That's an interesting case. It's long been the subject of discussion as to whether the Tutsi and Hutu are in fact different ethnicities and not largely a division brought about by European intervention, divided on socio-economic scale. In which case it's no more racist than any other atrocity.
True. There are definitely arguments that it was along class or caste lines rather than distinct racialist grounds but then it can be argued "race" is a matter of perception. Ethnicity was certainly a theme used in the propaganda war that accompanied the genocide. Another example is the "racial" tensions between Japanese and Koreans. Its clear that the majority of Japans population descended from migrating Korean aboriginals but yet the Japanese have always considered themselves a distinct and superior race.
Yes you're right. The concept of race started in the 17th century [I think] yet researchers argue that there’s no scientific basis for race. Scientists can divide some organisms into 'racial' categories, such as those that remain isolated from one another in different environments, but the race concept doesn’t work so well with humans - because not only do humans live in a wide range of environments, they also travel back and forth between them. As a result, there’s a high degree of gene flow among people groups that makes it hard to organise them into distinct categories. Skin colour tends to be the primary distinguishing feature but there are so many other factors involved that grouping people by colour and calling it a race is problematic. The concept of race posits that more genetic variation exists interracially than intra-racially, when the opposite is true. Only about 10% of variation in humans exists between the so-called races. ''Race is a concept of human minds, not of nature''.
I hate how in the US every questionaire , application, form, etc asks for your race. I think it adds to the divisiveness because it helps sets the mindset of races being different. I'd love it the concept was abolished from all forms and applications. Maybe even if it were illegal to request that information. The only place it's really necessary is on medical forms because some diseases are more common in various races due to hereditary issues... Even then though it doesn't impact medicine much. The whole concept of race needs to be eliminated. 4 generations from now it's all going to be completely blurred anyway. The UK isn't as bad as the US. I don't think the culture differences are as big. In the US it's a completely separate culture and social group. In the UK if you're black you just happen to be someone black- it doesn't mean you buy different products, hang with different crowds, or watch different TV channels. There arnt "black brands" and "White brands."
Our forms always ask for race as well but it's voluntary to answer it. I think it's fair enough on the Census but not sure why school application forms or consumer surveys want the information.
That 'black can't be racist to black' thing (or indeed, black can't be racist to anyone) was the stance taken over the most shrill of the Terry and Suarez critics when faced with the Rio and Paul Elliott cases. I think the stance that black people are above being racist (let alone the concept that skin colour qualifies as a race per se - East Africans are probably closer relations to North Africans than West Africans, even though sharing a skin colour with West Africans) is in itself racist and ignorant. Like saying all 'yellow' people are Chinese and one race. Think the Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos and Vietnamese would tell you to **** off with that idea.
The lad who called Sterling 'monkey' is as black as him himself, do we now view it differently because it came from a black man? Incidentally I couldn't see anything that showed he was an LFC fan. Again it doesn't make any odds what team he supports, abuse is abuse - just that it was headlined as Liverpool fans abusing him and there doesn't seem to be any evidence.
No, no evidence at all....they were randomly abusing him based on no tribal motive whatsoever....in fact it was probably Chelsea.
Ok Tobes, I get your point (and the oblique references to Heysel - a tad overkill?) and I did say in the OP 'IF', reasoning, understandably, that they were Liverpool fans. Tell me though - was it all Liverpool fans who booed Sterling playing in England internationals? If he's got trolls, it's reasonable to assume that they're not all Liverpool fans. That said, before you climb back up to the moral high grounds of Mount Heysel again, I do, 99.999%, accept that it was probably Liverpool fans, and hopefully they'll be exposed and prosecuted and we'll find out for certain.
He's been racially abused on social media by Liverpool fans mate, it happened in the summer and it's happened again here. It is what it is. They're ****ers, and every club has their share, so it wasn't a pop at you lot. My point was that to even suggest that it wasn't is just daft.
