• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racism or misunderstanding?

Dave Chappell had a great skit on his show where white people are trying to pick the only black guy out of a crowd without referring to the colour of his skin. The lengths they go to to remain politically correct remind me of this thread.

If the roles were reversed and the ref had of said " the white guy" everyone would be happy he was so clear and concise.

ETA: But it is football/soccer so the only real surprising thing is they all weren't rolling around on the pitch looking for a penalty for their hurt feeling.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people, even some in here, seem to have lost the meaning of what racism actually is. Merely noticing that people look different is not it. Apparently there is so little of the real thing about these days that we have to overreact to this sort of nonsense.

That's assuming the story is as it's currently presented, of course.
 
qayak said:
Dave Chappell had a great skit on his show where white people are trying to pick the only black guy out of a crowd without referring to the colour of his skin. The lengths they go to to remain politically correct remind me of this thread.

If the roles were reversed and the ref had of said " the white guy" everyone would be happy he was so clear and concise.

ETA: But it is football/soccer so the only real surprising thing is they all weren't rolling around on the pitch looking for a penalty for their hurt feeling.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. There is no such thing as a 'white skin gene'. Colour of skin is caused by at least six different alleles, probably as many as ten or more. What you perceive as 'white' is simply a mutation in which there is a lack of melanin. The only people who have a complete or near complete lack of melanin are albinos. It could be said that Europeans are simply people who migrated from the Indian subcontinent many thousands of years ago and are just merely melanin-deficient Indians.

So, in which way is it 'politically correct' to deny there is such a thing as a 'race' based on skin colour? The most ethnically diverse populations in the world are in Africa with at least 3,000 different ethnicities. So anyone claiming a simple classification for race as being 'white' versus 'black' are the ones who are politically, biologically and factually incorrect.
 
Vixen said:
False dichotomy. There is no such thing as a 'white skin gene'. Colour of skin is caused by at least six different alleles, probably as many as ten or more. What you perceive as 'white' is simply a mutation in which there is a lack of melanin. The only people who have a complete or near complete lack of melanin are albinos. It could be said that Europeans are simply people who migrated from the Indian subcontinent many thousands of years ago and are just merely melanin-deficient Indians.

So, in which way is it 'politically correct' to deny there is such a thing as a 'race' based on skin colour? The most ethnically diverse populations in the world are in Africa with at least 3,000 different ethnicities. So anyone claiming a simple classification for race as being 'white' versus 'black' are the ones who are politically, biologically and factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned race, I mentioned colour of skin. That was one of the points Chappell was mocking.
 
Vixen said:
Fr row, 3rd from r.

That is the convention.
Click to expand...

I think you're really stretching the dfinition of 'racist' to breaking point here.

There's nothing wrong with using a persons features or characteristics to identify them in a crowd. I think it's quite a contortion to consider that racist. Noticing and referring to colour or race is not, in itself, racist. I think that's a bit mad, to be honest.
 
Vixen said:
False dichotomy. There is no such thing as a 'white skin gene'. Colour of skin is caused by at least six different alleles, probably as many as ten or more. What you perceive as 'white' is simply a mutation in which there is a lack of melanin. The only people who have a complete or near complete lack of melanin are albinos. It could be said that Europeans are simply people who migrated from the Indian subcontinent many thousands of years ago and are just merely melanin-deficient Indians.

So, in which way is it 'politically correct' to deny there is such a thing as a 'race' based on skin colour? The most ethnically diverse populations in the world are in Africa with at least 3,000 different ethnicities. So anyone claiming a simple classification for race as being 'white' versus 'black' are the ones who are politically, biologically and factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

So, er, nobody should refer to themselves as black?
 
3point14 said:
Do you think it's inherrently racist to identify someone whose name you don't know as 'the black one' or 'the white one' or 'the chinese one' when they're sat next to someone that clearly doesn't fit that description?

