Is it racist, or simply reality?
 

To preface: I don't agree with using any particular label or blanket description for anyone or any behavior, no matter how strong the stereotype seems to be.

Here's the beef, and I'm staying as broad and generic as humanly possible, specifically because it's not about which race it is, or even the term being used- which itself is not racist, but seems vaguely so, based on usage.

Say there is one particular race of people- be it white, black, asian, hispanic, indian, native american, eskimo, whatever... and that one particular race of people is notorious for one specific medical presentation. Now, I'm not talking about a disease that preys on certain ethnicities, like sickle cell or something. I'm talking about a behavioral pattern... a very specific behavior/medical issue (which is not a true condition, problem, disease, or other ailment, but purely in their mind) that ONLY one particular race exhibits. Literally only one. Ever. And it's very, very common in that one race.

If there was a sort of colloquial term coined to describe this one behavior by this one specific group of people, the term itself being a play on words of the race... would that be racist? Or would it simply be an observation of reality?

I wrestle with this a little because there's a very common term used to describe one particular type of behavior by one specific group of people- even more pointedly, of one gender. And these people are the ONLY people who exhibit this behavior, period.

And I wonder if it's a little racist to have adopted a term which so clearly labels them based on their ethnicity and their habitual issue, or if it's simply a matter of being realistic. I mean... they ARE the only ones who do it.

I'm sorry I won't be less vague, but I have no desire to spread this term... and this question is more of a broad question anyway. If it's actually, really true... not stereotype or hyperbole, but actually TRUE... is it racist, or just reality?

So, this isn't really a medical condition per se, but rather a behavioural/psychological complaint that only appears to manifest in one particular ethnicity?

If you are asking whether it is "OK" to use a term based on ethnicity to describe the condition, I would say the answer is "no". Even if somewhat accurate, I do not see a point to using a term like "Jew Flu" or similar to describe it when there are better, more accurate scientific means to describe something.

I'd say observing the strong correlation is fine, and making up a cute nickname about it isn't.

I thought everyone used the term jungle fever.

Right... it's a very specific type of behavior.

Like, for example...

If white males were notorious for flapping their arms when scared, and this behavior was both extremely common and totally exclusive to this one race, would it be racist or simply an observation of reality if someone called it the "white fright"?

Person 1: "what's wrong with that guy? Something wrong with his arms?"
Person 2: "No, white fright."

Should using such a colloquialism be characterized as racist? Or just, "the way it is"?

A word isn't racist. The person using the word, and their attitude, is. Something like "jew flu" as highthief suggests is clearly intended to demean people based upon their ethnicity. What term do you have in mind here?

Well, the behavior itself is pointless and really annoying... so yeah, the name is negative in its connotation... but I don't believe that it's racially negative, so much as it's just negative by virtue of what it is, and happens to be specific to race. If it was just specific to sex, for example, it'd be a question of "is it sexist" or whatever. The negativity isn't being directed at the race, just the behavior.

EDIT: The term is as readily and widely used and embraced by people of the same particular race, as anyone else. And i'm not talking about when a group embraces a racial slur so that they can own it and lessen its effect, I mean they use it to complain in the exact same way as anyone else. So... from that standpoint, it doesn't seem that it could be racist... and yet, it just feels wrong.

Everybody knows about "blarney vagina". It's not a big deal.

The main question is why does it bother you?

I don't honestly know. I think it's more that it strikes me as insensitive, even though it IS totally annoying.

My broader curiosity was with whether or not you all might think it seemed racist or not, based on the situation. Also, because racial stereotypes are just that- stereotypes... my other curiosity was what if it wasn't a stereotype... what if it was absolutely the case, just one group... would it be wrong, then, or just being realistic?

This one's a tough one.

Not medical, but behavioral. So not something like postpartum depression, which is experienced by a very specific demographic of one gender, ie: some women who have recently given birth.

But rather something like... like totally... like... uh... duh! speaking like a valley girl?! :chomp on gum: There's something that's behavioral and gender specific. But not so much ethnically based. It's not sexist to say someone talks like a valley girl, but it is rude.

