An actual argument I recently saw:
Person B: “Any site which contains slurs against trans people in its sign up process is unreliable” (was referring to k!wifarms)
Person A: “Slurs aren’t considered bad in most countries”
Person B: “That doesn’t justify their usage. For example, conversion therapy isn’t considered bad or banned in most countries, that doesn’t mean conversion therapy is justified or good.”
Person A: “What are you talking about? Conversion therapy is banned in most countries”
Person B: “Shows a diagram showing that conversion therapy is only banned in a handful of countries”
Person A: “I mean in most civilized countries”
I’ve seen lots of other people refer to countries as civilized or uncivilized in similar contexts. Is this generally considered to be racist?
No
Depends on context. In the context of an informal conversation about a specific kind of law it’s fine IMO. It’s also fine if it’s obviously not that serious, like e.g. different styles of toilets that are both found in the ‘developed world’. When you’re talking about a topic where generally richer countries do it one way and poorer countries do it another way, that’s where calling the poorer countries ‘uncivilized’ starts sounding racist (or maybe just classist, considering countries like Belarus which are poor, authoritarian and underdeveloped but not inhabited by any brown people).
White on white can still be racism. There are subtle differences between nations.
“Jews” is actually a good example. Its both a religion and a race.
Its actually quite telling how when the less different looking people there are the more we start hating on even the smallest physical differences.
deleted by creator
You can look this up easily. But the physical features of the Jewish population where well known and used in nazi-propaganda.
Wikipedia:
Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group
An ethnoreligious group is a group of people with a common religious and ethnic background
An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people with shared attributes. … It is also used interchangeably with race.[7]
deleted by creator
Race is an American concept that is generally considered unscientific in Europe
Ok, than now all we have to do is decide who’s civilized, Europe or America, and then we know which is right.
all we have to do is decide who’s civilized
Now that’s easy:
The ones who currently try so hard to destroy the planet.
If we take the ancient Greek example of calling anyone whose language you can’t understand a barbarian, the US and UK are probably tied for peak civilisation
It is unscientific, but let’s not pretend we here in Europe don’t sometimes do it anyway. Racism is still a thing in Europe, unfortunately. But also, it has been a thing in Europe for basically as long as humans have lived on a large enough scale to notice it. In the 19th century you had the “three great races” of “Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid”. Even way back in the time of the Roman Empire they were being weird about race, ascribing strength and aggression to the pale people to their north and intelligence and peacefulness to the darker people to their south and east.
We’re collectively getting a lot better about not doing it these days, but we’ve got to recognise that there’s still progress needing made
I don’t know about strictly racist, but it’s definitely got colonial overtones. Europe has used “they are uncivilized” as an excuse for the way they brutalized their colonies, erased cultures and enslaved people for centuries
I don’t think we’re doing that anymore. For the most part, at least.
It’s been one of the UN’s primary missions since its inception to unwind the horrific legacy of European colonialism, and help every former colony complete the transition to statehood. When I visited the UN and took the tour some 20 years ago, they were almost ready to call this mission done, but still had about 5 spots they were working on. It’s worth learning more about. Regardless, the course of history has been changed forever by colonialism and Europe continues to enjoy benefits built on its spoils while developing countries still struggle to heal their wounds. The world will in all practical terms never be free from the stain of colonialism.
a handful of countries
Person A: “I meant in most civilized countries”
That person used the term without knowing ANY meaning of it, just as an excuse for knowing only a tiny fraction of the world but still making bold generalizations regarding the whole world.
I think there’s this one island where the natives kill absolutely any stranger coming on their island.
I think it’s North Sentinel Island
I think it’s Staten Island.
Not racist. Class-ist/ clan-ist, if it’s a thing, probably. What is considered covilised in one societal context may not be in another.
‘Civilized’ is definitely not the right way to describe less privileged nations. People there certainly aren’t ‘uncivilized’, and to describe them as such carries heavy colonialist overtones.
Though really you should’ve recognized the red flags from this person the moment they tried to justify the use of slurs.
It can be argued that it’s racist because “civilized” means “western” or “western-influenced”, i.e. contrasts countries in Europe + North America + Australia + maybe some of Eastern Asia with countries in Africa or Southern Asia.
You are very close to figuring out some of the problems with “social justice” ideology.
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for? Or try these: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/erbe/2008/11/07/blacks-are-more-socially-conservative-than-barack-obama https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-republicans-some-moral-issues.aspx
It also doesn’t help in conflicts such as Israel/Palestine (are Palestinians oppressed by Israel, so we stand up for them? are Israelis oppressed by the Muslim world, so we stand up for Israel?) or trans activists vs. trans-exclusionary feminists (are trans people an oppressed group whose rights we support? are women an oppressed group whose identity is being appropriated by trans women?). You can see it’s possible to argue nearly everything from the premise that we stand up for “oppressed groups”.
So I suggest people stop thinking in these terms at all and instead pick some other way of thinking, such as supporting a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren’t harming anyone else. Not saying this helps in the specific (somewhat silly) argument you are quoting.
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for?
This is nonsense. I can want Muslim people to have human rights without wanting to live in a Muslim theocracy. Just like I want Christian theocrats out of the US government, but I don’t want to murder Christians.
I agree with you substantially.
But just very recently there was a story in Germany where a male elementary school teacher revealed that he was gay. Many of his students were Muslims who were taught to hate gay people and now refused to respect him in various ways (including refusing to go to his classes).