ETA:

This is the US Ryder cup team, 2012

https://img.rasset.ie/00067113-1600.jpg

If you're talking to someone who knows nothing at all about golf and golfers and you want to talk about Tiger Woods and they say, 'which one's he'? then, personally, I'd have no issue saying he was the black one before resorting to 'front row, third from the right' or similar.
Click to expand...

I avoid references to race in my day to day life as much as possible. But I may be overly sensitive.

I would certainly avoid it in my professional capacity and would be shocked if others didn't. If I walk into a room with a black colleague and someone in the room refers to them as "the black one" I would be ready to leave.

Maybe it is a recent thing, but I do not ever refer to professionals I work with or around by such identifiers. I don't refer to them by the race, their gender, their physical characteristics, or anything else that may be taken in context or out of context as a slight. That's just being a professional.

But this is just soccer, not a professional sport, so maybe I'm overreacting.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
I avoid references to race in my day to day life as much as possible. But I may be overly sensitive.

I would certainly avoid it in my professional capacity and would be shocked if others didn't. If I walk into a room with a black colleague and someone in the room refers to them as "the black one" I would be ready to leave.
Click to expand...

Why? It's a defining characteristic like being tall or short or blonde. It's not offensive to notice someone's race. I find that really odd. I would guess - and it is a guess - that most of the people who you are so desperate not to refer to as black, or 'black', if you prefer, would happily refer to themselves as black either in private or in public. In professional circles, sadly, that reference may be 'I was the only black guy in the room'.

In what way do you see it as offensive to recognise someones skin colour? Perhaps this is a US thing I just don't get.


Maybe it is a recent thing, but I do not ever refer to professionals I work with or around by such identifiers. I don't refer to them by the race, their gender, their physical characteristics, or anything else that may be taken in context or out of context as a slight. That's just being a professional.
Click to expand...

I find this a terribly confusing attitude. I appreciate that if it was the only identifier used after knowing and working with someone for some time it's an issue. Nobody's 'the black guy' for long, becuase, pretty soon, they're 'Dave'.

But this is just soccer, not a professional sport, so maybe I'm overreacting.
Click to expand...



Edit:

Is it sexist to refer to the only woman in a conference room as a woman? Is there any paralell there?
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
So, er, nobody should refer to themselves as black?
Click to expand...

Depends.

Here is an analogy.

Suppose you are playing monopoly and it becomes clear that the banker has been cheating against the pieces resembling inanimate objects. But all the pieces are just arbitrary shapes denoting difference in the game.


Half way through the banker says, "you caught me. I was classifying you as different pieces. We will play by the rules for here on out."

A) I would be pissed that the banker just wants to act like playing by the rules from here is a solution. B) I would be double pissed if in the process of communicating what happened, I called my group the inanimate objects and the banker said, "but all pieces are the same."
 
Seems a bit OTT on the finding everything racist scale IMO.

I'm guessing the same people who find pointing out a visual difference of someone to identify them in a group racist would also not say "The woman" if the coach in question happened to be the only woman in the group, just in case their "gender identity" was a bloke.

I am pretty sure there would have been occasions in the NBA where people have said the white dude.
 
3point14 said:
Why? It's a defining characteristic like being tall or short or blonde. It's not offensive to notice someone's race. I find that really odd. I would guess - and it is a guess - that most of the people who you are so desperate not to refer to as black, or 'black', if you prefer, would happily refer to themselves as black either in private or in public. In professional circles, sadly, that reference may be 'I was the only black guy in the room'.

In what way do you see it as offensive to recognise someones skin colour? Perhaps this is a US thing I just don't get.




I find this a terribly confusing attitude. I appreciate that if it was the only identifier used after knowing and working with someone for some time it's an issue. Nobody's 'the black guy' for long, becuase, pretty soon, they're 'Dave'.





Edit:

Is it sexist to refer to the only woman in a conference room as a woman? Is there any paralell there?
Click to expand...