On a personal, daily basis, saying what is most polite is going to be the easiest way to deal with this one.

On a community level, the question of assigning the term as racist does not need to be addressed. Rather, finding if people are negatively affected by the name. Does it have the same effects as a slur... questions like this.

Mostly, it is the attitude of the person using the word, as Robot_Parade said, that makes the difference. Words are just noises unless we assign them further meaning.


To the Op - I think you're being too vague for us to give a specific response. Laying out a practical scenario for us, and utilizing a different term might help us understand what you're getting at. Also, do you want to be able to say to these people: "Hey man, you're being racist." The way you're presenting the issue, it sounds more as though it's a philosophical question.

Racism means you believe that one race is better than another. Noticing this occurance and even making up a name for it isn't racist until you start believing that your race is better than the other.

Hang on... So when the term is used, it's used to describe the behavior, and the description includes the racial identity that is commonly correlated with the behavior? So it's not an epithet for a person, but rather a term for the behavior?

I know you don't want to spread it, analog, and I respect that, but this discussion would be much clearer if you told us the term.

Be more fun to play a guessing game.

Brown sugar, for a diabetic emergency?

Shooting up schools and cannibalizing neighborhood teens seems to be almost exclusively a white guy kinda thang. Still, I wouldn't like it if serial killing became known as whiteboy psychosis.

Crazy killer cracker is the medical term though on the street its KKK.

This is quite a fun game. Let's guess what slur you are thinking of. I love GenuineGirly's Valley Girl guess. That is quite annoying. Also the Crazy killer cracker is awesome, haven't heard it, but will definitely use it whenever watching a B-horror flick. :thumbsup:

I like ghetto mentality. The women have a definite stereotype and the men, if they aren't incarcerated have a habit of shooting dice in front of the liquor store and shouting out profanities followed by cracker or nigga depending on the color of the person passing by.

Also, fairy is another one that paints a picture. Those guys are my favorite type of people. I miss having my fairy friends. They're awesome drama queens and great to have around when getting dressed for a night out since they have style sense and are brutally honest while calling you darling and using words such as fabulous.

Accountants...now there is one that is the quiet, geeky type of guy. Very serious and not so much fun to hang around.

Ooo, then there are the suburban soccer moms. You know what I'm talking about. High waisted, taper legged jeans (aka mommy jeans), big poofy hair, and what is first on their priority list? The children of course. Usually seen in a huge SUV or a Town and Country van (aka Mom Taxi) driving her kids to a million extra-curricular events because their children are geniuses and need to be well-rounded. They have a happy exterior, but are bitter inside of all they have missed out on, although they will never admit that.

Those are my guesses. Am I racist? Meh, I think everyone has stereotypes because humans tend to think in terms of connections and groupings. To better understand the world around us, we make categories for everything to fit in. Are they true? Well, not everyone fits in a neat little category. Get to know the people and then decide.

Oh me? Well, I'm the teacher of course. I spend hours doing cutesy shit and love apples. Teddy bears make me melt. I wear denim jumpers and tend to be very frumpy. I would never use profanity, in fact I'm quite prim and proper. Kids are my business and gee aren't they precious. Yep, that's me...I'm a stereotypical, white teacher. ;)

Self-induced stereotypes help perpetuate racism.

"Only disgruntled white teenagers get mohawks."

"Only shady black drug dealers have dreadlocks."

"Only Republicans have McDuh comb-overs."

"Only Jewish girls have those '50s afros."

etc.

HOT!

...

Yeah, you're starting to sound like a sardonic Micheal Douglas in Falling Down, Shesus.

Crompsin, what the hell kind of stereotypes are those?

"Only Crompsins have plastic crotches."

There, take that.

OK I did a bad, bad thing by derailing a serious thread.

Its a gift.

But back to analog's real question.

Yes I'm sure its racist if you are this uncomfortable with it.

