By giving... its legal definition in the UK! (At least for the purposes of the Equality Act.)
Tim Send a noteboard - 16/04/2011 08:51:58 AM
We in the United States at least recognize that race and nationality are two separate things. This is the reason you see words to the effect that discrimination should not be based on "race, religion, color, sex, age, handicap, national origin, veteran status, marital status, pregnancy, maternity, or sexual orientation" (to quote from a standard employment clause).
Obviously they are not exactly the same thing. If we thought they were, that interpretation subsection wouldn't have been necessary at all – it would have just said "race" and expected everyone to take that as including ethnic origin and nationality.
But in reality they overlap to a large extent, and if you're going to have an anti-discrimination law, it's convenient to lump them together. Otherwise you get stupid arguments like "The reason I refused to let that man stay in my hotel wasn't because he's black. It's because I don't serve Nigerians, Ghanaians, Kenyans... it's their nationality I have a problem with". Also, anti-English racism in Scotland (which is a very real problem, possibly worse than against any non-white group here) wouldn't then be covered. Ditto antagonism between Indians and Pakistanis.
Different words are defined differently in different enactments. Basically what they're doing is saving themselves having to type out "racial, ethnic or national origins" every single time it comes up. Since the Act treats all those characteristics in the same way, it makes sense to refer to them with a single term. "Ethnicity" or "national origins" would have done just as well, as long as they were defined equally inclusively. "Race" just has the advantage of being shorter.
Nationality is one's nationality, a legal status. Ask someone to produce a passport and you will have their nationality. This is what makes a Chechen a "Russian" or an Afrikaaner a "South African".
Race is one's race. It is what makes a Chechen NOT a Russian, and an Afrikaaner NOT an "African". It is what makes me European, even though I was born in America, and what makes my friend Asian, even though he was also born in America.
Color is color. It is essentially tied to race these days, since people don't like saying "yellow, red and brown" though black and white are still in common parlance.
Obviously I know all three of these things. My point is that if you're being discriminatory towards people, it doesn't matter which of them is your grounds – all three are equally bad. (I'm going to leave aside immigration issues for now so as not to complicate things.) So we might as well use one name for it.
Now, as for the rest of your comment, I am in complete agreement.
Glad to hear it.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
I have never EVER met kids this horrible
15/04/2011 05:14:06 AM
- 1561 Views
slapping might make him sillier? Sounds like the parents would enjoy that too? *NM*
15/04/2011 05:25:38 AM
- 331 Views
Welcome to children in a world run by liberals. *NM*
15/04/2011 05:51:46 AM
- 270 Views
I am gonna beat my childrens asses raw if they ever act like that *NM*
15/04/2011 06:25:54 AM
- 250 Views
That sounds extremely annoying. But less of the racism, if you don't mind.
15/04/2011 10:11:09 AM
- 564 Views
they are paki british if it helps *NM*
15/04/2011 04:11:39 PM
- 272 Views
... *NM*
15/04/2011 04:21:24 PM
- 258 Views
Re: Pretty much my reaction.
15/04/2011 07:26:22 PM
- 591 Views
"Paki" is used self-referentially in the States without being a slur. Cool your jets.
15/04/2011 08:07:26 PM
- 794 Views
Wait, what?
15/04/2011 08:12:34 PM
- 654 Views
SILVER ON THE TREE. Bullies are tormenting a Sikh child on a bridge.
15/04/2011 08:40:46 PM
- 509 Views
Re: Why would you think that you know it's a slur in the UK, but I wouldn't?
15/04/2011 08:47:50 PM
- 523 Views
I was talking about Aisha, not you. I don't know where you live--I thought you were European.
15/04/2011 09:51:10 PM
- 561 Views
Re: Just to point out:
16/04/2011 01:28:01 AM
- 529 Views
Am I the only one who sees a difference in this?
16/04/2011 01:49:49 AM
- 671 Views
Obviously killing people is worse than calling them names.
16/04/2011 08:29:22 AM
- 526 Views
I think that makes various forms of discrimination less serious.
17/04/2011 01:28:37 AM
- 507 Views
39 views? It's been like four minutes! STOP USING INTERNET EXPLORER, PEOPLE. *NM*
17/04/2011 01:40:45 AM
- 215 Views
Much less than you'd think, given that is considered racist over here in the UK unlike the US. *NM*
15/04/2011 04:26:54 PM
- 211 Views
Even aside from the use of the word "Paki"...
15/04/2011 07:36:41 PM
- 492 Views
Well, they aren't racially British, so "anti-British racism" is by definition inapplicable here.
15/04/2011 08:04:36 PM
- 556 Views
Methinks you have a rather narrow definition of "race".
15/04/2011 11:14:51 PM
- 763 Views
No, you just distorted the word "race" out of all recognition for legal definition purposes.
16/04/2011 12:39:26 AM
- 497 Views
Does the existence of a British race even exist by that definition? *NM*
16/04/2011 01:44:38 AM
- 220 Views
By giving... its legal definition in the UK! (At least for the purposes of the Equality Act.)
16/04/2011 08:51:58 AM
- 652 Views
Yes, my point was that giving legal definitions was a corruption of common sense.
16/04/2011 08:26:48 PM
- 470 Views
It doesn't sound very natural to me to say "OMG you're being nationalityist!" *NM*
17/04/2011 12:13:41 AM
- 385 Views
Re: You do know you're getting no cookies for this line of discussion. *NM*
17/04/2011 01:31:24 AM
- 331 Views