• I am not racist, but there are obvious characteristics between the races. There are Idiots of all races and genius in all. Orientals are known for their Math skills, Indians are good engineers and doctors, The statement Dr. Watson made about anyone who has had a black employee rings true. As a manager I have had many angry black men who are a struggle to work with. They have a chip on their shoulder, resent being managed, frequently have many relationship problems that spill into their work, have a tendency to be violent, cause conflicts, have substance abuse problems, etc. We can find examples of these problems in other races but it is overwhelmingly the black males who exibit these traits. I wish there was an effort in their culture to overcome these stereotypes. Keeping it real is severly hurting their ability to succeed

do you think you are being sly and that noone can tell how you really feel? or are you really self deluded? would you prefer the term prejudiced? would you admit it then?

you are speaking about a certain subset of a population that you have had limited exposure to yet want to broaden it to a general broad observation of everyone of a certain ethnicity. That pretty much defines prejudice. Not everyone who is biased or racist does it with malicious intent. But the result is similar if not the same, and perhaps why some of these men you speak of have chips on their shoulders in the first place.

Not to mention, in my understanding the term oriental is considered offensive as it relates to objects, not people. You DO correctly assert that you can find examples of such problems as you listed in every race. and the issue is not of race, but of socioeconomic status and individual circumstance. Only ignorant people believe you can fix the world's problems by making gross generalizations. Unfortunately, we use these to make policy, but you can see the discrepancy whenever you actually deal with individual cases.

I am not racist or predjudiced because I do not prejudge a person because of their race. I can like or dislike a person by how they treat me. I prefer To live by the golden rule. What I was asserting is the comment made by Dr. Watson about having black employees is in general true. That is a sub set of people I suppose, I didn't say all of their race are like that.

I'm sorry I used the term oriental, I should have used Asian, I have never heard from anyone that they think that offensive. I am not offended if someone refers to cacuasians as whites. people seem to look for a reason to be offended.

Setting aside the fact that you are clueless about the derogatory nature of the term "Oriental", the mere fact that you feel comfortable asserting:

Orientals are known for their Math skills, Indians are good engineers and doctors

Means that you assign a mythos to individuals or groups based on their physiognomic appearance. That is the very definition of what it means to be racist.

So by definition, your way of reasoning about skills, capabilities and even what defines race, is inherently racist. Now I know you won't accept it, or even understand that. But sadly that is the reality of the situation.

Think through your "known for". Add to it the context that the PRC has 1.25 BILLION rural residents who have little or no math skills. Wheras in the USA a mere 1.2% of the population identifies themselves as being of Chinese descent

So lets do the math shall we? Lets assume that EVERY SINGLE Chinese American is "good at math" (a dubious assertion at best). That means 3.5 million "Orientals" are "good at math" compared to 1.25 Billion that are not. So your assertions about "known for their math skills" applies to any situation where 0.28% of the population is "good at math" will be "known for their math skills".

That's patently silly (especially since we know that not all asians are good at math).

Which leaves us to try and figure out how you seem to be willing to accept this claim. Given that you seem willing to identify skill sets based on physiognomy (Black employees, Orientals, Indians), it seems fairly obvious that you carry pre-judgements based on this physiognomy (since we have shown the facts don't support your conclusions they have to be pre-judgements).

And by definition a prejudgment is what the word prejudice means.

And identification purely by physiognomy grouping is the only way that "race" is defined among humans..

Thus you exhibit prejudice based on race.

Furthermore you not only exhibit prejudice based on race, you insist on it being true.

That is the definition of racism.

oh but there's another post that's good....

<link>

philstranger:

The statement Dr. Watson made about anyone who has had a black employee rings true.

Really? If Slate generalized that freely from anecdotal experience, our entire office would be black.

Thank you that was a very good argument and has given me some things to think about.

OK, I have shown my ignorance. I thought racism meant you hate another race or felt superior in some way. Which I don't. I also don't prejudge people because of their race. Everyone is given an equal chance. The discussion was about are their genetic differences. Dr. Watson thinks there is.

Dogs are 99.99% genetically identical but the temperment of a pit bull is different from a labrador. Do I pre judge a pit bull, maybe, but I might try to get along with him if he don't try to bite me. There are racial differences but that doesen't mean one is superior to another.

And just so I don't make a fool of myself in the future, please tell me why the term oriental is derogatory

it was my understanding that the term oriental refers to objects, things like rugs or spices. so i figured it was offensive because it was like referring to a person as an object and not as a human being. i hope someone else can bring some insight on it. i'm not into being overly politically correct, but i think if a group expresses certain displeasure at being called something (i.e. the N word), then it is rather rude to use it. i mean, why would you other than just to make a point? and i think that's silly in and of itself. when people do stuff like that i wonder just who they think they are making a point to?

a lot of people are ignorant of the fact that oriental is considered offensive, i've found. the term being offensive might have some carryover from the discrimination many asians faced during/after WWII and Vietnam. I'll have to do some research...

