South Vs North

[Narachon]

He's right though. You don't have to be in the economically stronger majority to be the only segment accused of racism.  Racism is simply one person disliking a group of people based on skin colour and/or nationality, whichever way round it is.  Can you be racist towards your own countryfolk (as per the topic) if they have different physical characterists, discriminatory or neither?

I'm sorry, I have to dissagree with you there.

The term Racism is not just a person simply disliking another person's based on skin color and/or nationality - that is the definition of "Predjudice"( prejudging individuals simply based on their social sterotypes and personal characteristics ).

Yes, there is a difference between Racism, Predjudice and Racial Predjudice ( The application of the belief that the character and abilities of individuals are correlated with their race and used in dealing with members of that race, especially with little regard for variations within " races " . This is not necessarily racism, since this can be stated without implying an "inequality in value" of that individual ).

Here is the definition of Racism from the Wikipedia site:

"Racism refers to beliefs and practices: (1) that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; (2) that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and (3) that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others."

In that definition of racism, one concludes that racism is an acquired power - the power to impose one's racial prejudices with the conscious or subconscious objective of subjugating and exploiting another race.

In other words, racism is "prejudice or discrimination based on race, plus the power to enforce it.

Yes, while It is true that Racism is prejudice and/or discrimination against people based on the social construction of "race", could that mean that anyone can be a Racist then? Racism occurs on the Individual, social, and Institutional level.

Individual acts of racism, ( which is often though of to be able to done by anyone) , as opposed to institutional acts of racism, which involves economic, class, and social factors which all add up to power.

The result of racism is not merely due to race prejudice, but instead, the power that the "offender" group has impose it, and the powerlessness that the "victim" group appears to have to eradicate it. So some groups do not have the political, economic, or social power to be racist on an institutional level.

This perspective can have some insisting that the "other" group can be just as racist as her or his group ( as the posters Carlbkk and endure have previously stated ). Individuals of those "Victim" groups can have racial predjudices against the "offender" group, but usually cannot be racist themselves, since they often do not have the political, economic, or social power over the first group.

So now to answer CarlBKK's question of " Can you be racist towards your own countryfolk (as per the topic) if they have different physical characterists, discriminatory or neither?"

Of course, you can, especially if those country folk who have different physical characteristics than you , and are members of a group that is economically, socially, politically have less power than you.... Which is how many Thais view the the Issan people pretty much...

Remember...Racism = Racial Prejudice in collusion/conjunction with Personal and Institutional Power.

[sleir]

Good posts Narachon, I won't quote it here, everyone can read them above.

But I think if you use your definition a bit too strictly or even on an institutional level it could be a rather dangerous thing. Let me try to explain.

In your post you stressed the "social, political and economic advantage of one group" over the other in order to be racist, and used it as an answer to 'endure's thesis that black people can be racist towards white people too.

Now if we look into history you are almost completely right. An afro-american in the past was certainly not a racist for disliking the behaviour of white americans. Simply because he couldn't actively discriminate them. Not allowing them into "the hood" is not discriminating.

But if we try to focus on other conflicts around the world your definition cannot be so easily applied.

Take Africa, where you will find plenty of examples of racist behaviour leading to civil wars, where the offenders aren't socially, politically or economically advanced, they are simply MORE. Ruanda serves quite well here I think, and though they were undeniably advantaged at first in politics, economy and military power they finally turned out to be "victims" of the racist Hutu government.. Fine, difficult topic but it still is hard to apply when, by your Wikipedia definition, it is allowed to use the word racist.

You may argue that being the majority automatically leads to political power, but what about the Jews ? Despite their difficult history they slowly rose in political, social and most importantly, economic power over the centuries and few will deny that they are, considering the size, one of the most influential, if not most influental religious group of the world. So, is racist behaviour towards Jews not possible then ? Even by a black, unemployed and homeless beggar ? (Sorry to serve these lousy prejudices, just trying to make my point)

I think yes, because power, and that's the only thing needed in my opinion in order to be a racist, could simply mean having a knife and intending to use it against someone, even if it's an atheist, white PC Nerd.

But power can also be words. To talk about an ethnic group, a religion or whatever in a bad way at your local hairdresser. Because despite this person being rather stupid and uninteresting or uninfluential it can still have an effect on other peoples thinking.

So, while I agree with you that it's rather dangerous if a white american (or any other country with a similar history) wants to label a black person a racist it still is possible that named person actually is one. At least that's what I think.

Sorry for that long text, i have to compensate my poor english with a lot of words, hoping that some of them might be good

Oh, and before the question appears : I am a white, christian swiss guy.

Sleir

PS: By the way, we like american tourists. They spend money and ask funny questions about Europe.

Oh and if you come here, don't forget to tell your kids not to eat yellow snow.

Edited October 3, 2005 by sleir

[Galong]

Southern people are the darkest Thai people I've seen but it doesn't stop them discriminating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a dumb statement. Look everyone, we have among us a person who actually thinks that skin color has anything to do with quality of character.

And everyone knows that people who have at least five syllables in their name are the darkest people.

[awarrumbungle]

so your saying we will evolve out of racisim?

[awarrumbungle]

Galong, could you interpret my comment into anything else. Maybe if you read it in context you might not jump to conlcusions. I was referring to the irony of the general prejudice against dark skinned people Thailand. This of course is not the only factor prejudiced against, but it is a big one. The irony exists when a (what I think) evenly tanned isaan girl is labelled as dark and ugly by a southerner (who are typically dark).

Now I am not labelling all southerners as low quality characters just illustrating some irony in the whole deal.

