginger. I don't get you!"

Of course he's saying the former, however it does make me think...

Are you saying people were made slaves because they were black, or were they made slaves and they just happened to be black? Strikes me the common assertion is the former, but I think in reality it is the latter.

I think you have to understand where the term racial abuse comes from. It stems from the sense of power of one person over another. Now I am sure people who are called fat or ginger feel offended and hurt if they called those names. But on a scale of abuse it is not the same thing. 'ginger' is not used to suppress or persecute. Thats why a minority racially abusing the majority is nonsensical. A minority doesn't, in most cases, have the power to affect the majority.

Antisemitism, Racial abuse and other abuse that gives the perpetrators physical power over others fall into a class of abuse all on their own. And those who muddy the waters by bringing in other terms need to understand that.

You can always find illusory reasons for your inadequacies and blame others for you own misfortune. Hitler used the terrible economic circumstances forced on the German people by treaty of Versailles to his advantage by targeting the Jewish minority as the root cause instead of focusing on the real factors. Which was German aggression causing the first world war and the allies taking over the top vengeance by trying to subjugate the German people so that they couldn't do it again. (obviously it had the opposite effect). Its easier to focus on fears of the different rather than explaining and tackling the complex issues that adversely affect people's lives. And supremacists take advantage of this all the time.

PP - “If someone is shot dead, it's full stop bad, period!”
Exactly – the crime is murder. Now if that murder was committed because someone was black or because someone was ginger – they would both still be murder and both be equally bad, right?

Just use the terms black and ginger interchangeably for this example. If someone is shot because they are black or because they are ginger then that is racist/gingerist murder. Is there a distinction between murder because it is racist or gingerist? No there is not it is still murder, it is still wrong and it is still unacceptable. Racist murder is not “more” of a murder than a gingerist murder. A gingerist murder doesn’t hurt less or is less important… so suggest it does so makes little sense.
The same as beating someone up because they are black/ginger - is there a distinction to be made between the two? Surely beating up someone because they are black or because they are ginger are both equally as wrong?
The same too with verbal abuse – black so and so/ginger so and so - are both forms of abuse. Why is racial abuse singled out as being more offensive?

I have to say I disagree with the notion that racial abuse is automatically worse than other forms of abuse. I think actually it should be judged by the outcome. If someone is offended by abuse then it shouldn’t matter whether it was because of their skin colour of their hair colour – or anything else, abuse is abuse! A gingerist murder is still a murder… gingerist abuse is still abuse.
Does that make sense?

As for who has been shot dead for being ginger or bald or whatever…
(I’ve given an example of people being killed purely because they wore glasses or because they had big noses) but really what does it matter?
If you think it matters because it hurts more then can we agree that verbal abuse should be rated because of the offence it causes?

People have been killed for being poor throughout history – why is race the only issue you think worthy of being given special treatment?

“unless you are in the shoes of those affected you wont ever understand!”
OK… by that logic unless you are ginger and have suffered at the hands of ginger abuse you won’t ever understand what they go through…?
Surely?
Again – why the special treatment for race? Please give a reason… ‘history’ or long term persecution I don’t think washes for the simple fact that it could apply to a number of groups who have been persecuted throughout history – and could have no relevance to the lives of the people involved.

"'ginger' is not used to suppress or persecute."

Of course it is, why else would it exist? Granted many times it is used for comedic effect, but then a string of acts, like Jim Davidson, did the same thing back in the 70s-80s for black people. You speak to a red-head and ask them how they really feel about always being classified due to their hair colour and you may see more parallels in their feelings and those of a black guy than you might think.

"Thats why a minority racially abusing the majority is nonsensical. A minority doesn't, in most cases, have the power to affect the majority."

And this bit is just silly - pretty much every historical example used in this thread involves the minority oppressing the majority - historical examples all around the world of incoming settlers displacing and subjugating the indigenous population all fit this.

Look, I broadly agree with everyone in this thread, but am uncomfortable with the way persecution of people who don't fit with a given posters idea of a 'target' is so easily dismissed. Until we accept that sh***y people exist in all races, creeds, whatever and they are sh***y to other people for a multitude of reasons, until their is some genuine empathy between ALL peoples this sort of thing will go on and on with little change.

Jenius
“a minority racially abusing the majority is nonsensical. A minority doesn't, in most cases, have the power to affect the majority.”
So it would be perfectly acceptable for a black player to call a white player a white C word? Had Anton said this to Terry it would not be racial abuse?
Anton would be abusing someone on the colour of their skin – but you don’t think it would be racial abuse?

The trouble is you have attached your own prejudice to abuse here.
If a white player racially insults a black player – it is racial abuse and there is a historical context.
If a black player racially insults a white player – it isn’t racial abuse because it doesn’t have the same historical context?

If you do want to claim that historical context is important – then surely the people involved have to be aware of that history? If a white and black child are insulting each other… neither of which have any knowledge of the slave trade or historical suppression of black people - are they not just insulting someone based on the colour of their skin as they might any other physical feature (big ears, wonky nose etc)?
There is no historical context intented, nor is there any historical context taken to the insult – it is purely a physically descriptive insult. Is that racism? Is it worse than abusing on the basis of a wonky nose or ginger hair?

I don’t think it is a case of muddying the waters I think it is actually about viewing the situation free from the baggage of political correctness.
“If abuse gives the perpetrators physical power over others it falls into a class of its own”
Firstly – abuse of small people, ugly people, poor people, fat people – there are any number of people who have been verbally abused as a means for the perpetrators of that abuse to hold power over them
Secondly – if the abuse does not give the perpetrator physical power over others it isn’t as bad… is that right? In which case if you call someone a black so and so and it doesn’t give you physical power over the person you are abusing it doesn’t qualify as being in the very serious form of abuse does it? Did Terry gain physical power over Anton with his comments? No.

The history lessons on here are very informative but quite unnecessary – they aren’t actually addressing the problems here. Why is racial abuse automatically worse than another form of abuse?

Henry's Cat - agreed, I think we should stamp out abuse in football. Not limit it.

So it would be perfectly acceptable for a black player to call a white player a white C word? Had Anton said this to Terry it would not be racial abuse?
--------------------------------------------
Its nonsensical. Is being called a 'white' derogatory in anyway? When Terry called Ferdinand a 'black' so and so he meant it do be abusive. Don't pretend otherwise.

Now lets take away the racial epitaphs and I am sure calling anyone a Cvnt is definitely abusive. However Terry didn't use the term black as a descriptive word. He used it for effect with all that goes with it.


If a black player racially insults a white player – it isn’t racial abuse because it doesn’t have the same historical context?
------------------------------------------------

Its not a historical context. Its a power construct. For example Irish 'stereotypes' of being thick and drunks 'as a race' was often used by English to subjugate the Irish. Now if Terry used the term against an Irish player and used those terms, eg thick paddy, he would be as much in trouble as he was abusing Ferdinand.


History teaches us how certain abusive language was used to subjugate people. Thats where those terms get their roots. They are about power and control and therefore far more demeaning than other abuse which uses difference in people to humiliate. Both are of course bad.

"Is being called a 'white' derogatory in anyway?"

Yes, if that's the intention of the person saying it. Is being called black automatically derogatory then? There is no difference, your argument makes assumptions about the person saying it and the person hearing it.

If someone walked up to me and called me a "White ", I'd take offence, granted it'd be a little confusing if they were white too - but if that wasn't the case, I see absolutely no difference and I'm amazed that you do.