Racist Scottish tourist attraction bans English tourists and smashes English items


tracy
#31
ZZacharov, I think you are being purposely naive with that last post. You know you can't look at 2 individual people as representatives of their entire ethnic group.
 
Zzarchov
#32
Of course not.

But that is true of ANY two individuals from any two ethnic groups. So any comparison is inherintly flawed as for every individual who conforms to a standard there are others who do not.

That being said no-one pictured is considered abnormal in their communities nor would they stick out. But it does illustrate a very important point that they way North American's see race is not the way the rest of the world does.
 
karrie
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

Line up a bunch of Scottish people with English people and you won't be able to pick them apart reliably because they've evolved together on a pretty small island. Contrast that by lining up people who are Asian with people who are African. There's the difference.

Ah, but then if you were to line up a bunch of Mexicans and a bunch of Brits, you could clearly see a difference.... despite them actually, scientifically, being the same 'race'.
 
tracy
#34
There is no real scientific definition of race. It's one of the problems. But, I still don't think anyone could ever say Scottish and English are 2 different races. It's like saying Albertans and British Columbians are different races. A man made line on a piece of land doesn't truly separate the inhabitants of that land in any meaningful way.

My English roomate thought the handyman was racist when he told her she should go back to England. They're both white. He wasn't being racist, he was being a biggot.
 
Zzarchov
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

There is no real scientific definition of race. It's one of the problems. But, I still don't think anyone could ever say Scottish and English are 2 different races. It's like saying Albertans and British Columbians are different races. A man made line on a piece of land doesn't truly separate the inhabitants of that land in any meaningful way.

My English roomate thought the handyman was racist when he told her she should go back to England. They're both white. He wasn't being racist, he was being a biggot.


Well Genetically they are pretty different with different characteristics. And White isn't a race anywhere but North America, the same with Black.

Albertans and British Columbian natives may very well be different natives (I don't know enough about that aspect of their histories)

But You make some odd distinctions, Any line in the dirt doesn't seperate inhabitants in a meaningful way, be it India and China or Scotland and England.

But in both cases it becomes fairly easy to distinguish a large group from one area with a large group from another area, even if the individuals could be difficult to classify.

Scottish people have a VERY different genetic ancestry to English people, not the least of which being the English people were Romanized and thus have had a vastly expanded gene pool (with entrants from as far off as Persia) for alot longer. Then the Scottish have their own different genetic history. They only began to intermingle a few hundred years ago.

While race is certainly a ficticious creation, visible genetic markers (Skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, facial features) can be used to quickly judge lineage with all the negative stereotypes about it.
 
lone wolf
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Well Genetically they are pretty different with different characteristics. And White isn't a race anywhere but North America, the same with Black.

Albertans and British Columbian natives may very well be different natives (I don't know enough about that aspect of their histories)

But You make some odd distinctions, Any line in the dirt doesn't seperate inhabitants in a meaningful way, be it India and China or Scotland and England.

But in both cases it becomes fairly easy to distinguish a large group from one area with a large group from another area, even if the individuals could be difficult to classify.

Scottish people have a VERY different genetic ancestry to English people, not the least of which being the English people were Romanized and thus have had a vastly expanded gene pool (with entrants from as far off as Persia) for alot longer. Then the Scottish have their own different genetic history. They only began to intermingle a few hundred years ago.

While race is certainly a ficticious creation, visible genetic markers (Skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, facial features) can be used to quickly judge lineage with all the negative stereotypes about it.

Yeah ... and the Romans and Vikings were only a few hundred years ago too. If race is a fictitious creation, how can a Scott going "nanny nanny boop" to a Brit be racist?
 
Zzarchov
#37
Let me put it this way, "Blacks" and "Whites" in the US have been intermingling in as great or greater quantities than English and Scots in Britain for about the same amount of time.

Does that mean its impossible for Blacks and Whites in the US to be racist to each other? Does that mean its impossible to tell Blacks and Whites apart?

On a case by case basis, sure racism is pretty hard when alot of Blacks and Whites easily pass as the other "Race". But its a pretty narrow view of looking through North American eyes to not realize that we see the races that come up in our day to day lives only.

I mean, I can't tell a native person from european descended person 90% of the time. Does that mean natives aren't a race? And thats with me growing up next to a reserve.
 
lone wolf
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Let me put it this way, "Blacks" and "Whites" in the US have been intermingling in as great or greater quantities than English and Scots in Britain for about the same amount of time.

Does that mean its impossible for Blacks and Whites in the US to be racist to each other? Does that mean its impossible to tell Blacks and Whites apart?

On a case by case basis, sure racism is pretty hard when alot of Blacks and Whites easily pass as the other "Race". But its a pretty narrow view of looking through North American eyes to not realize that we see the races that come up in our day to day lives only.

I mean, I can't tell a native person from european descended person 90% of the time. Does that mean natives aren't a race? And thats with me growing up next to a reserve.