But thats not all bad.

Sometimes you do need to dehumanize your job in medicine, otherwise you take everyones problems home with you. Its easy to SAY the patient is the one with the disease, but it can get to you.

So the issue is, does it hurt anyone calling it whatever it is, what you call it, whatever that is?

If not, let it go.

Is the term "white trash"?

Those are hair stereotypes! Jeez.

...

Leave my smooth spot out of this!

is it an 'arab back'?

cos theres lots of bad arab backs back in oz, hoping to get compensation, or better yet the disability pension and a commision house.

I am uncertain precisely what you are trying to clarify. A key thing would be to separate what is a cultural trait though. If someone were to say most Somali's wash their feet before prayer that would be true, yet it is still a "behavior" now if someone said all Somalis are uneducated that would be a stereotype.

Disclaimer: Somali was the first item that popped into my head. I have no issues with any race, religion etc...

I have no idea how to respond usefully to this thread without a concrete example of what you're talking about analog. If you're talking about the Haitian Tremble...and Haitians really do tremble when they're scared or something...I'm not sure I see the real problem. If you're talking about the Nigger Fart or the Wetback Whimper, I think it's probably going to be racist even if black people really do pass gas or Mexicans really do make low keening noises in difficult situations.

Ew, gross-out! lol

Man, I laughed for like 10 minutes when I read this.

Also: note for pig, and others: the term itself does not contain any racial slurs or epithets.

I think I've decided it's more like it feels unnecessarily insensitive, even though the practice IS really annoying... and the whole race thing is just because it pertains to one race. Most of the reason I didn't mention the name of the thing is because my larger interest was in whether or not people would find it acceptable to label if a stereotype wasn't a stereotype, but actually true.

I like the responses.

"I am not an animal!"

I'm a human being who thinks he's not an animal.

I have no clue to what you refer.

My baser instincts tell me that I need to go back into my cave.

Mom???

(Mother's a teacher. Father's a Professor. 2 Aunts, 2 Uncles teachers, plus one aunt a teacher's aid.. One Grandmother, the other was a school lunch lady. Married a teacher. Mother in Law is a teacher.)

/me confronts the 900 lb gorilla in the room...


analog, what the hell are you talking about?

So if it is fact and everyone in that culture, gender, and/or race does it, I don't know what you are talking about. Is it a way of walking? Is it that French people speak French? That is quite annoying. :rolleyes:

If it is generally true for a group and you are putting that standard on them, you are stereotyping them. For example: People at the gym wear sweats. Now, while many people or most people wear sweats to the gym, there is always going to be someone that doesn't. Some women wear skirts to the gym, like tennis skirts.

Is it a religious practice? Is it old people driving? Is it white trash drinking cheap beer, sitting on furniture in front of their trailer, and wearing over-sized cartoon t-shirts or wife-beaters while using the word ain't for any linking and helping verb?

While some people fit that (my cousin and her husband are the latter), it isn't absolute...nothing in life fits in a neat little category that's what makes it so interesting. There is always going to be at least one person to break the rule. Everyone has prejudice thoughts involving stereotypes. It's not a bad thing unless one is ignorant and actually believes that it is absolute instead of based on one's own experiences, which in most cases are very narrow segments of the world.

If you feel that calling it a name or referring to it is wrong, then don't. Just tell us already and we can call you a racist bastard or just tell you to get over it. Or are you scared?

You're concerned enough that you won't post "it".

You won't post it because of the risk that it is offensive to post it specifically for discussion of the only subject of the thread.

So, there's nothing to discuss, unless we post guesses until you reply, that's it, you've got it.

Either that, or you've already answered your own question, you only have to accept your own answer, as being the right one for you.

sometimes, actually quite frequently, i love me some host.

/me does not believe that host is a 900 lb gorilla...

