Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Blind Willie]

[korian]

as always, not on topic, not offering anything, smug, ignorant, pointless.

and you didn't answer, how do you know i'm a sock if you joined after i, the so called sock, joined? wouldn't you know who i was originally to konw i was a sock? and wouldn't that be hard if you joined after the sock joined?

[Yu_Bum_suk]

Race is a social construction, so it's pretty hard to tell sometimes. I can't really see how making derogatory generalisations about, say, 'Canadians' ('Canadians are whining Americans with high taxes and healthcare') could be construed as racism because I can't conceive of a Canadian 'race'. Maybe others cold. I mean could.

If anyone's stupid enough to get offended about a generalisation - accurate or not - about the politically territory in which he was born I feel a bit sorry for him.

[indiercj]

[Maugrim]

Interesting that somebody should raise this question now, as I was wondering exactly what constitutes racism just the other day.

My dictionary says that racism is:

1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

That definition would seem to leave a lot of leeway for making broad generalizations about a race without being "racist". Just so long as you're not imputing whatever frailties you perceive in a people to intrinsic flaws in their genetic makeup (a proposition that is scientifically unsound anyway. Genetically speaking all humans are very similar).

I think that a better term for what we're discussing here is "ethnocentrism". That is:

1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group. 2. Overriding concern with race.

It still includes race, but also covers all the other things that comprise a culture. I highly doubt that any one on this board would say nasty things about a Canadian born in Toronto who just happens to be of Korean heritage.

None of this, of course, solves our original problem of deciding when the line has been crossed between generalization/satire in to racism.

My handy rule of thumb: It's generalization/satire to say, "Canadians are all pot smoking lumberjacks who blame the Americans for everything". It's ethnocentrism to meet a Canadian and assume that this Canadian, in particular, is a pot smoking lumberjack who blames the Americans for everything, without even having talked to him.

Ethnocentrism is, by my reckoning, determined by the perception of the person who is the putative ethnocentrist, not the perception of the offended.

[Blind Willie]

[Konundrum]

I actually agree with Willie's first comment about keeping yer yap shut...atleast until you've thought of a more eloquent way to express your idea.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'd like to introduce another word to the discussion: bigotry.

A bigot is someone who uses negative generalizations (negative stereotypes) to categorize and define as 'other' a member of a group for the purpose of criticism and discrimination.

A (white) Canadian can't be considered a racist because he says (white) Americans are bombastic. He can be and is a bigot. It would not be bigotry if he said, "I ran into the most bombastic guy in the bar the other night. I couldn't get away from him fast enough." The difference should be clear. In one instance the guy is negatively labelling an entire population, in the other he is only describing his perception of one particular person. The first case is bigotry. The second is just discerning.

Racism is a subset of bigotry. It uses skin color as the identifying characteristic for explaining behavior, as one poster mentioned. The use of nationality, religion and social class are other subsets of bigotry. I think we see a great deal of bigotry on this board. I don't think we see any racism.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this: "Koreans are a kimchi-loving group of people". While there are individual exceptions, it is true of most members of that ethnic group. But more importantly, there is no attempt to criticize or accuse anyone of anything bad. My second example is different: "You can't trust Kim. He's a kimchi-eating Korean". Kim is untrustworthy because he is Korean is an unfair generalization/stereotype. 'Kimchi-eating' is used to be insulting, on top of the accusation of untrustworthiness.

One of the most common and easy to spot cases we see all too much here is the Canada vs US thing. It may start out as a discussion of a particular government policy, but within minutes it descends into generalizations about group character for the purposes of insult. There was an example in the OP. Something about the British liking self-deprecating humor and Americans being bombastic. There is nothing negative about self-deprecating humor, so whether it is accurate or not, no harm is done. To label Americans as bombastic is negative, and therefore insulting. It cannot be true. No group of 285 million people have the same characteristic.

I'm reminded of two of the most common questions I'm asked by people I meet here. "What do you think of Korean food?" I can answer this one honestly without any problem. I can list the foods I enjoy eating. I don't have to mention the ones I don't like. No one's feelings are hurt. But the other question is frustrating. "What do you think of Korean women (or Korean people)?" The questioner wants me to generalize about people and I hate that. I usually say, "Which woman?" If that doesn't work, I mention something about how some are very shy and the young women seem to study Italian fashion magazines...and try to change the subject. [Besides that, I hate it when someone fishes for compliments.]

If the OP really has problems distinguishing between generalizations and racism, a good policy might be to only make positive generalizations about groups of people and restrict negative comments to individual people.

[Gwangjuboy]

[Blind Willie]

[Len8]

Patronage can be a form of racism too. Treating someone as though he can't comprehend someone elseses culture, offering help condescendingly, acting superior and almighty because you think you are more capable than someone else.

[superhal]

my personal opinion:

prejudice: a judgement made out of ignorance, usually without any first hand knowledge, and often using the most minute, illogical things to support it. lots of examples here, do i need to make them?

observation: a judgement from first-hand knowledge over a reasonable length of time. for example: all americans are secretly racist and will often act outraged at the mere hint that they are. another example: american women will attack any observation made about american women as sexist, regardless of the truth behind it.

the test i use is whenever one comes up is to ask: how do you know? if they can't say or they say "oh, everybody knows it," it's prejudice. if they point to a survey, research study, or poll, it's an observation.

[captain kirk]

It takes a special mental poise to avoid letting certain Korean bigots get to one, then start being a bigot back. En masse, scattershotish. It's not a question of 'who started it' to such a person. Who may not have perfect equilibrium all the time.
For example a Korean drunk guy who keeps saying 'Korea number one' holding up his thumb because he's faced with a foreigner. I mean, WTF. A bigot would think, ah, that's racist Korea while a more balanced foreigner would think, haha, that's hilarious. And dong chim the guy.

[Paji eh Wong]

[Blind Willie]