If there was only one black person in a group of colleagues and someone came up to me and asked me to point out “Mike” and Mike was black I would say “He’s the black guy in that group”, If they asked about “Neil” and he was a red head and was the only one I would say “He’s the red head in that group”. (Now knowing me and my problem with faces and names I would probably have the people labelled internally as “the one with red glasses” so wouldn’t have a clue who Mike or Neil was!)
 
Thermal said:
It could be. It can also be simply considerate, not wanting to offend someone even though you intend no offense. Dr. Kieth, I am sure, falls in the latter group.
Click to expand...

I suspect most black people can detect it when white people are nervous around them, afraid of making an innocent mistake. I also suspect they laugh at you behind your back.
 
JoeMorgue said:
It was someone on the field in an official capacity. It wasn't a fan or a spectator, so I'm not seeing the difference.
Click to expand...

Coaches don't have numbers so he had to describe which coach he was referring to instead of providing a jersey number for the person coming the offence.
 
3point14 said:
Why? It's a defining characteristic like being tall or short or blonde. It's not offensive to notice someone's race. I find that really odd. I would guess - and it is a guess - that most of the people who you are so desperate not to refer to as black, or 'black', if you prefer, would happily refer to themselves as black either in private or in public. In professional circles, sadly, that reference may be 'I was the only black guy in the room'.

In what way do you see it as offensive to recognise someones skin colour? Perhaps this is a US thing I just don't get.




I find this a terribly confusing attitude. I appreciate that if it was the only identifier used after knowing and working with someone for some time it's an issue. Nobody's 'the black guy' for long, becuase, pretty soon, they're 'Dave'.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Taken a step further, people who are 'one of the guys' on my jobsites will playfully refer to each other by racial epithets and expressions all day long, and by sexual comments and all manner of crudity. But never, ever to a stranger or acquaintance who might not be so casual, because you don't want to hurt anyone with words.


Edit:

Is it sexist to refer to the only woman in a conference room as a woman? Is there any paralell there?
Click to expand...

If she is referred to as 'the woman' when her name/title are known, it might sound dismissive or objectifying, yes. If her name slipped your mind, or another party hadn't met her and you wanted to point her out, prob fine.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I suspect most black people can detect it when white people are nervous around them, afraid of making an innocent mistake. I also suspect they laugh at you behind your back.
Click to expand...

A particular HVAC tech on my site (yes, a black guy) always refers to me or any other buddy as 'my n-ah'. Being older than him, I'm not comfortable responding in kind, bc it wasn't cool to do so when I was growing up and it feels hard-wired wrong. He has no qualms about making uptight white boy jokes at my expense about it.
 
3point14 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because I don't think it is professional to refer to other professionals by their physical characteristics in a professional setting. Might I refer to them in such terms at the bar after work, maybe. But in a conference room when I have forgotten someone's name I don't say "Let's hear what the cute guy with the nicely pressed suit has to say about this topic" even if I think it is a compliment.

It's a defining characteristic like being tall or short or blonde.
Click to expand...

Again, I wouldn't use those in a professional setting either.

It's not offensive to notice someone's race. I find that really odd. I would guess - and it is a guess - that most of the people who you are so desperate not to refer to as black, or 'black', if you prefer, would happily refer to themselves as black either in private or in public. In professional circles, sadly, that reference may be 'I was the only black guy in the room'.

In what way do you see it as offensive to recognise someones skin colour? Perhaps this is a US thing I just don't get.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is just my profession. But I doubt you make it far in most professions these days referring to your colleagues by their physical characteristics.




I find this a terribly confusing attitude. I appreciate that if it was the only identifier used after knowing and working with someone for some time it's an issue. Nobody's 'the black guy' for long, becuase, pretty soon, they're 'Dave'.
Click to expand...

Sorry.





Edit:

Is it sexist to refer to the only woman in a conference room as a woman? Is there any paralell there?
Click to expand...

How about this: Is there any reason to define a colleague solely by their apparent gender in a professional setting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom