5 ms·

How is this ban not racist?

• grzm 10y ago
  Arguably it's a matter of terminology, as I understand it. If the ban is targeting Muslims, it's a matter of religion, not race. If it's based on country, while it may be some form of prejudice, it's similarly not racism. That's my understanding of the argument, anyway. How would you describe it as being accurately described as "racism"? Please note I'm not taking a position on the ban here. I'm just trying to understand why people are using the language they are.
  • simonh 10y ago
    It's perfectly clear he's doing this for the purpose of religious discrimination. How do we know? Because he told us so clearly and directly during the primaries. His current VP described that as illegal and unconstitutional at the time. Arguably the specific legality of this precise formulation of the order avoids racism or religious discrimination. He's technically not targeting muslims. He's targeting people from Muslim majority countries and excepting christians. Whatever. Anyone arguing that is an apologist for racism and religious discrimination. Technicalities be damned.
    • grzm 10y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to respond. I understand a lot of the politics regarding the issue, and am specifically trying to avoid bringing that into this particular slice. I'm not arguing whether or not the ban is targeting Muslims. The recent Fox News interview leaves little room for doubt. The question 'euyyn had was "How is this ban not racist?" You bring up racism and religious discrimination. Do you draw a distinction between the two? I've started to suspect that the definition of racism is currently widening to encapsulate more than strictly racial prejudice. Your comment "Technicalities be damned." leads me to believe that your understanding of the term racism is this wider one. Personally I think racism is the wrong term; religious discrimination seems more apt. But I also understand language changes. I sincerely am not in any way trying to parse a way out of what the Executive Order represents or its intent. I just want to understand what people mean when they call it "racist".
      • euyyn 10y ago
        Yeah, if religious discrimination had an adjective form, like racist or bigotted, I would have used that. But as the three (and others like xenophobic) have the same cause and characteristics, the specific term to use seems to be a distinction without a difference.
        • grzm 10y ago
          Thanks! I was beginning to fear I was going to be left hanging, as this is something on which I really wanted to get feedback. I understand where you're coming from with respect to the distinction without a difference. I fear it's likely adding to miscommunication, as I don't think that's yet a widely-held understanding of the term, or at least held across some political divides. That's not to say I have any great suggestions as to how to reconcile this. But I have seen a lot of likely unnecessary noise—at least here on HN—due to just this usage of racism around the topic of the Executive Order. There's enough other, meatier issues to discuss. It's too bad that this word is probably causing unnecessary friction. Thanks again! I appreciate it.
      • mistermann 10y ago
        I strongly believe that if people would be intellectually honest, they would admit that when they say racist, what they actually mean is culturalist. But they very much don't want to go down that path, because then they'd have to come up with some argument that there is no such thing as culture. Obviously, there is such a thing as culture, but this in no way means that it's impossible for different cultures to peacefully coexist in the same country, neighborhood, etc.
        • wang_li 10y ago
          >But they very much don't want to go down that path, because then they'd have to come up with some argument that there is no such thing as culture. And that holding an opinion that a particular culture is worse is wrong.
    • mistermann 10y ago
      Minor correction: he's targeting Muslims from seven specific countries, the very same seven countries the DHS designated as higher risk under the prior administration, if we're interested in trying to keep these discussions based in fact. This isn't to say Donald Trump himself isn't actually an outright bigot though (I'm beginning to suspect so, but I have much more patience than others).
      • simonh 10y ago
        Well you can patiently wait while children and old people are refused boarding flights, or detained at airports, preventing them from returning to their homes and families in the US. How patient do you expect them to be? I have to say my tolerance for scenes like that is pretty low.
        • mistermann 10y ago
          I don't expect people to be patient at all, outrage at this situation seems completely appropriate to me.
• refurb 10y ago
  Because if you're from those countries it doesn't matter what your race is? White, black, asian, latino, they are all banned if they originate from those countries. Same with religion. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, they are all banned if they originate from these countries. The ban is based on country of origin, not race or religion.
  • euyyn 10y ago
    > Because if you're from those countries it doesn't matter what your race is? > White, black, asian, latino, they are all banned if they originate from those countries. Substitute my use of "racist" with "discriminatory based on religion". > Same with religion. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, they are all banned if they originate from these countries. What I've heard is that this is false and Christians are supposed to be allowed in. > The ban is based on country of origin, not race or religion. Even if that's the current implementation, what it's trying to achieve is pretty explicit and clear, as expressed during the campaign: a ban on Muslims.