The thing is that you use terms very loosely. You don't seem to differentiate between hurtful discrimination and personal choice. You seem to go by word definition, not intent.
This is incorrect. I fully considered the implication of intent --and I found no angle that could possibly exonerate her from the charge of prejudice.
In such issues, intent plays a big part in determining prejudice vs informed choice.
However, in the ad, she does not indicate anything that can be remotely transferred to informed choice.
For example, if she said "non Indians need not apply", an argument could be made in her favor that she is aware that the cultural chasm or gap may be a difficult one to breach and thus she wants to avoid that. Or alternatively, its one with which her larger family may not be comfortable with.
While some may argue stringently that even that hints at strong ethnocentrism, there are at least logical and plausible arguments that can be presented to show that her intents were not racial.
In this case, she excludes only one group -- Africans.
Not Indians, or Europeans or Australians or Americans or Chinese or Japanese. Just one group -- Africans.
So what argument is there to give her the benefit of the doubt ?
Education -- stereotyping (by product of racial prejudices associated with Africans)
Intelligence - stereotyping (by product of racial prejudices associated with Africans)
Skin color - downright racism
Height -- again stereotyping
12 inches -- again stereotyping (if you ever get a chance, delve into the cultural origins of the Africans and bigger member myth -- that is also another stereotype that was spread by the Whites to further dehumanize this population as something between animal and proper human)
Cultural differences -- why was this not applicable to the groups excluded - Chinese, Europeans, Japanese, Americans ?
That is precisely the problem. Without differentiating between personal choice and hurtful intent, you call someone racist. As I said in prior post, a groom looking for an educated bride, or fair color bride would also be called racist by this definition.
Nope, I differentiated quite well and in reasonable detail. And yes, I think our cultural obsession with looking for fair is a tad shameful to say the least. As I have noted before on the DG, brighter shades do stimulate brain cells in an uplifting way, which explains why anything bright or fair is looked upon favorably, but its our obsession with fair to the exclusion of everything else that reeks of racism in our society as well.
Its the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about because we love living in denial.
Please answer my question in previous post, about the marriage Ad. That will give me a better idea of your thought process.
I did
This gives some inkling into your thought process, which looks even more rigid than Al Gore's upper lip, or John Kerry's facial muscles, or Mac's shoulders.
I have no clue about Gore's upper lips' stiffness, nor Kerry's facial muscles' rigidity. I presume you are narrating from experience - up close and personal
But you did not read my response properly -- I said "the person
might be called a religious bigot"
The "might" was to specifically account for the nuances involved when it comes to religion -- instead of that being a blind hatred towards a religious group, it could be informed personal choice based on actual differences in religious philosophies. As in the lady knows that being a Hindu, she will have ahard time reconciling herself with someone from a different faith or that she is worried about the impact on the future kids borne out of that union.
hence the use of might -- as in she might be called a bigot or might not, depending on intent, reason and its application to the case at hand. I choose my words carefully.
Yes it is.
Your opinion.
AuthorTopic: racism in a classified ad? (Read 1872 times)
April 24, 2006, 04:02:20 PM