[SiamOne]

Southern people are the darkest Thai people I've seen but it doesn't stop them discriminating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a dumb statement. Look everyone, we have among us a person who actually thinks that skin color has anything to do with quality of character.

And everyone knows that people who have at least five syllables in their name are the darkest people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that was taken out of context, as the people who have looked have seen!

Thai people do discriminate against darker skin colours, and don't like it. If I have been on the beach, my friends will not say "nice tan", they say "oh you are so black", in a bad way. I am not sure that it would make a difference in getting a job etc, but ceertainly in the street it can.

[aughie]

Narachon and sleir - So the Minister Louis Farrakhan is not a racist he's only a hater? I'm not buying into 'only rich people can be racists' if that is what you're saying. That's putting a new dress on the tired old commie mumbo jumbo.

[DavieA]

Good debate topic Bungle. Seems like you have another busy day ahead LOL. Put in a good word for me today will ya.

BLACK IS BEAUTIFUL!......So is white, blue, green, and pink with brown poker dots!

Once you uncover the dirt from the hearts of the majority, you can always find a diamond.

[awarrumbungle]

True, we are in the education industry after all.

[h90]

just a short add, look at the last vote:

South: 90 % against Taksin

Nord/East: 90 % pro Taksin

This alone tells a lot....

[Narachon]

sleir: You make some excellent points. Of course the strict definition of "racism" cannot be strictly applied to other areas of the world, especially if those people doing the discriminating are of the same "Race" as the oppressed people (ie. Rawanda / Hutu, Thai / Issan Thai, British/Irish, etc. ) In those case, those are more of ethnic distrimination and oppression. Now in the case of Africa, of course there are many instances of Black Racism ( Idi Amin's Uganda, for example ) against a white and indian minority population. There was the power ( political ) to enforce racial distrimination against those groups, dispite their own economic and social power. Of course , just because a majority racial group, does not automatically mean that it has advantages and influence over a smaller racial group. In the example of Old South Africa, the majority racial population did not have the political, social, ecomomic, etc, influence to institute racial power over the minority white population.

As in the case of Jewish people, they have historically had to survive as minorities in many countries, and dispite their economic power, they often did not have the corresponding social and political power to protect them from active discrimination and oppression from the majority population groups. ( Now if you prescribe to the old Nazi theory that Jews are a different "race" than white Europeans, then the definition of Racism against them would apply ). Now could a black, unemployed and homeless beggar be racist toward a Jew? He could have Racial Predjudice against him or her, but he would not be "racist". The black, unemployed and homeless beggar would not have the power to influence in any major way the Jewish person's life day to day.

BTW, I'd love to go to Switzerland.

I hear that the Yellow snow there is the best in Europe!

aughie: Another very "enlightend" reply...Now If you can pull away from the FOX channel and climb out of your bunker for a while you can see the point of the argument...

Please read my post again. Of course not only "rich people can be racists", that is just silly. You don't have to be wealthy to be a Racist ( it DOES help though... ) , just have ecomomic, social, political, etc. power to impose your racial predudices against a group of racially different people that do not have the same "offender" type of power to resist it.

As for Louis Farrakhan , he certainly is a Bigot, but he technically speaking, is not a "racist". No matter how much percieved political and social power he may seem to have, In the grand scheme of things, he is only an minor annoyance to the white majority in real politcal power, not a threat. Don't worry.The Nation of Islam has no influence on the life of a white guy living in a gated community in California....

How's that for "Commie mumbo jumbo"....

[awarrumbungle]

just a short add, look at the last vote:

South: 90 % against Taksin

Nord/East: 90 % pro Taksin

This alone tells a lot....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you think it says?

[SiamOne]

just a short add, look at the last vote:

South: 90 % against Taksin

Nord/East: 90 % pro Taksin

This alone tells a lot....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

is that brown people for Taksin or against?

[sbk]

just a short add, look at the last vote:

South: 90 % against Taksin

Nord/East: 90 % pro Taksin

This alone tells a lot....

is that brown people for Taksin or against?

Whats that supposed to mean?

The South is traditionally Democrat and Taksin has proved time and again that his promises are never fulfilled down here.

Its interesting to note how many bigoted responses there are to Southern people from the thais as well as farangs on this thread. Having lived in the south for the past 16 years I do not find them any more cruel or racist than anyone else in the world. People are people no matter where you go and to judge someone by where they live not only smacks of bigotry but is bigoted. Time to open your minds and hearts people.

[h90]

It tells that there are some big differences (not the skin color).

People do not belive Taksins lies that much, but why?

My impression and correct me if I am wrong, but what I saw in the South:

less lao kao

more money at the average people

a lot better education

putting more value on education

less corruption

less waiting for money from the gouverment

more interested in politics

labour: very difficult to control

of course a very subjectiv impressions.

In generell people see it so in the South: Southerns: owner, Eastern: labour.

This seems now very pro south, but not meant so....

just a short add, look at the last vote:

South: 90 % against Taksin

Nord/East: 90 % pro Taksin

This alone tells a lot....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What do you think it says?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Diablo Bob]

Well, I was born in Indonesia!

My parents are American.

My younger and brother & sister are adopted from Thailand......

I was raised in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and California.

During the military years Vietnam & the Philippines.

After college: Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Bermuda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia and now Afghanistan.

I now live in Thailand.

So in answer to your question: I don't really know where I am from or what culture I really belong too.

[awarrumbungle]

SBK, I'm not sure who your referring to here as bigoted.

Personally I wasn't saying they were more bigoted than BKK etc I was just trying to get a handle on other people's experiences and opinions.

I have witnessed racist or prejudiced actions and comments in the south and the north. Also in other countries. Of course there are lovely people down here in the south, as well as there are misguided ones.