Stereotypes are such because of a common link, albeit the lowest common denominator for any particular group. The stereotypical Jewish mother hovers and meddles, the stereotypical Italian mother overfeeds her kids, Asians can't drive, etc. Those are based on ignorance and gross over-generalizations.
If you are on call and a member of that particular race exhibits that behavior while being tended to, it is probably best to stick to off-the-books protocol and just go ahead and say "Mrs.O'Malley is exhibiting Irish Soda Bread behavior" than have to go into some unique description.
You know what you believe; there sometimes has to a compromise between personal belief and on the job behavior. If, on the other hand, comrades use the "Irish Soda Bread" call because they themselves are bigots, you have no reason to follow suit. Every culture has a uniqueness to it that becomes even more prominant in dire times and while the exact type of wording isn't apparent, time and experience will show what can be accepted and what just "isn't right".
Oh, I love having gay guys around! Even my interior design instructor (a woman), said if we ever want to hire a designer, get a gay guy! :D They are brutally honest, but with flair!

Guys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses..

Maybe the op was a veiled thread to get us to come up with our own
cross-eyed cultural nonsense...

hmmmmm...

Questions for the questioner in question...

A typical stereotype is a grain of truth, exaggerated and rigidly applied..

All mimsy were the borogoves...

That last one seems to hold up pretty well in the greater DC area.

+1

White trash is my guess.

And I'm fine with it, because.. well, white is a modifier of trash.

White trash, black trash, asian trash.

White trash honky cracker mofos!

YEAH!

You know hatin' on paleface gets me riled up.

If you read this thread closely, there seems to be a social studies lesson buried within.

Interesting to note, it *seems* that we're tap-dancing around the term in question. Only one person in this thread has posted the term I think the OP had in mind, and it hasn't been repeated yet.

But to the OP, I would say this.....Imagine using your "term" in a crowded room. Would you be embarrassed or feel the need to explain/apologize? If yes, then I'd probably let your freshly coined verbage die a quiet death.

Yeah, if I was a genius, I would figure out what the social studies lesson was...

Walking on eggshells about something as petty and hurtful as racism is foolish. It doesn't deserve the respect. It should be talked about openly by those who don't perpetuate it through silence or quiet acceptance.

Granted, you won't catch me dropping the n-bomb on here, but I'm not afraid to talk about the use of it.

...

OP: If the use of the term ("it") offends him, then it is probably offensive. The nice part about being an adult is that we can be offended in a constructive manner. Most of the time it's pretty amusing afterwards.

Racism, sexism, ageism, religion... all hilarious in the right light.

First off, I have no idea what term we're talking about and would probably be different on a case by case basis. I would assume if it was in fact a condition targeting a specific race there would be no harm in it's name to include that race to specify it from other similar or related conditions. Of course, the name should use the acceptable term referring to those people and not a word that is a racist slur by itself.

if it is white trash, it's perfectly legitimate because those people are scum bags

also, this topic is pointless without knowing the actual term because there are so many variables involved

There's no such thing as "race" - and i believe that anyone who labels humans as belonging to a "race" has by definition some racist opinions.

I know you're trying to ask a question without using the specific term to avoid any aspersions it would cast on you to bring it up and to get a general answer, but I really think the whole discussion is pointless without it.

I'm not concerned about posting it. I have specifically said, at least twice, that the reason I've not said what it is, is because it's not about the specific words. My question is broader and more important than simply playing judge and jury on one term. I know you all want to have something concrete so you can judge it and move on, but I think I've done well enough in causing some discussion, or at least getting people to put in their two cents (which means I made some people think) for this thread to already be a success.

I think there's plenty to discuss, and already IS being discussed. Just because I won't give you the term so you can pick it apart doesn't mean the larger question is without merit.

You're also all projecting a lot of heavy feelings onto me that I don't have for this topic. I'm not mentally deficient- I don't need anyone else, let alone a message board, to help me determine if I find something personally acceptable to say, or not. I just think a lot of you are putting WAY too much into this, simply because I won't give you the term... so you are grinding your gears in other directions, instead.