It's not a black or white thing ... it's a north-part-of-the-island/south-part-of-the-island thing. It may be discrimination. It may be bigotted. It may even have been all in good fun. Racist? I doubt it....
 
tracy
#39
It is possible to be racist if you're insulting someone's race. So, yes, blacks and whites can be racist to eachother, they can even be racist to their own race. If you are talking about ANY race negatively you can be racist. That's why the base of the word is the same. It isn't talking about prejudice against ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, genders, etc. It's just talking about race.

Until English becomes a race, it isn't racist to make fun of them. It's bigotry. Please tell me the next time you see English listed as a race on any government form, admission application, census, etc. Until then, I'm moving on....
 
Zzarchov
#40
Actually alot of government forms let you fill in your own race simply because there is no definition of race.

As for "North Part of the Island/South Part", thats kind of an odd view. Thats like saying "North Part of Africa/South Part of Africa" , the difference being Arabians (aka "Caucasians") and Black Africans.

Scotland and England did not commonly intermingle and their populations diverged as any isolated groups do.



To claim that skin colour or eye shape are the only methods to determine race is simply a North American version of the story, as thats what North Americans fixated on.

Other regions classified race by other characteristics.


So far I see a bunch of "Thats not race!" but no definition of what race is. The word does not mean skin colour.

So I would like an example of how "White and Black" are different races but not "Scottish and English"

So far I just see increased fixation on skin colour. If people with other different genetic markers are the same race, why aren't people with black and white skin one race with all other features being the same?

Racism in north america is often incorrectly used to describe caste based discrimination, bigotry due to social status and lingering caste based roles.

So when you claim that textbook racism isn't racism I should hope there is a reason?
 
tracy
#41
Scotland and England are mixed, not just with eachother, but with other groups. Celts, Picts, Vikings, Romans, Saxons.... the list goes on and on. Even if I were to agree that Scotts and English haven't bred with eachother (which I don't), they were a mix already.

Look up a definition of race and it will say something about distinct physical characteristics (like hair color, skin color, eye color, bone structure, all of which are not significantly different between English and Scottish as a group even if it is between individuals) and it will say something about they've descended from a common lineage (which could be argued either way when it comes to English and Scottish, but it could also be used to say that my family is a race which is obviously absurd). It is a completely arbitrary man made definition and I have yet to see many accept that arbitrary definition to count "English" as a race.

I really don't understand why it is so offensive that English and Scottish be simply ethnic groups. I don't know why people want them to be so different from eachother when they really aren't all that different. What is the appeal of being a Race? If they are all races then we can just remove the words nationality and ethnicity from the English language because they are no longer needed. We can all just be races. Next time someone asks me my race, I'll say Canadian.... or maybe British Columbian.... or maybe even Kamloopsian.
 
scratch
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

Scotland and England are mixed, not just with eachother, but with other groups. Celts, Picts, Vikings, Romans, Saxons.... the list goes on and on. Even if I were to agree that Scotts and English haven't bred with eachother (which I don't), they were a mix already.

Look up a definition of race and it will say something about distinct physical characteristics (like hair color, skin color, eye color, bone structure, all of which are not significantly different between English and Scottish as a group even if it is between individuals) and it will say something about they've descended from a common lineage (which could be argued either way when it comes to English and Scottish, but it could also be used to say that my family is a race which is obviously absurd). It is a completely arbitrary man made definition and I have yet to see many accept that arbitrary definition to count "English" as a race.

I really don't understand why it is so offensive that English and Scottish be simply ethnic groups. I don't know why people want them to be so different from eachother when they really aren't all that different. What is the appeal of being a Race? If they are all races then we can just remove the words nationality and ethnicity from the English language because they are no longer needed. We can all just be races. Next time someone asks me my race, I'll say Canadian.... or maybe British Columbian.... or maybe even Kamloopsian.

`ach...there's the rub...`
 
tracy
#43
I have a simpler idea. Instead of trying to define race, why don't we just look up the definition of "Scottish" and "English"? I'm betting you'll see words like "nation" "culture" "ethnic group", but seldom will you see "race".
 
scratch
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy View Post

I have a simpler idea. Instead of trying to define race, why don't we just look up the definition of "Scottish" and "English"? I'm betting you'll see words like "nation" "culture" "ethnic group", but seldom will you see "race".

Tracy,
I am not going to check.
For it is more than likely true.

regards,
scratch
 
Zzarchov
#45
You seldom see Race defined outside of North America.

Race is by an large used as a catch all for mixed races (like white) to try and rail on other mixed races (like black) with whom both are intermixed.

There is no common lineage that all "black" people have, nor is there any common lineage that all "White" people have.

It is entirely possible to look and be "white" with no european heritage and equally possible to be "black" with no African heritage.

So I guess in your mind there is no such thing as racism?

Racism, according to the UN is discrimination based upon Race, Colour, National or Ethnic origin. This is for the very reason that different parts of the world see Race differently.

To the Germans, Races included such thing as German (Nordic), Slavic, Jewish etc, even though all are "White" to North Americans.

And off course the most important part is that according to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin"


Ergo:

Legally, to both the UN and more importantly to the UK, the nation this takes place in,

Yes, the event in question is blatantly racist.