Only if you open up the definition of “racism” to include any type of discrimination. While you raise a good point that religious discrimination against Muslims often results is racist discrimination against both middle-eastern and south asian peoples (sometimes both), the overlap in the type of discrimination should result in more education, not a muddling of terms— although it is understandable.
And, yes, while we should be more focused on the effects of these discriminatory behaviors and combating them, one type of ignorance shouldn’t excuse another.
IMO, I don’t think it’s helpful to enable these ignorances by enabling them by furthering their use. The terms “racism” and “religious intolerance” have distinct and discrete definitions.
The reason it seems “muddled” to you is likely because bigotry itself is based in ignorance.
Many people just accept and absorb what they’ve heard or seen in cartoons and popular media while growing up, lumping different groups of people together based on oversimplifications and misrepresentations of who they are. The assumptions on which people base their Islamophobia are quite racist, conflating Arab identity (which people think they know by a person’s appearance based on racist stereotypes) with Islam. The point is to be able to identify the bigotry for what it is.
If you try to define a form bigotry by the actual reality it’s misrepresenting, you’ll miss the bigotry itself.
I’m acknowledging that bigotry is based on ignorance. That was my whole point, which you artlessly missed. I’m just not trying to enable that ignorance by playing into it. So, instead of using that as a cudgel against an ally like me who is just trying to clarify a couple of distinct terms, maybe focus your rage on those who would actually do you harm.
Needlessly attacking your friends is a pretty silly way to behave.
All I did was point out facts and perspectives you seem to have missed. I thought we were having a constructive conversation in good faith, and was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m sorry to see that wasn’t the case.
Most definitions of racism include ethnicity, and ethnicity includes religion.
Race itself is actually a racist concept. We are the human race, not a bunch of different races. Two people with dark skin might be less related to each-other than either is to someone with light skin, both because of “race mixing” and because many features evolved or became prominent more than once because of similar selection pressures.
Most definitions of racism include ethnicity, and ethnicity includes religion.
no they don’t— not outside of desperate arguments long past failure. there’s plenty of overlap by racists who are either too ignorant or too stupid to differentiate between race and religion, but that’s no excuse for those who know better to repeat the same mistakes.
one may be Somali and Muslim, but that’s no excuse to confuse the two. because that Somali person may be Christian.
one may be Indian and Hindi, but that is no excuse to confuse the two. because that Indian may be Muslim.
one may be Canadian and Jewish, but that is no excuse to confuse the two. Because that Canadian may be atheist.
You don’t know and you can’t assume, and you can’t wield statistics as a cudgel to assert you’re correct because, in the real world, we don’t live in a math equation. and when you’re speaking about what a specific person may feel, you can’t hand-wave that away with a generalization because you are unable to respond with specifics and are afraid to say, “I don’t know."
Oxford Dictionary - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Wikipedia - discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity.
CDC - Race is a social construct that divides people into categories based on nationality, ethnicity, phenotype, or other markers of social differences.
one may be Somali and Muslim…
So? Did anything I said indicate that I didn’t understand this rather basic fact? Please. My point was that the word “racism” is not always used to literally refer to “race”. Words shift their meanings over time, and don’t always reflect their construction in common usage. “Naughty” used to mean “having nothing” and derived from the word “naught”. The prefix “Dec” in “December” indicates that it’s the tenth month. A “Spinster” is used to mean a woman who spins yarn. Since “race” is becoming understood as a false construction, it’s only natural that a related word would shift it’s definition.
You don’t know and you can’t assume…
I honestly can’t figure out what you are trying to say in that entire paragraph. I used no statistics, and don’t understand your argument why I shouldn’t. “We don’t live in a math equation”? WTF?
Funny, how none of the linked definitions comport with the gobbledygook you put in your previous comment. And by mental gymnastics, I mean the gobbledygook you put in your previous comment.
The closest you have come to making an actual point was the word “gobbledygook”.
only if you ignore, ya know, the facts, such as the definition of racism-- which you proved isn’t what you claimed it was.
I don’t really care.
every mental gymnastic you preform only proves all you do is care. if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here trying to convince everyone that “racism” means whatever you want it to mean.
Only if you open up the definition of “racism” to include any type of discrimination. While you raise a good point that religious discrimination against Muslims often results is racist discrimination against both middle-eastern and south asian peoples (sometimes both), the overlap in the type of discrimination should result in more education, not a muddling of terms— although it is understandable.
