8 ms·

> "differential racism" So basically the existing word "racism" didn't fit (because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black

• notahacker 6y ago
  > because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black Africans Even a racist as extreme and obsessed with whiteness specifically as Hitler deemed some nonwhite races worthy of respect, even as he plotted others' extermination. Clearly it is absurd to define 'racist' so narrowly that even the actual Nazis don't qualify
• FabHK 6y ago
  Eh? Racism judges people by their race, and judges different races differently. The word fits just fine. Adding "differential" was unnecessary, but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement. Having said that, the GP does not provide any evidence that racism was the motivating factor here.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    > but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement. That was exactly the point.
• dragonwriter 6y ago
  Racism works fine for what is described, there is nothing about racism which requires it to be “my race good, all other races equally bad”. “Differential racism” is a perfectly good way of distinguishing a multitiered racial heirarchy from a binary one. Though I think nationalism may be at least as much of a factor as race-based differentiation. (That is, that nationalism in the context of colonial history is why HKers are treated more favorably by opinion than other non-white, or even white, immigrants.)
  • philwelch 6y ago
    “Racism” is not a very good term for privileging non-white immigrants from former colonies over white European immigrants.
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      Racism is a perfectly fine term for weighting East Asian race less negatively than other non-white races in a function with multiple other factors besides race, resulting in certain East Asian immigrants being favored over white European immigrants. Though, as explained already in GP, I think nationalism is the more relevant factor here, whether or not racism (binary or differential) is also involved (which at some level it obviously is.)
      • Veen 6y ago
        The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races. It’s favouring people from the Commonwealth and others to whom we have historical commitments above countries where no such ties exist.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
          > The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races. I didn't say it was. I said that the upthread commenter’s use of “differential racism” to describe their explanation in which Britain was doing that was, contrary to the claim that it was redefining “racism”, a perfectly valid use of the term “racism”. I've also said in every post in which I've argued that point that I think that what is actually happening involves nationalism in light of the HKs colonial history, not, or at least more decisively than, racism, differential or otherwise. There two different issues here, one about whether a hypothetical scenario is within the usual definition of “racism” and one about whether than hypothetical is the best explanation of what is factually occurring.
          • Veen 6y ago
            The explanation is the obvious one. The UK has a treaty with China intended to prevent what is happening from happening. China is in breach of the treaty and, in light of that, the UK is acting to protect people to whom it believes it has an obligation. It has nothing to do with either racism or nationalism.