If nothing else, and it was not intended to be so, this has been a great social experiment. If I'd planned it to be one, I'm not sure I could have made it better. You're all getting very uppity with me about this in all kinds of different ways because you don't have the term to pick apart and judge. The broad question was about how we, as people, use labels and stereotypes... and if a label is still racist/sexist/whatever if it's actually true.

Keep the comments coming, this is going well.

Oh, no... I don't think anyone here would ever cry racist on me. I'm not worried about how it'd be perceived.

I wish I'd just asked the broader question by itself, and not even used the term's existence as an example... because now apparently people are confused that

1. it actually offends me
2. it contains a racial slur in itself, which I might somehow (?) be on the fence about
3. this thread is actually about the term, itself.

None of the above are true. I just find its usage a little unnecessary, and that's all.

Also: in my field, a lot of seemingly callous behavior is totally normal because that's the coping mechanism. Being on the outside, I'm afraid you'd all see it as horrible and the discussion would be over before it began. Everyone might just say "oh that's terrible" and that's not a discussion.

I think what we have going so far is a nice start.

I noticed that as well, and commented on it above.

No, no one has been even remotely close, and it's not "white trash". I doubt anyone outside a medical field would ever have heard it. It's not really a normal term.

Well, to stick strictly to the point, in my opinion: yes, what you describe would be racist.

In the same sense as the term "mongolism" (which was certainly a medical term used until recently) was racist.

Please be certain that I am not saying that what you are talking about is the same in every way to, for example, the use of the term "mongolism" for Down's Syndrome - I bring up just as a general point.

would you want your mom hearing you use this term?

would your management team be calling you to the carpet if they heard you use it?

would the patient be offended?

I though you medical people were smart, use the medical term and not slang!!! (joke)

Since i can only guess on the word/phrase your referring to i say don't use it. Better safe than sorry.

Gomers and FOBs and Gorks oh my....

Since you are reluctant to post the term even it is true then it is probably racist. If you are being overly politically correct then it is probably just reality.

Maybe the OP's point is exactly that. Where's the line? Who defines it?

Would a person of the same race, but different gender....that was also considered to be a scholarly type and/or a politician use the same term you are referring to?

If so, I would think it is not a racist term.
If not, and they use a more PC term to describe it, it likely is.

Both popular models of human evolution acknowledge differences in race, with the older 4-race model of the multi-regional model losing ground. It is logical that minor differences would evolve over tens of thousands of generations in widely varying areas of the world. To deny clear differences between these groups is absurd. Acknowledging differences is not racist, thinking differently of people because of it is.

I agree. That must be the reason the OP is taking a rather niggardly approach to providing information on the term in question.:)

I don't think the use of a race-based colloquialism in itself denotes racism (ie, racially motivated hatred).

It can quite possibly denote insensitivity, smarminess and a smug sense of superiority.

But not necessarily. It all depends on the motivation and sentiment of the user.

There are differences between groups, but only because the groups are classified based on those differences. If you look at non-classification criteria there are no clear boundaries showing class cohesion. The grouping is arbitrary and, biologically, meaningless.

It's sociologically significant, of course, but that's a whole 'nother field.

I had a longer post typed up but I crashed and lost it. I have to disagree though. While Race isn't the scientifically correct term, I don't think it is racist. There are population genetics and people ARE inherently physically, possibly mentally and definitely culturally different from each other. It's not racist to acknowledge that there are differences and that certain conditions occur more often within certain groups. Example, Black males are at a higher risk of prostate cancer, Fair Skinned red heads like myself are at higher risk of skin cancer. It's useful knowledge, It's not racist to know or to point it out. It's only racist when people use those differences as justification for their prejudice. When our(or at least my) ancestors ran into less advanced cultures we confused our "cumulative" knowledge with being a superior "race" when in fact we showed how primitive we were by treating equal beings as harshly as we did.

I used to think it was that simple, but I don't anymore. Labeling and categorizing has become such a mundane practice that attempting to see everyone as one race is going to be a long and tedious task for this planet as a whole.

