My friend says that the word “racism” is a 20th century invention. That’s why the parameters of being racist are so arbitrary i.e. eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is considered racist.
Is that true though? Does Koine Greek or Latin have the word “racism?” what about other old languages?
Other urls found in this thread:
huffingtonpost.com
twitter.com
He is correct.
Not liking people who look different from you has been the rule not the exception throughout history.
Why would our forebears need to classify normal tribal behavior?
Earlier in the history of the English language they would have used the more precise term "race hate" I doubt the ancients had such a concept
it is because the idea of race wasn't as ubiquitous and in many areas didn't exist (reason being that before worldwide travel many people wouldn't encounter people with different color skin unless they were traders/merchants/soldiers)
instead people differentiated by ethnic groups i.e. "we are welsh folk and those are africans"
that doesn't mean they didn't hate people of different ethnic groups, it just means they didn't walk around going "I hate blacks" because black vs. white wasn't much of a concept. maybe walk around going "I hate the british" or "I hate moslems"
>eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is considered racist.
Literally who ever said this unironically? I wouldn't doubt some retard did but do you have any source to back this up because it seems like a massive strawman.
It was some article that got circled around on /pol/ a few years ago, I don't think it was ironic (SJW) it was about how being able to afford peanut butter and jam is rayciss, also dat white bread
e.g. not i.e.
e.g.= for example
i.e. = in other words
OP’s actually works both ways
>criteria for something being racist is extremely arbitrary, for example, eating a pbj sandwich is considered racist
or
>Racism as a concept is dubious and arbitrary, in other words eating a pbj sandwich is considered “racist.”
Never once in the article does it say verbatum that they are racist. It explains (rather objectively) that there are groups who use the idea of the sandwich as a devil's advocate of sorts. Still shitty but not even that bad by Huffington Post standards and definitely no OPs strawman.
Racism is good, prove me wrong
no, you just have selective reading skills. the article states that principal (some mexican name) claimed that by the school system she worked at using pbj sandwiches as part of their curriculum they are being subtly racist because mexican families don’t make their children pbj, they all go to school brown baggng cheese tortillas or something.
The concept of thinking a race or people/group is shitty is obviously not new, a lot of people in history have been like that. The thing is it's only recently been seen as a problem
>principal (some mexican name) claimed that by the school system she worked at using pbj sandwiches as part of their curriculum they are being subtly racist
So they used that as a talking point to claim the school was racist. That isn't calling Peanut Butter n Jelly Sandwiches racist.
>That isn't calling Peanut Butter n Jelly Sandwiches racist.
it is, because if pbj wasn’t racist then the school wouldn’t be racist for the sin of using it in their curriculum.
Well look man, to be honest when I read OK's comment I thought it was essentially saying "everything is racist now" by using an entirely arbitrary and made up example, peanut butter and jelly. I am very surprised that OP in fact did not make that up and it does actually fucking come from somewhere. I really don't give a shit if the article isn't as bad as the title sounds, just the fact that it exists at all is astounding to the point that everything else is irrelevant and trying to get nitpicky is pointless
>Racism as a concept is dubious and arbitrary, in other words eating a pbj sandwich is considered “racist.”
That's not correct usage of ' in other words'. When you use ' in other words' or 'i.e.' you're offering an alternative definition of something. Examples of something aren't the same thing as a definition.
You wouldn't say 'man I'm sick of taking the bus to work, I really need to buy a car, in other words, I need to buy a Volvo' (unless you're being rhetorical because Volvo is the only make of car you value or consider to be a 'real' car.)
You shouldn't assume you're "better" because of skin color. There's a reason African Americans dominate all sports exceot hockey. They're genetically better than you physically. See how inferior you are? Or if physicality isn't your gsme (who are we kidding, you're a pasty pudgy fat kid) we can always look at mental strength. As a generality, Asians tend to score higher on IQ tests than other races. So, now Asians are the best race. See why racism is stupid? Evolution evolved different sub species of humans and some of them are better than others at different things. To assume you're all aroundnd better because of skin color is on an intelligence level of an illiterate southerner in 1861. You're smarter than that. Right user?
The idea of humankind is pretty recent as well. In the past people would just refer to their own kin vs others. Even into the 20th century (And even today if you go on /pol/) people still had a hard time thinking of people as a whole.
Well it's factually unsubstantiated so how 'good' can it be?
The principle claims the racism is only offering PBJs, not offering PBJs in itself. He claims there should be more options for the ethnic students.
No,they called it racial studies, biology,etc.