(which, i'm sorry, but nothing you've stated makes me think you know more than some of the more well versed posts i've read on the subject. ), then you would know there really isn't a big difference genetically between races. if you disagree, back up the statement or accept that your hypothesis is based on a flawed perception.

the thing is that there really is no such thing as race. people do have different physical characteristics, but that goes within stereotypical "racial" groups as well as outside of them.

unless you define race specifically and prove that there is a genetic difference between whatever you deem to be the different races, then you're pretty much just spewing prejudicial stereotypes- even just by saying "we are different".

i am really shocked by how many people honestly still feel that someone from a different race is completely different genetically from them based solely on their race. like we're all different species based on our skin color. i mean, we're all human. all of our parts are the same, just shaped in many different forms...

You know what, I'm pretty heartened by this, philstranger. Your willingness to say "my bad" and to learn something new is duly noted.

In that spirit, I think you might do well to read a well-known book called "Orientalism" by the late Professor Edward Said. Said traces the roots of Orientalism--Europeans' dual romanticization/demonization of the peoples of North Africa, West Asia, and, later, South and East Asia. Now, the book is not perfect; I take issue with some of Said's points that seem to buy into the very dichotomies he means to problematize. But it is an essential read all the same, for anyone who wants to know more about the ways in which peoples "create" and characterize entire other peoples and cultures.

I think your question was limited to daily practice, however. The term "oriental" cannot be disentangled from its Orientalist heritage. First, it is implies that every people is defined by its position relative to Europe--thus, terms such as "the Orient" and "the Middle East" implicitly (via centuries of historical usage) assume a European starting and focal point. It is clear, I think, why people in those regions object to such terminology. Better to use directional terms relative only to the continent of which you speak e.g. "East Asia" (since I believe you mentioned Chinese-Americans; China is a country in East Asia).

Secondly, "oriental" is imprecise. Even if we accept the Euro-centric origins of the term (which we do not), to which part of the historical orient are you referring? In French, German and older British academic writings, the Orient is usually the countries of North Africa and West Asia (Morocco to Iran, bordering on Central Asian Afghanistan and South Asian Pakistan). In the U.S., it has evolved to mean East Asia (or, less appropriately, the Eurocentric "Far East"--that is, far in relation to Europe.) Europeans follow Arabic-speaking peoples in referring to Arab-inflected dance and music as "oriental." In what sense do you use Oriental?

Best to be as precise as possible, and always check if your words are centered in your perspective (as a male or female; as a wealthy or low-income person, etc.) alone. If so, think about how you can make your language more inclusive and neutral.

I agree with that and thank you for not being arrogant about it. The generalizations people have sometimes are not based on fact and sometimes are formed by lifetime experience, but sadly most of us have them and like me, may not even realize it . I sort of just threw out those for the sake of an arguement beccause these are generalizations (sp)? a lot of people have. But anyway these replies have opened the dialog, which was my intention. You and the others have made some good and intellectual arguements. Thanks

Thanks for the infor!

There is greater genetic variance between two visually indistinguishable flatworms - one which lives in the rivers of nothern germany, the other which lives in rivers in italy - than there is across the whole human species.

There is ZERO scientific evidence to support even the categorization of "race" except in the broadest terms. And while we can trace variance in mitochondrial DNA throughout the world and see enough differentiation for tracability between asian populations and northern european ones, that variance has essentially no bio-physiological expression associated with it in a general manner.

And as an owner of a pound rescue pit bull as well as labrador, I can tell you that the behaviour of each is heavily influenced by training rather than by genetics, unless you breed specifically for visciousness.

So while you may have some basis in fearing a pit bull on the street, unless it is signifying threat, it really isn't any more of a threat than the Lab. The same is true of human beings. Thus if you say

"Asians are known to be good at math"

It is very difficult for you to set that aside when you are interviewing candidates for a job (Job interviews are the classic example because they are easy to test). And numerous studies have been done with "cooked resumes" and "coached applicants" (actors) that demonstrate how even what you consider to be a "positive reputation" results in discriminatory prejudice. For example:

• Example 1 - you have to hire a bookkeeper.
• You receive 3 resumes. All essentially identical - and you have time to interview 2. The names on the resumes are J. Asaki, D. Mutombo, K Schultz
  
  Which 2 do you call back? Odds are given your above statement, Shultz and Asaki
• You bring them in. Turns out Asaki is "black" and "Schultz" is Japanese. Both do equally well on their interviews (remember they are coached).
  
  Which do you hire? Odds are you hire Shultz.

Now I know you will claim that this sort of identical interview isn't possible, but on a broader scale it is. And the exact sort of discriminatory outcomes occur that result in broad social impacts (MS. Magazine even did one on hair color and job type: Blonds got PR jobs, Brunettes got Accounting and Leadership jobs and Redheads got jobs that required rousing people's enthusiasm).

As for "Oriental". It was originally used to describe citizens of the Middle East. But as sea trade in the Med became safer and ships started venturing further to eastern asia it was extended to there.

It became derogatory largely because of the colonization activites of the European nations in the 18th and 19th centuries. In part because of the similar status between "orientals" and say slaves in other parts of the world, and in part because the European powers treated Japanese, Koreans, Mongols, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Malay etc. all as "identical" when these cultures had millenia of differentiation and distinction.

So the term "Oriental" doesn't map to "white" or "caucasian" - it maps more correctly to whatever derogatory ethnicly aligned comment could be directed at you (mick, spick, wop, frog, kike etc.).

philstranger,

It is my pleasure to deliver lectures to a captive audience--er, I mean, "engage in dialogue" ;)--with people receptive to constructive critique and willing to consider more than one side of an issue.