Racist Scottish tourist attraction bans English tourists and smashes English items
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Perhaps, but it's not the norm. Generally speaking, few people would have trouble distinguishing someone who was from China from someone who was from Zimbabwe.
Well according to your own link, Caucasian isn't a race, its a subspecies.
People from India are also Caucasian, but someone from India and someone from Sweden are fully capable of making racist comments to each other.
In the end race is a mostly subjective term, there is no magic line where someone goes from one race to the next. Race as a classification is almost entirely in the eye of the beholder, as one can drawn their own "Racial" lines whereever they want as all human populations with any isolation at all develop differently than other isolated groups.
True, harder, though still a lot less difficult than England and Scottland. The border is an imaginary line, not something that has kept them from breeding between the groups.
The Brits have done injury to all my various ancestors, but we bear them no grudge as they were doing worse to some other races. I'm only speaking for the irish, french,Scottish and the portuguese[my background is sorta mongrelish]
Montrlish here too. Except my ancestors were raping and pillaging my other ancestors. I guess I could sue myself.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
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....
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....
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?
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?