No matter how much one believes they are without racism or prejudice, It still exists to some degree in all. The evolution of man has a long way to go before we can truly become one people.

Maybe the day when each race takes the time to truly understand one another's ethnic backgrounds (and we ain't just talkin' food here) , including history and cultures that have been handed down for generations, then we will have a chance of a world without prejudice or racism.

This conversation is utterly useless.

my original question in post #29 still stands...

After reading the original poster contradict himself when the thread didn't go the way he wanted, I agree.

This seems more of an exercise in the OP engaging in manipulative and condescending verbiage simply for his own pleasure.

This would have made a better journal entry.

Provoked thought... several different takes are being given, all causing discussion.

60 posts in... most of them constructive in some way (the only people really complaining are the ones not participating- I'm looking at you, phil, king, and JJ). At least others who were confused or uncertain took a crack at it, and used their brains to think a little and come up with something. What's that old saying about having nothing good to say and hitting the back button?

This thread will only be a failure when the negativity of a few, creeps in and strangles out the thought and conversation already in progress.

Oh god, I already had this discussion in the philosophy section, apparently race is being pced out because it causes hurt feelings. Trust me you don't want to go there. Just smile at them and say 'oh of course there is only the human race, how silly of me!' back away slowly and don't show your teeth.

I would first like to say that this forum has been a gift to me, so many of you have a vat of knowledge I feel privileged to be part of even when I don't agree with you..with that being said.....

Cybermike we can not make decisions on a case by case basis, I believe that is what would make it racist. I also believe that is what is wrong with the US but that is for another thread. Even if a term does not contain an epithet, if it is generalized toward a specific group it is RACIST. PERIOD. I believe the very fact that the question needs to be asked, which in turn made the speaker uncomfortable, answers the question that the term need not be used. I applaud you all for talking about a very sensitive subject matter as only ignorance breads hate.

I'm sorry but I get the feeling not even you know what you're talking about.


At least give us a few example of what the 'term' could be. The only think people are talking about is what the hell the 'term' is. Not what you asked for.

Racism is a null concept in the absence of intent.

As an example, consider the n-word: NIGGER, to be clear...not that there is likely to be any confusion. The term has apparently morphed to take on qualities of friendship, comradery and pride when used among two blacks. However, it is undeniably racist when being used by a non-black (and especially a white) towards a black.

I think that it's ridiculous, however, that the term is now practically un-utterable. We have become like the Wizards and Witches in the Harry Potter universe, afraid to speak a simple word, and in doing so have made ourselves look just as foolish. In banning a term or concept from our language, WE HAVE NOT FIXED THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. We have just made it harder to solve, by making it harder to talk about.

Is the WORD racist in and of itself? Despite its origins, I would argue "No," unless someone can tell me how I have used it in a racist sense in this post.

Racism is about belief - is about intent. It has to be! Otherwise, even the IDENTIFICATION of a race is somehow racist. Hell, we might as well not even identify hair color...or body shape....or name....because ALL of those can be used, either individually or in aggregate, to identify someone's race.

So to answer the OP: In the case you have outlined, where a particular race/group of humans solely exhibits a disease or malady, and a term is coined that links the two together, I would argue that this is NOT racist if it is used in a clinical setting as a pure identifer of that condition. I would furthermore aruge that using it MIGHT be racist if the utterer has ill intent when using the term.

I take issue with this statement. I too have no clue what the 900 Pound Gorilla is, but I do know that whether public opinion is, or is not, ok with a term or an act, does not automatically make, or not make, it racist.

FOR EXAMPLE (since that is scarce today)... When I was in the Marine Corps, we had a guy (who happened to be black) who was the spitting image of Curious George (No kidding... He looked just like him!... We'll call him Corporal D). In his barracks room, he had an unreal amount of Curious George paraphernalia that he had been given over the years, because he looked just like Curious George. One day, Curious George was on TV and I called everyone into my room to see Corporal D on TV. It was funny to all, including Corporal D. However, a Lenient who was new to the unit heard it and came in to see what the commotion was. When he heard that I had referred to Corporal D as a Monkey, he commenced to screaming at me, calling me a racist and and saying that he was going to personally remove my stripes. Corporal D smoothed it out with him, explaining the situation to him, but I had never been told that monkey or gorilla could be used as a racial slur, so I was clueless while he was screaming at me. It was that day that I learned that people referred to black people as monkeys or gorillas, as a racial slur.