Who is the “oppressed group” here?
There are no groups in that anecdote, only individuals. Shitty individuals discriminating against someone for an attribute he can’t change. But belief in religion is voluntary.
Belief in religion is not at all voluntary in some places. At least lip service, while still going through all the motions.
Exactly.
groups a, b, and c enjoy the same rights doesn’t change if group b wants to take those rights away from c, it is cool with a having them.
B still enjoys those rights and C still enjoys those rights. Everyone also gets to call group B assholes, though, for trying to shit on group C.
In any case, I’d call the US uncivilized. I don’t think that’s particularly racist, in the same way it would be if I called South Africa uncivilized , or something. It kind of depends on the reason and way I’m using it.
I think the US is uncivilized because kids are going to school hungry and not being fed because some asshole in Texas thinks feeding kids is bad.
I’d need to know the context here, but from what I’m seeing, yeah, that person was racist.
Standing up for all “oppressed groups” is contradictory. For example, in western countries, LGBT people are an oppressed group, and so are Muslims, yet when the latter are in power, they treat the former very badly, so which side do you stand up for
Easy. The answer is that you stand up for the oppressed group.
Why, exactly, do you think that’s a contradiction? When a group is in power, they are by definition not oppressed.
In all of your examples - all of them - there are oppressors in power, and there are oppressed that are not.
As generalized groups,
- LGBT people are not in power over Muslims.
- Transgender women are not in power over cisgender women.
- Palestinians are not in power over Israel.
In case it really needs to be said - obviously, not all Muslims, cisgender women, or Israelis are oppressors. But all Palestinians and most LGBT people are oppressed.
Palestinians are not “the Muslim world” and painting such a massive and diverse group as a monolith is disingenious at best. The same should be said for associating all Jewish people with the actions of Israel - it’s fundamentally wrong.
The answer remains the same, in any and every case. You stand up for the oppressed group.
Doing so is the only way you stand for:
a society in which anyone is allowed to live their life as long as they aren’t harming anyone else.
And since you seem to really want to beat the nuance out of all human existence with your teacher comment - no, individuals being shitty to each other doesn’t change anything.
If an oppressed LGBT who happens to be a racial majority is racist against an oppressed minority who happens to be a homophobe - guess what, they’re still both oppressed - but as individuals, they can also just be shitty. They don’t have to be treated as oppressors, insofar as you need to stand up for one against the other.
Unless one is actively in power over the other’s life and uses that power to oppress them, in which case the answer remains the same - you stand for the oppressed.
For me, “civilized countries” explicitely excludes the US. Does this make me a racist, or just a fact checker?
Context matters. Always. One person can use a word and it will be not racist, another can use the same term and it will be racist. You should ask the person what they define as “civilized”. Their reasoning is your answer.
Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.
Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.
The difference between “civilized” and “uncivilized” countries is that “civilized” countries call their terrorists “counter-terrorists” and “civilized” countries are allowed to bomb “uncivilized” countries in the name of civility.
Words are words.
But there’re differences between the social structures, economic level and common cultures of some countries when compared to others.
And some of these aspects in some of these countries are worse than in others and they are expected to become better in the future, which implies there is a progression going on and different countries are in different points in this progression path.
Debatable what “civilized” is, but I imagine most westerns consider themselves “civilized” and developing countries to be “uncivilized”. It has colonialist vibes and is not necessarily racist, but can be quite ignorant and prejudiced.
Christians invaded many countries and pretend to make them “civilized” but instead enslaved their people and treated them like animals. Pretty far from civil if you ask me. The US considers itself civilized yet it has a death penalty, just like Myanmar, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries. Greece introduced a 6-day work-week which hasn’t been a thing in Europe since the industrial revolution, a time we would now consider quite uncivilized. Israel is currently committing genocide under the guise of self-protection and will not listen to reason, yet they probably consider themselves quite civilized.
It seems to me like “civilized” is a form elitism that can be quite close to racism, depending on who you talk to.
Designating a country as “uncivilised” is gravely offensive, and immensely arrogant. No country would refer to itself as uncivilised. There are a few which may be lawless, or ungovernable, but uncivilised has connotations that just don’t apply.
Edit: I’m kind of astonished at the comments ITT. I must have an odd idea of what “uncivilised” means. It’s not simply a lower standard of living. Living in poverty does not make someone uncivilised. If a group of people have a culture and laws then they’re civilised. In this context, suggesting that a group of people is uncivilised is to suggest that their culture is so pathetic as to be non-existent. A common error in the colonial era, but I’m genuinely surprised so many comments here are making the same mistake.
What you’re seeing is western privilege and ignorance. What people aren’t realizing is that “civilized” has often meant “western-white culture”.
Native American weren uncivilized, they were not-white and not-western, and so on.
Yes, caling another culture “uncivilized” is offensive and racist.
Thank you and the person above you for having adult attitudes. I can’t believe the teenagers in here shrieking “you don’t know what’s in my heart from one word I said!”
People need to learn the meaning of the words they use. Mistakes can happen, but they should not be amended not defended.
These days I see it used in a derogatory way to describe countries and their culture more than the genetics of the people living in them.
E.g. even though I am genetically identical to white Texans, I’d happily call Texas uncivilized because it lets assholes with guns override government.
It comes off as very ignorant.
People typically used developed and developing as a result.
