Prejudice doesn't really seem quite apt, to me; xenophobia has a very different meaning in my dialect.
Yes, but the fact is that P does have power relative to blacks in his society, whether he accepts it or not. There are issues of intersectionality--obviously President Obama has more power than he does--but if you compare P to a poor unemployed black man from Appalachia then the situation is clear.
I don't disagree at all - but, you see, when you have to start having that argument, you've gone off the tracks and you're going to have trouble getting back to your original point. Whereas if you don't get into that point, you don't have to start arguing hierarchies of hurt. You also don't have to have the argument about "reverse racism" - instead of arguing about whether it's racist for a black person to have a universal dislike of white people, you can say okay, that is racism, but it's not what we're talking about (and also, it's almost certainly a reflection of what it's like for that person to live under systemic racist oppression and offence from just about every white person they encounter, so the problem is still white people, here).
It's just that it is European and I wanted to mention it because there's more going on in the continent than relationships between the big powers in Western Europe.
True. But not what I was talking about. :)
With all due respect and fondness and all that, you're in danger of doing that thing, where someone is all "but how can you talk about THIS when there's this OTHER thing that's SO MUCH WORSE!" Sometimes I want to think about the ramifications of the change in approach to making jokes based on stereotypes between nations on a roughly equal footing, and not have to think about ethnic cleansing. Or the BNP.
These things are things I care about; you don't have to, if you don't want to. It doesn't mean I can't also care about Kosovo, or Eastern Europe, or any of those subjects, just like pondering racism on the scale of jokes about the French on English panel shows doesn't mean I can't care about MammothFail (I suspect it's well-established by now that I do), and caring about MammothFail doesn't mean I can't care about Darfur.
Saying I can live with English-French cattiness doesn't mean I'm saying I'm just as content about the racist bile of the BNP or the Daily Mail - I'm just saying I'm okay with two countries who are now of roughly equal stature, but have spent quite a lot of the last few centuries at war, being catty at each other. No more, no less. I'm not even saying it's an inherently good thing - I'm just saying it's an improvement over all that's come before it.
It's not really about Europeanist credentials, although Europe does matter to me. I'm fully capable of caring quite a lot about things that don't affect me personally. (See: Well, MammothFail.)
no subject
Yes, but the fact is that P does have power relative to blacks in his society, whether he accepts it or not. There are issues of intersectionality--obviously President Obama has more power than he does--but if you compare P to a poor unemployed black man from Appalachia then the situation is clear.
I don't disagree at all - but, you see, when you have to start having that argument, you've gone off the tracks and you're going to have trouble getting back to your original point. Whereas if you don't get into that point, you don't have to start arguing hierarchies of hurt. You also don't have to have the argument about "reverse racism" - instead of arguing about whether it's racist for a black person to have a universal dislike of white people, you can say okay, that is racism, but it's not what we're talking about (and also, it's almost certainly a reflection of what it's like for that person to live under systemic racist oppression and offence from just about every white person they encounter, so the problem is still white people, here).
It's just that it is European and I wanted to mention it because there's more going on in the continent than relationships between the big powers in Western Europe.
True. But not what I was talking about. :)
With all due respect and fondness and all that, you're in danger of doing that thing, where someone is all "but how can you talk about THIS when there's this OTHER thing that's SO MUCH WORSE!" Sometimes I want to think about the ramifications of the change in approach to making jokes based on stereotypes between nations on a roughly equal footing, and not have to think about ethnic cleansing. Or the BNP.
These things are things I care about; you don't have to, if you don't want to. It doesn't mean I can't also care about Kosovo, or Eastern Europe, or any of those subjects, just like pondering racism on the scale of jokes about the French on English panel shows doesn't mean I can't care about MammothFail (I suspect it's well-established by now that I do), and caring about MammothFail doesn't mean I can't care about Darfur.
Saying I can live with English-French cattiness doesn't mean I'm saying I'm just as content about the racist bile of the BNP or the Daily Mail - I'm just saying I'm okay with two countries who are now of roughly equal stature, but have spent quite a lot of the last few centuries at war, being catty at each other. No more, no less. I'm not even saying it's an inherently good thing - I'm just saying it's an improvement over all that's come before it.
It's not really about Europeanist credentials, although Europe does matter to me. I'm fully capable of caring quite a lot about things that don't affect me personally. (See: Well, MammothFail.)