raciasm.

Does it still exist.

yes idoit

What do you think????

OP - Racism will unfortunately exist for ever ! Not just in South Africa, but in every nation, where people are guided by bigots ! Here in England, one of our largest imigrant groups are Indians of a Ugandan origin, and unfortunately like Ethnic Indians, Bangladeshi's and all other ethnic groups from the 'Indian sub continent' are regularly called 'Paki's' This can include perhaps 5 or 6 different races of wonderful people, but because some small minded bigoted people decide that they are 'Pakis' that is the label that they are all tagged with ! I only use the term 'Paki' as a demonstration of how racism is still active in our so called 'Multiracial, tollerant society' when these people (British of a Pakistanni origin) deserve to be like everyone else treated like a human being !

Yes, having just returned from SA, I would have to say it does!

Professor Watson who discovered DNA, has just had his lecture at the Science Museum in London cancelled because he said that black people were less intelligent than white folk. Racist?

OK - they might not be good at IQ tests, but what does that mean.....?

Having just returned from 3 months in Africa, including 1 month in South Africa, I would have to make the following observation:

1. Yes, in most countires racism still exists. Yes, to an extent, apartheid still exists (locals still attend 'black' schools and 'white' schools). But the racism now goes both ways - I have heard just as many coloured and black people being racist to whites as I have going the other way.

2. I found during my travels (as a single white female) that for the most part, the poorer the country (think East Africa - Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya), the more polite and welcoming the locals were, and the richer (think Namibia, Botswana, and particularly South Africa) the country, the less welcoming...

I find a good portion of the immigrant population in Norway very racist towards ethnic Norwegians (with the addition of extremely sexist towards ethnic Norwegian women and white women in general), far more so than ethnic Norwegians towards immigrant groups. It goes both ways...

I'm a white+East Asian mix. I found South Africans to be very polite and welcoming...

#6 just to respond to your point regarding different schools, that is not necessarily a race issue, but rather a wealth and class issue. Many black children go to "white" schools, it is just much more expensive to go to schools in the suburbs. So we need to differenciate between racism and classism. In fact I think that is equally bad.

However, racism does still exist, both ways, however, having spent all my life in South Africa (you posted on the SA branch, so I expect you are looking for an SA perspective), I have to say that we have come a long way, and I hope that the nation building will continue.

But I agree with martraveller that racism will exist all around the world, forever.

#6 - dno't know where in sa you are refering to but i think schools in cape town are pretty mixed. i mean sure you aren't going to find white kids at school in khayelitsha or mitchells plain but kids generally attend schools near where they live.
4 primary schools that i know on the south peninsula have a lot of coloured and black learners but 3 of those on face value you would think would be attended by mainly by white kids.

the only racism i hear is from a couple of people in my extended family and it sickens me to hear them so i don't engage in conversation with them. that said my late grandmother didn't like pakistani people and used to tell me about it. one problem that is apparent here is xenophobia of other african races in cape town. one guy i know (zambian) was hit by a security guard on a train for verbally defening a congolese stranger. security guard claimed they were friends and decided to get baton happy as they were both foreigners.

my parent's got me a subscription to a british weekly expat newspaper of a conservative persuasion and all that ever talks about is the immigrants.....

Don't forget, only a racist recognises racism!

I think racism exists, and is still a problem.

However, I don't think racism is currently a growing problem, perhaps it's even decreasing as a problem right now. Of course, this could all change again some time in the future. Who knows?

Focusing on "racism" is all too often used to mask other, more real problems...

Interesting that one is never born a rascist but "learns" it from peers, friends or society.

you've totally lost me #10. so if you recognise a certain behavour as racsist that means yo're racist. what are you on about?

Perhaps #10 means "takes one to know one."