What I am trying to illustrate is that simply because public opinion views something as racist, or not racist, does not mean it is, or isn't. I tend to agree with others that racism is in the heart and that it is the intentions behind what is said and done that makes something racist. It used to be socially acceptable to own slaves, which was obviously a racist act, but back then, it was a societal norm. They had a War to decide whether it was racist or not.

Society doesn't necessarily consider racism towards a white male to be racist currently (i.e. Affirmative Action), but if it is treating someone unfairly due to something they cannot change, then it is racist. I understand that the original thought behind it was to help minorities be able to obtain employment in companies that might or might not use racist practices to hire employees, but it creates an environment where its not the best man or woman for the job, but the best man or woman for the job in the racial percentage that is most lacking at the time. It is intended to deny a certain race a fair chance in order to give a less represented race a chance to perform the job, even if the person of the less represented race is less qualified. So even though the idea was noble, the intended purpose is to deny access based on the color of your skin.

Remember that if Rosa Parks would have subscribed to the "don't make anyone in the room uncomfortable" rule, black people may still be sitting in the back of the bus.

well, i think it does vary depending on the term. for example, i don't think using a term such as "afro" is racist while "slant eye" certainly is despite both being terms that apply to certain physical features people of a certain race have

also, even more important than the term itself is how you use it

Now I wish I'd planned this as a social psychology experiment. Not having the term is making some of you angry at me, questioning my reasoning or intelligence, and focusing on that which you don't know- the term- rather than the concept it represents. You're ascribing all sorts of extremely negative properties to it- like assuming that if the term actually contained a racial slur, I might still be on the fence as to whether or not it's racist. Like if it was "Guinea pigs" for fat italians, I would somehow think that the slur embedded in it didn't automatically make it racist. Of course it would! lol

Very interesting all around. Keep it up, the nay-sayers have been the most entertaining responses, given that everyone else is taking it seriously and being constructive. :)

Maybe there is no term after all, and you just wanted to see the way this would go. A nice experiment, analog, with some productive responses and arguments, although I don't believe everyone here likes being a rat lab. :D

Oh, no, I'm being serious- I wish I had come up with this as an experiment, because it's become something really interesting... but I can't take any credit for that, because my intentions were exactly what the thread was about.

EDIT: And there really is a term, I'll break it out when the time is right. Right now, there is already a healthy bit of interesting opinion going on.

Are you really saying that the blatant physical differences between Whites, Blacks, Asians (via Bering straits land bridge, this also includes everyone descended from indigenous North and South Americans,) and Aborigines are cultural constructs? It's miniscule number of genes that define them, but there are biological differences that can't be swept under the rug because it isn't PC to classify people.

I digress. I think unity should come from realizing that ethnic backgrounds and cultural differences are meaningless and that we should stop looking over our shoulders trying to be so damn unique. I don't feel that the fact that my ancestors happened to be born in certain places matters to who I am, it's what they did with their lives and where we've gotten that makes the difference. Cultural pride makes me roll my eyes, all I've seen come from it is conflict.

unlike medical conditions, racial behavior changes over time. So, i think the creation of racially attached term to categorize behavior may seem kinda okay at present time ( when a race actually shows a unified behavioral trait) but over time, as the behavioral trait start to dissipate, the already embossed term might be seen as racially-stereotyping and derogatory. As such, we all should always have a good thought before shouting out terms.

Original post is a beautiful example of political correctness at its finest, i.e. it makes no sense. Other people have pointed this out.

This take on political correctness is horrible for the "I am offended" faction. Which makes it a great one for the rest of the country.