raciasm.

You can't gauge South African attitudes on an international message board. Your research methodology could use some revision...

(Though apparently everyone is all happy and harmonious because the SPRRRRRINGBOKS won the Rugby World Cup)

Oooops, I'm a bit late, but lets straighten a few issues.

Firstly Karlo and Mikeymike, racism doesn't exist. It, like beauty, is perceived in the eye of the beholder. What might be racist to you, might not to someone else.
Interestingly, Nelson Mandela accused George Bush of being racist when he invaded Iraq, as he igored the UN because its secretary-general, Ghanaian Kofi Annan, was black. "They never did that when secretary-generals were white," Mandela said.
Sadly it was Nelson Mandela, and not George Bush who was the racist. Only a racist recognises racism.

If someone who had no idea at all of racism, heard the "nier" comment, he would not think it racist. You on the other hand think black skin/white skin therefore it smacks of racism. Difficult for me to comment on it without, once again, having to ask what colour skins the 2 guys had. Tragic that in most of the world's eye's, skin colour is still so important. Not hair or eye or hair or clothing or even car colour - but skin. It's only when we stop looking at the colour of a persons skin, and instead begin to value them as individuals, that we will begin to move beyond racism. If skin colour wasn't an issue, the Nier comment would have absolutely no bearing.

The only way we'll get rid of racism, is to get rid of racism.
Time to move on Karlo and Mickeymike.

wigman, the extent to which you are wiggy is obvious in your first paragraph. When your first sentence says"racism doesn't exist" and your last sentence says "it was Nelson Mandela, and not George Bush who was the racist", you've pretty much boiled your simplistic semantic sophistry down to its elemental stupidity. It's exactly as possible to be a racist without racism as it is to be a communist without communism or a podiatrist in a world without feet. And of course, if Bush mae the decision he made for the reason cited by Mandela (which I doubt), Bush would indeed be a racist, while Mandela's observation if true would no more make him a racist than my observation of a murder would make me a killer.
-
I can see you at a 1960's Alabama lynching, telling the black victim who was being hanged and burned solely because of the color of his skin, "This only looks like racism to you, but in absolute terms, I'm blowing it off because I believe everything is subjective, and since the observer is the only judge of reality, you can just relax." Then, you could turn to the hooded figures pulling the rope, pouring the kerosene, and lighting the match, and say, "You guys aren't racists, because I can't see the color of your skin under those robes, even though I hear you screaming 'Burn, nggr, burn!'" Of course, if another observer arrived and shouted, "Let him go, you racist scum!", that person would possibly be a racist because he would have identified the racism as racism, even though maybe he wouldn't be, not because racism doesn't exist, but because you as Arbiter of Reality couldn't see the color of his skin. Yeah.
-
And what's the relevance of, "If someone who had no idea at all of racism, heard the "ni**er" comment, he would not think it racist"? Reality doesn't depend on the naivete of the ignorant observer. If someone who doesn't understand English is standing by and fails to comprehend, "That falling piano is about to crush you", whether or not he thinks the statement was alarmist has nothing to do with the alarming nature of his situation.
-
Just admit that you made a stupid generalization, and don't bother with ludicrous obfuscation.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>"They never did that when secretary-generals were white," Mandela said.<hr></blockquote>
Well, considering Bush ignored white European heads of state as well, that was a pretty stupid thing to say...

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Some countries are more racist than others though.<hr></blockquote>
Such as?

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Actually there's no easy answer to that one. There are some that obviously stand out, others not so much.<hr></blockquote>
Riiiiight. So this is something that you claim, but in reality know absolutely nothing about...

Karlo

I did say there is no such thing as racism.
Absolutely.
But, I also said that it is possible for people like you to create it.

Racism is a perception until a racist recognises an injustice to be racist, and it then becomes racism.
There was no racism involved when Bush attacked Iraq, until Mandela, seeing the different colour of a person’s skin, called it as such, and so created a racist issue. Interestingly, you obviously didn't look at the issues of a persons skin colour in this case, whereas you do at other times. In this not very good link, (I couldn't find anything better) a lot of very prominent SA politicians do see it as racist.
Personally, I think sadly, his comments were very racist. It's very sad that HE recognised racism, and didn't recognise it as an injustice! Recognising racism out of nothing at all, only perpetuates it.

So the big question. Is it, or is it not racist? To some it is to others it is not! A perception? Something that obviously doesn't exist in some people's eyes? But does in others! Is it possibly because there is no such thing as racism, until we label it as such?

I do agree that if Bush made the decision he made for the reason cited by Mandela, and you see issues of skin colour, Bush would indeed be a racist.

You're right, I would have been at the Alabama lynching.
Fighting for the rights and justice in a world full of injustices, no matter who was lynching whom. Not fighting to perpetuate racism.

I too would love to have been in Rwanda and Burundi fighting for justice, as opposed to you and the world standing by and watching, when black men committed atrocities against one another, but as it wasn't perceived as racist, it wasn't worth getting involved in.
Sudan today. It's not a racist issue, so you can carry on sleeping warm at night. It's an horrific injustice that is acceptable to you and yours, because you don't see it a racism. It never will be racist, but it will always be a barbaric injustice to all those involved.

Why did you bring a falling piano into it. Black and white keys perhaps? Sh*t I'm looking at life through your eyes! Stop it, Stop it!!! LOL

When people stop seeing an injustice as racism, we will move on and racism will end.
I say again, people like you who think of an injustice as racism, are the cause for racism still being with us.

Funny you seeing me in Alabama, as I can see you burning someone at the stake, during the middle ages, who said that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe. It's amazing how time allows people who are wrong to see the issue from a different side. Long may you live.

Tula8, you’re right.
There is no easy answer to that, because racism is a perception. You might think some countries are racist whereas others are not, but someone else might think very differently.
PoP’s come up with a very good assumption.
Don’t back off now.
Tell us more!

Time I went to bed.

Night All!

You still haven't answered my question, Tula.

You say that there are countries that obviously stand out as being racist. Which ones are these?

Here's a great example of a racist (Orville Lloyd Douglas) creating racism where to me there certainly wasn't any.
A great example showing that only a racist recognises racism!
It's about the movie "A Mighty Heart", and I've lifted this bit directly from Wikipedia at this URL

"....Although the film has received positive reviews in the white media, many members of the black community were against the film. Pop culture critic Orville Lloyd Douglas has criticized the casting of Angelina Jolie in the role of Mariane Pearl because, he said, "Jolie is white" and Mariane Pearl is "bi-racial." Douglas asserted that "there was an uproar by the African American community," that Pearl has an "ambivalence about her black heritage," and that although the real Mariane Pearl is not dark skinned, Jolie's portrayal is blackface and an example of Hollywood discrimination against black actresses. Douglas' viewpoint is that blackface's "symbolism" manifests itself when a white actor darkens his or her skin and wears a wig in order to appear black. Douglas also argues that defenders of Mariane Pearl ignore the internal racism and self-loathing some biracial people have about their black heritage. In North America, Pearl is viewed as a black woman despite what some see as her attempts to embrace whiteness and distance herself from her black heritage. Douglas argues Pearl will never be viewed as white in North America because of her darker skin and kinky curly hair...."