And, yes, while we should be more focused on the effects of these discriminatory behaviors and combating them, one type of ignorance shouldn’t excuse another.
IMO, I don’t think it’s helpful to enable these ignorances by enabling them by furthering their use. The terms “racism” and “religious intolerance” have distinct and discrete definitions.
edit: grammar and spelling
The reason it seems “muddled” to you is likely because bigotry itself is based in ignorance.
Many people just accept and absorb what they’ve heard or seen in cartoons and popular media while growing up, lumping different groups of people together based on oversimplifications and misrepresentations of who they are. The assumptions on which people base their Islamophobia are quite racist, conflating Arab identity (which people think they know by a person’s appearance based on racist stereotypes) with Islam. The point is to be able to identify the bigotry for what it is.
If you try to define a form bigotry by the actual reality it’s misrepresenting, you’ll miss the bigotry itself.
I’m acknowledging that bigotry is based on ignorance. That was my whole point, which you artlessly missed. I’m just not trying to enable that ignorance by playing into it. So, instead of using that as a cudgel against an ally like me who is just trying to clarify a couple of distinct terms, maybe focus your rage on those who would actually do you harm.
Needlessly attacking your friends is a pretty silly way to behave.
All I did was point out facts and perspectives you seem to have missed. I thought we were having a constructive conversation in good faith, and was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I’m sorry to see that wasn’t the case.
Yep. Some problems do indeed intersect sometimes and can as well occur separately: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_independent_India
It’s worth looking at these sorts of problems from different angles.
Most definitions of racism include ethnicity, and ethnicity includes religion.
Race itself is actually a racist concept. We are the human race, not a bunch of different races. Two people with dark skin might be less related to each-other than either is to someone with light skin, both because of “race mixing” and because many features evolved or became prominent more than once because of similar selection pressures.
no they don’t— not outside of desperate arguments long past failure. there’s plenty of overlap by racists who are either too ignorant or too stupid to differentiate between race and religion, but that’s no excuse for those who know better to repeat the same mistakes.
one may be Somali and Muslim, but that’s no excuse to confuse the two. because that Somali person may be Christian.
one may be Indian and Hindi, but that is no excuse to confuse the two. because that Indian may be Muslim.
one may be Canadian and Jewish, but that is no excuse to confuse the two. Because that Canadian may be atheist.
You don’t know and you can’t assume, and you can’t wield statistics as a cudgel to assert you’re correct because, in the real world, we don’t live in a math equation. and when you’re speaking about what a specific person may feel, you can’t hand-wave that away with a generalization because you are unable to respond with specifics and are afraid to say, “I don’t know."
Oxford Dictionary - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Wikipedia - discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity.
CDC - Race is a social construct that divides people into categories based on nationality, ethnicity, phenotype, or other markers of social differences.
So? Did anything I said indicate that I didn’t understand this rather basic fact? Please. My point was that the word “racism” is not always used to literally refer to “race”. Words shift their meanings over time, and don’t always reflect their construction in common usage. “Naughty” used to mean “having nothing” and derived from the word “naught”. The prefix “Dec” in “December” indicates that it’s the tenth month. A “Spinster” is used to mean a woman who spins yarn. Since “race” is becoming understood as a false construction, it’s only natural that a related word would shift it’s definition.
I honestly can’t figure out what you are trying to say in that entire paragraph. I used no statistics, and don’t understand your argument why I shouldn’t. “We don’t live in a math equation”? WTF?
Funny that you didn’t include a definition of racism there.
Oh wait, it’s not funny. It proves my point. You can’t mental gymnastics your way out of being wrong.
Here are three definitions of racism I included. (This time with links for the lazy.)
Oxford Languages definiton: https://g.co/kgs/7zcWz6i
Wikipedia article on racism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
CDC definition of racism: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/health_equity/racism.htm
By “mental gymnastics” did you mean thinking? So thinking, statistics, and equations are all bad. Hmmm, I think I’m beginning to understand you.
Funny, how none of the linked definitions comport with the gobbledygook you put in your previous comment. And by mental gymnastics, I mean the gobbledygook you put in your previous comment.
The closest you have come to making an actual point was the word “gobbledygook”. Read them again, or don’t, I don’t really care.
only if you ignore, ya know, the facts, such as the definition of racism-- which you proved isn’t what you claimed it was.
every mental gymnastic you preform only proves all you do is care. if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here trying to convince everyone that “racism” means whatever you want it to mean.