To the "anti-racists" - are you anti-racist because it's the politically-correct thing to do? How do you feel about other factors, such as gender, culture, socio-economic situation, religion, etc.?

now you're opening up the conversation princess. i'm anti racist because i believe that people are natures most fantastic creation. they are interesting because they're different. i love to travel and it's the people that make the place. i'd be bored if everone looked the same. whatever contact you want to make with other people wether social, sexual etc. the more choices the more interesting. other factors:-gender..i think that women are the backbone of every society but men are the balance. :-culture is fascinating and again is what makes people unique. if we open up our minds we can learn lots from each other :-socia-economic situation is over stated. it's more about pride in oneself. you can be rich or poor and it doesn't make you a better or worse person but obviously gives you more choices and opportunities and can open up the world to you if you want it to. :-lastly religion. i do believe in god and if i'm right and he/she does exist he/she must be looking down in disgust at the hatred in the name of religion. it's the biggest divider of people much more so than race. i live in england and despite the fact that there is racism here there are more relationships across racial lines than religious.

So, #10, if someone walks up to me and says, "I hate nggrs", I wouldn't be able to tell if he was a racist unless I was one myself? Get real.
-
The logical problem with racism is that any generalizations made about groups are confounded by observing individuals from those groups. It doesn't matter if IQ tests (whatever they actually measure) show small statistical advantages for one race over another, because there's no guarantee that an individual of whatever pigmentation in front of you is at the top or bottom end of the human range. People are people one at a time.

#10
You are way WRONG !!
#16
You are way RIGHT !!
My take is that racism is a product of ignorance.
And it, are some other "ism" are "schism" exist in all countries.
ONE LOVE !!
Mike

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>i do believe in god and if i'm right and he/she does exist he/she must be looking down in disgust at the hatred in the name of religion. it's the biggest divider of people much more so than race. i live in england and despite the fact that there is racism here there are more relationships across racial lines than religious.<hr></blockquote>
I don't have any imaginary friends, and yes, religion is more devisive than anything else. Because of the competition to see who has the most bad-ass imaginary friend. Relationships based on skin color... no big deal. Religion, however, always becomes a big, nasty issue.

What most people call "racism" is actually something or other based on the culture and/or religion behind the skin color, not the skin color itself. It's all too easy to dismiss everything as a skin color issue.

not sure what you mean by imaginary friends. i think they're something small children have but i'm not sure. the other part of your argument is not proved by what goes on everday. you honestly believe that when football fans for eg. chant racist abuse at players or when stephen lawrence, anthony walker and the young white lad in scotland ( i don't remember his name) were killed in racially motivated attacks the killers were actually thinking "i don't like these young men's culture"

What I meant was that there are a lot of things that are called "racism" that really have nothing to do with skin color at all.

As for sports taunts, people chant what works, whether it be jabs at skin color or physical appearance or being cuckolded by their wives.

i do agree that a lot of things that arn't racist are falsely labeled. when someone say's they don't like americans or muslims people say thats racist when it obviously isn't as neither are a race.

Oh - and why is it not (almost never) racism when whites are victims of crime by non-whites?

Yeah... why is being anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim racist while being anti-Christian or anti-Buddhist or anti-Hindu is not?

eats bacon chips and drinks beer while waiting for the answer

it is racist when whites are the victims. the asians in scotland were convicted of the racist murder of the white lad. i think i'm correct in saying that the first person to be charged under the race act back in the 60s or 70s was michael x for suggesting that black nurses should kill white patients. at least one muslim cleric has been charged under the race act for saying that non believers should be murdered although non muslims are not a race anymore than muslims are. a lot of it makes no sence i agree. racism is treating people differently because of their race whereas disliking someones religious beliefs is not. the clue is in the word.

I believe that you are mistaking 'Racism' for 'Colour prejudice' Surely racism isn't just about targetting people of a different colour ? It's having a fear/hatred of any different nationality ! Colour prejudice is a hatred of people of a different colour (obvious I know but needed to be said) not mattering from what racial background they now come from !

Is it any worse in the eyes of a British racist, if the person he targets is Indian, Black or Eastern European ? If yes then he is not racist but merely a bigotted coloured prejudiced bufoon !

Thak you every body for your contributions,on behalf of my collegues,we were conducting a reserch on the way the situations are down there being the host of 2010 world cup,so you are all of great help to us for giving out your opinions and side of views.

Nice day.

Thank you every one for your contributions,i was reserching this country becouse it is the host for 2010 world cup,to see the altitude of people towards rasialism.

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...."