"One cannot be racist against mexican..."

[superfreddy]

Federal law recognizes National Origin and Race as two separate types of discrimination.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/index.cfm

Mexican is not a race, therefore it is National Origin discrimination.

Question answered

Not quite right.

When you have people using "Mexican" as a code word for any darker skinned person coming from South of the border, then you have racial discrimination.

 

[pgwenthold]

Not quite right.

When you have people using "Mexican" as a code word for any darker skinned person coming from South of the border, then you have racial discrimination.

I'll point it out again: it's not even that. Remember how Trump called a judge born in Indiana "Mexican". Because of his name....

 

[The Big Dog]

Not quite right.

When you have people using "Mexican" as a code word for any darker skinned person coming from South of the border, then you have racial discrimination.

Yes, I was quite right.

You can have both national origin and racial discrimination against an individual (or group), but you can have national origin discrimination without race discrimination (and vice versa of course).

 

[Trebuchet]

I skimmed the thread so sorry if I missed someone pointing this out, but the Mexicans Trump and his followers hate and fear so much aren't the light-skinned upper and middle class ones. It's the poor, brown skinned, black-haired ones with significant native ancestry they worry about. It really is about race, or at least about skin color.

 

[superfreddy]

Yes, I was quite right.

You can have both national origin and racial discrimination against an individual (or group), but you can have national origin discrimination without race discrimination (and vice versa of course).

Not sure I'm following your point.

Are you saying one cannot be racists against Mexican because Mexican is not a race but a national origin?

 

[dudalb]

Fact is ,in popular usage, the terms "Racist" and "Bigot" have become interchangeable.
And in the end,popular usage is what counts,not pendatic discussions about semantics.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fact is ,in popular usage, the terms "Racist" and "Bigot" have become interchangeable.
And in the end,popular usage is what counts,not pendatic discussions about semantics.

That counts? It is the least important opinion in any discussion.

 

[rdwight]

Fact is ,in popular usage, the terms "Racist" and "Bigot" have become interchangeable.
And in the end,popular usage is what counts,not pendatic discussions about semantics.

In regards to white people in the USA.*

My first thread in these forums was in regards to how racism is currently defined in the US, specifically its relation to its requirement of power.

 

[pgwenthold]

Fact is ,in popular usage, the terms "Racist" and "Bigot" have become interchangeable.

Not really. Racist is used to refer to racial issues, including ethnicity. You also have misogynists and homophobes.

 

[Aepervius]

That counts? It is the least important opinion in any discussion.

When it comes to word meaning, I am sorry but the *folk* that is the majority, define that word. No matter what a few people decrying language purity or whatnot decry.

I have been on the wrong side of the debate for hackers and crackers, so I know what it is like to be in the minority.

In the very end language is used as a communication, and the majority dictate is what define words meaning, no matter what the minority purist thinks.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not sure I'm following your point.

Are you saying one cannot be racists against Mexican because Mexican is not a race but a national origin?

You can be racist against a Mexican based on his race/color of his skin.

Mexican is not a race, but a National Origin.

 

[dudalb]

When it comes to word meaning, I am sorry but the *folk* that is the majority, define that word. No matter what a few people decrying language purity or whatnot decry.

I have been on the wrong side of the debate for hackers and crackers, so I know what it is like to be in the minority.

In the very end language is used as a communication, and the majority dictate is what define words meaning, no matter what the minority purist thinks.

You just saved me the trouble of replying to Bob.
The term Hacker is a good example. it might have originally meant any computer user who liked to go "under the hood" in using software, (the computer version of a auto owner who liked to mess around with and tweak his engine) , it has come to define,in popular usage,a person who breaks into other people's computers for illegal purposes. That is had a more innocent meaning in the beginning is irrevelent.

 

[Segnosaur]

Fact is ,in popular usage, the terms "Racist" and "Bigot" have become interchangeable.
And in the end,popular usage is what counts,not pendatic discussions about semantics.

I wouldn't say they are completely interchangeable. After all, someone could (in theory) be sexist or anti-gay, which is a form of bigotry, but calling a homo-phobe "racist" would be confusing (whereas calling someone bigoted against mexicans a "racist" is at least in the same ballpark.)

 

[Segnosaur]

The number of people who would be concerned about such issues is relatively small (a few people involved in the medical/psych field, perhaps some sociologists), and they should be more than capable of dealing with the differences between common usage of the term "pedophile" and the more clinical definition.

Similarly, lumping "bigotry against Mexicans" in with "racism" is something that would be convenient/useful, and attempting to stick to a more technical definition (subdefine bigotry by subtype - race, religion, nationality) would be useful to only a tiny number of people and inconvenient to the rest of us.

