When were you last inspired by a British politician?

[winjim]

Thought not

What a surprise

We could try for a definition in the context of the current discussion but even then we're in danger of calling a horse a chair.

Which is kind of the point really. Someone who has (had) aspirations to one of the highest offices in the land should really be aware of the challenges of trying to define such a nebulous concept as race.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Thought not

What a surprise

Looking for an academic definition of race reduces the argument about racism to one about semantics rather than attitudes/behaviours.

Imo it is used mostly by people who want to find reasons why certain attitudes/behaviours fail the racism test as opposed to discussing the rights/wrongs of those attitudes/behaviours, and used to close the discussion down rather than address the issues.

 

[monkers]

Anyone care to give a reliable source for the meaning of the the term "Race", in relation to human beings, so that we can be clear what is being discussed?

Blimey, next you'll be asking Starmer what a woman is !!!

Actually, there's this from the United Nations.

Article 1(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) defines racial discrimination in broad terms as:

“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-racism/about-mandate

 

[winjim]

Looking for an academic definition of race reduces the argument about racism to one about semantics rather than attitudes/behaviours.

Imo it is used mostly by people who want to find reasons why certain attitudes/behaviours fail the racism test as opposed to discussing the rights/wrongs of those attitudes/behaviours, and used to close the discussion down rather than address the issues.

Have you been reading Adam Rutherford?

 

[winjim]

Blimey, next you'll be asking Starmer what a woman is !!!

Actually, there's this from the United Nations.

Article 1(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) defines racial discrimination in broad terms as:

“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-racism/about-mandate

How does that define 'race'?

 

[monkers]

How does that define 'race'?

Well it defines racism. Isn't that what Abbott is accused of. Racism is prejudice against race, so not as if unrelated.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Have you been reading Adam Rutherford?

View attachment 3719

Too heavy for me. I probably got it from a Jack Reacher book.

 

[BoldonLad]

Looking for an academic definition of race reduces the argument about racism to one about semantics rather than attitudes/behaviours.

Imo it is used mostly by people who want to find reasons why certain attitudes/behaviours fail the racism test as opposed to discussing the rights/wrongs of those attitudes/behaviours, and used to close the discussion down rather than address the issues.

1. I didn't say it had to be an academic defination

2. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but, personally I usually find that. a discussion is more productive if everyone agrees on the meaning/definition of the words being used.

Actually my thoughts are in line with @winjim, above, which, I note, you liked, funny old world

We could try for a definition in the context of the current discussion but even then we're in danger of calling a horse a chair.

Which is kind of the point really. Someone who has (had) aspirations to one of the highest offices in the land should really be aware of the challenges of trying to define such a nebulous concept as race.

 

[BoldonLad]

Blimey, next you'll be asking Starmer what a woman is !!!

Actually, there's this from the United Nations.

Article 1(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) defines racial discrimination in broad terms as:

“any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-racism/about-mandate

That seems to cover most of what I, personally, would say was unacceptable behaviour, if only there was a single word which encompassed that, to avoid confusion.

 

[winjim]

Well it defines racism. Isn't that what Abbott is accused of. Racism is prejudice against race, so not as if unrelated.

Can that be defined without defining race? The point that I'm making, and I believe @BoldonLad and @Rusty Nails are alluding to, and that I hope a (potential) Home Secretary would be aware of, is that there is no objective definition of race. It has no basis in biology and is purely a social construct.

As I believe I've mentioned elsewhere.

 

[winjim]

That seems to cover most of what I, personally, would say was unacceptable behaviour, if only there was a single word which encompassed that.

I have heard it discussed that part of the problem with racism is that the English language only really has one word for it. So it goes from unintended and unconscious biases which we all have, all the way to much more unsavoury thoughts and actions. So essentially we are all racist and all fall somewhere on the racism spectrum even if most of us are (I hope) at what you might call the milder end. It's a challenge to consider where we might draw a line which denotes what would be obviously unacceptable racism.

 

[Rusty Nails]

1. I didn't say it had to be an academic defination

2. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but, personally I usually find that. a discussion is more productive if everyone agrees on the meaning/definition of the words being used.

Actually my thoughts are in line with @winjim, above, which, I note, you liked, funny old world

Then @monkers has given you an explanation of racism, or more specifically racial discrimination, which covers what Abbott said.

Words develop over time and there is no reason, other than semantics or pedantry, why the definition of racism cannot cover wider aspects of discrimination than that based on the strict definition of race.

 

[Salty seadog]

Shout out to Chris Bryant. It's hard to argue with what he says.

 

[monkers]

I don't think it an easy thing to grapple with because if one person attacks another based on difference, it's important to know what they perceived.

Ethnicity is not precisely the same as race, but does a racist thug care about the distinction before they give someone a kicking? I think probably not.

Race used to be just thought of belonging to or from a place. But the big melting pot has changed that. Race, nationality, ethnicity, religious belief all inextricably intertwined.

Under common law, what Abbott said is more aligned with ethnicity than race. However we don't have a single simple word like 'racism' for prejudice on the basis of ethnicity. The courts have ruled that Jewishness is an ethnicity, where others may think of it as a religion. A British Jew therefore has two identifying characteristics, so if beaten up by thugs when abroad, the attack could be racially motivated because he is British, but then if they are beaten by people from some other faith, then the attack is motivated by some anti-ethnic sentiment.

So I think the only available word is 'difference', and if we put 'difference' into working for a definition, then we'd be on our way. But then because people share a language, or a culture, then any definition will need to encompass that too.

Who thought it would be easy?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Eureka!

Differentism.

Or Not-usism.