It was there at the beginning of time even if people didn't have a word for it. Next you are going to tell me gender is an "invention" fucking retards.
it’s not about food being offered for consumption. It’s about the school talking about food. In the schools lesson plan, they talked about pbj as an example of food being eaten by students and this is (according to mexican principal) racist. it’s racist because apparently no mexican eats pbj, they all eat ethnic food all the time.
is this post a joke
That's a strawman using the assumption that racism is only about skin color and using commonly accepted false data (african americans and african americans in general do not dominate a majority of sports, and most certainly not 'all but hockey'). You are also throwing insults based on unverified data.
the point is nobody had a problem with it up until now. today, capitalism has prevailed and capital benefits from world markets of human drones and diversity and inclusion and anti racism and all this other fucking trash. that's what this is all about. note that the post soviet countries are the most enthically homogenous
>the post soviet countries are the most enthically homogenous
no.
perhaps I should rephrase
the population of the post soviet countries are very close to how they have always been historically, "diverse" or not. yeah russia itself is huge I suppose.
i.e, no mass immigration
It's only as much of a joke as your reply. Is your reply a joke?
Based on revenue the top 4 sports in the US are MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL. At the start of the 2016 MLB season, African American players were the 2nd most represented in the MLB and most represented in both the NBA and NFL.
Capitalism is human nature retard
Do I really have to spell this out
You are making the claim that some races have innate qualities that make them better at things than other races. I think you're right about this actually. But why do you say then that racism is bad? This literally is racism
>INTITLELD
No, different qualities doesn't mean superiority. All races are better than others at some things. Just like all people are better than others at some things, and worse at others. That's just life. Africans evolved in a different playing field than whites. They're going to be stronger in some areas weaker in others. But their flaws don't make you better, because you have flaws as well.
>being better at something doesn't make you 'superior'.
It doesn't? There are things I am better than you at. That doesn't make me superior to you, because there are things at which you are better than me. You're not the strongest, smartest, fastest, best looking person in the world. You may be faster, but you're not stronger etc. That doesn't make either one of us superior. It just means we're better suited for different things. This isn't a hard concept friend. Stop thinking on absolutes, and realize you're an idiot in the grand scheme of things. So am I. So is the African that you will never hear about. Or the Vietnamese child who died in a jungle somewhere. You're irrelevant, you're just desperately searching for something that gives you relevancy. And for most people it's easy to group people based on physical attributes, because they're obvious at first site. Don't strive to be an idiot, just realise statistically speaking, you're just as useless as everyone else.
Shut the fuck up
You horribly misunderstand what racism even is in the first place
That wasn't an intelligent response. Thanks for proving my point, you statically worthless sack of shit. Here we are back at square one. You've yet to offer any counter arguments exceot for
>implying
And
>s-shut up!
If your lack of intelligent response isn't proof enough, I guess you really are one of those people who can be deemed 'inferior'. But it's not because of your race, you retard.
Look
Different races have different mental and physical qualities right
Leftist diversity shitheads don't believe that
You and I do
We are racists
No we're not. Thinking there are differences in race is not racist. Thinking you're superior due to these differences of racist. Of course other races are different. Anthropologists can tell a negroid skull from a mongoloid skull from a cacausoid skull simply by looking at it. You're the one who doesn't understand the word racism friend. There has to be prejudice and discrimination for it to be racist. If you don't believe me, go pick up a dictionary and look for yourself. I guarantee you have literally never looked the word up in a dictionary.
I really don't know how to respond to this since I still don't think we're on opposite sides
>Thinking there are differences in race is not racist.
>Racism: Discrimination based on race.
Oh good. We're getting somewhere. Now look up the definition of discrimination. Because acknowledging a difference is not discrimination. Are you in middle school? Is English not your first language? How do you get through highschool and not understand the word 'discrimination'? Pay attention in class, stupid.
We're not. I'm not against anyone, that's the fucking point. You and me are not the same. You are better than me at some things, I am better than you at some things. If you're stronger and I'm faster we would be better off helping each other out in different situations instead of standing around, waving our dicks and yelling about stupid shit like skin color.
>yelling about stupid shit like skin color.
Why are you so insistent on this? All of the differences that people care about are completely unrelated to skin color. When a Hindu discriminates against an Arab, do you think its over slightly different amounts of Melanin in the skin?
Because that is what people judge on the majority of the time. It's the first thing people notice. It's the most apparent physical feature. Your skin is literally your largest organ. A Hindu discriminating an Arab is not because of skin color, it's because of their culture. But a Hindu will automatically discriminate against someone who looks Arab because they're Arab. Same reason Middle Easterners are screened more extensively at airports. They know absolutely nothing about the Arab they just pulled from the line, the dude may not even be Muslim. But, he LOOKS Arab. So he was picked for screening, based solely on his looks. Again, this isn't hard. It happens literally every day. Most people are just ignorant to it.
This, basically.
Kill the demon Frenchmen!
mate the ancients greek would even hate themselves, and they didn't say nice things about barbarians and persians either
Hindus look like Pakis and Pakis are Muslim so it makes sense to screen them