Well actually we can already see how confusing the expansion of "racism" as a word has become, with nonsense like cultural appropriation and the like.

I don't really think there's any confusion here.

The only person who seems to use the argument that "bigotry against Mexicans is not racism because Mexican isn't a race" was a hardcore trump supporter, whom I suspect knew that he was in the wrong but was flinging as much mud as he could. If not the "Mexican is not a race" argument, he would have picked some other irrelevant argument to make.

 

[xjx388]

And what race would that be? This is akin to saying Arabic is a race.

I don't believe in "race." I just said that would be closer to what most people mean by race than "Mexican."

Why single out Mexicans? Why not Canadians or Irish? Illegal immigration comes from all over the world. Focusing on "Mexican" does carry a racial undertone.

Because I live on the Mexican border and that is the problem that affects me. But sure, I don't want illegal immigrants from any nation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't really think there's any confusion here.

The only person who seems to use the argument that "bigotry against Mexicans is not racism because Mexican isn't a race" was a hardcore trump supporter, whom I suspect knew that he was in the wrong but was flinging as much mud as he could. If not the "Mexican is not a race" argument, he would have picked some other irrelevant argument to make.

Really, you know the guy that the OP was talking about? That is odd.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin;

 

[The Big Dog]

Here is a pretty good article summarizing in layman's terms why anti-discrimination statues include both Race and National Origin and the differences between the two

National Origin Discrimination vs. Race Discrimination: What’s the Difference?

Now if you don't want to sound like a huckleberry, try not to confuse National Origin discrimination and racism.

/full disclosure: I have not vetted the author of that linked article and he might be a HARD CORE TRUMP SUPPORTER so be forewarned.

 

[logger]

For those of you who feel the need to split hairs, please see Mumbles' post. This thread was inspired by a recent comment from a Trump-defending conservative. "Ha ha, 'Mexican" isn't a race so you can't call it racist!"

If you haven't seen this used over and over and over and over to explain away Trump, then you've been living under a cabbage leaf for the past year. But to return to Mumbles' contention, if the idiots making the idiotic statements perceive Mexicans or Muslims or Puerto Ricans or Anywhereians as a race and direct their racist xenophobia towards them, then for all intents and purposes consider them racists.

Meh? I prefer "bigot". Racism, to me, has always been open to the possibility that it's unintentional even inadvertent behavior. Being a southern white kid (for certain definitions of "white"; being Jewish-Sicilian I wasn't invited to a lot of White Citizens Council meetings), I can see myself failing the alone-in-the-elevator test.

Bigotry, though? That's a thought-out tenet. Bigots have worked at it and have justifications all built into their defense of their positions. But it's funny, ya know. I haven't seen any of the Trump, Bannon, Sessions, Coulter apologists saying, "Hey, you can't call that racism! Trump's an outright bigot, but there's no proof he's racist." No. It's used to dismiss his behavior and his statements as a trump card to counter the use of the term, not to disprove that he has those qualities. The argument stops at "racist" and if they can hand-wave away that accusation then all's right in the world and he's actually a swell guy.

Lol
Your post is nothing more than division. Republicans don't think in terms of race, never have, this is a monster of the left, which they use to divide people to further their causes. Most are catching on to it, which is another reason your side has lost so badly. But of course the left won't stop, because they have to look at their political enemies as monsters, it's the only way they can justify these divisive tactics. Someday it will spill into the streets, its getting close now, im sure your side will be delighted in that.

 

[logger]

I don't really think there's any confusion here.

The only person who seems to use the argument that "bigotry against Mexicans is not racism because Mexican isn't a race" was a hardcore trump supporter, whom I suspect knew that he was in the wrong but was flinging as much mud as he could. If not the "Mexican is not a race" argument, he would have picked some other irrelevant argument to make.

Actually the left calls him a "racist" because of his comments on Mexicans who have come here and raped and murdered. Which is true. Further, this is how the left does it, discussing people from another country somehow makes the person a racist when the left feels they can frame then market it. We can talk about China, no racism there. We can talk about Cuba, no racism there. But when the left is looking for Latino votes, talking about Mexicans brings the racist label.

He isn't a racist for discussing it, he isn't a racist for wanting to stop it. So to recap, I'm still a Trump supporter, I'm in the right, and I'm not flinging mud at all, it's not permitted here.
I'm not out to make another argument, this one has plenty of confusion to figure out.

 

[TraneWreck]

Now if you don't want to sound like a huckleberry, try not to confuse National Origin discrimination and racism.

That was a beautiful "Well, Actually."

They aren't mutually exclusive; they're functionally equivalent. Anyone who expresses one form of bias almost always expresses the other.