I think you're still assuming value judgments where none exist. To take it to that extreme we could never differentiate anything at all -- we could not choose the blue or green clothes because choosing the blue pits blue "against" green. We couldn't make a decision which way to turn at the intersection.
It's not necessary to append a hierarchy to a simple discrimination of differences. That's why I use the value judgment of "inferior" to distinguish whether racism exists. The terms "black, white, brown, red, yellow" do not in an of themselves suggest a hierarchy, any more than "blond, brown, red" hair or "blue, brown, hazel" eyes. There has to be a cold, unemotional, no-baggage capacity to distinguish one from another.
As your example suggests, medical research does this all the time -- what disease or malady is more or less likely in this or that ethnic group. That again makes no judgment; on the contrary it's a helpful tool in prediction and accurate diagnoses.
So to suggest an impoverished class is the only one to have the incentive to seek economic alternatives isn't a value judgment as to how they got there or whether they "belong" in that class. It's simple analysis of how socioeconomic incentives work for mammalian entities who need to eat.
Dear Pogo and also Blacksand:
Generally I do not see ANY of these things as "value judgments"
So I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression.
But you gave me an idea:
1. Maybe the problem is you drop the value judgments BEFORE you apply the term, so you don't use racist which implies all this negative stuff. I let people use whatever terms they use, even racist, but prefer to say "racial bias" or "racially charged" to blame the language and not the people, and drop the judgments even IF something is racially biased or charged, because i don't agree with the negativity attached.
You and I both agree to drop and stop with the value judgments.
But I do so REGARDLESS what terms people use, and you object to the terms themselves while I am okay with talking about racial biases openly and not placing judgment.
2. here is the interpretation of the cartoon you and I might agree on:
I would AGREE with the interpretation that the cartoonist is just depicting
the stereotypical division in the media and debates about immigration that exist.
Whether the cartoonist agrees or disagrees, with this that or the other being assumed or projected or whatever, this division is being DEPICTED.
Are you okay with that?
3. Here is a poem I wrote that I called
RACIST RAP and ADMIT it is OPENLY racist.
The whole point is to bring those out and admit these stereotypes exist
and to make fun of the fear of racism and all the hatred, to spoof it all:
It is a spoof on "What is Pink?" by Christina Rosetti
========================================
"Racist Rap: What is White"
What is Black? A Brother's Black
Shoot 'im in the back and say you were attacked.
What is Brown? Latino's are Brown
Working underground to keep the price of labor down.
What is Red? An Injun is Red
Trade homesteads for prison beds
(Tell them Feds me scalp their heads) * (political reference to Leonard Peltier)
What is Green? Martians are Green
Our future can be seen in their funky time machine
What is Yellow? A Jap is Yellow
Suicidal fellow with a bid on Monticello (spoken in a bad Asian accent)
What is White? Why a White
Wush is White!
==========================================
So given this poem PLAYS on Racist Stereotypes
YES I would say it is RACIST or Racially Biased.
The only difference is it makes fun of ALL the spectrum,
so it shows how people do this to each other and everyone.
It's still racist, but points it out all over the place.
I don't attach judgments when I say that.
But I still understand the same labels of RACIST
that "other people use" to charge and blame each other
with very negative judgments attached.
So given where I am coming from Pogo,
can you see why I would say that
Cartoon "plays on racial images or stereotypes"
It directly references white vs brown skin
so it knowingly is going to invoke those interpretations
and I'm not going to blame it on the audience
for "seeing it that way" because the lighter vs. browner
skin color was used to depict what people would SEE as RACE or whatever.
It PLAYS on perceptions of RACE,
so that's why people are calling it RACIST.
You call it incendiary because of "other things"
I will not deny that cartoon deliberately
PLAYS on racial bias and stereotypes.
Just like my poem that deliberately uses RACIST terms, it is making a statement
using those labels "Associated with Race"
I guess you just don't call things Racist that other people do.
[as for superiority, I am not going to change the minds of ALL people who believe Christianity is superior, or American Constitutionalism, or Capitalism, or White or Black being superior.Some of those people will not change. What I can do is agree to work with all people, even these with superority complexes over others, and still work with them on common goals. So if the KKK wants to save historic sites like Jefferson's home and memorials, or the Blacks want to build their own Federal Reserve program just for Black reparations, I'm all for it. If they think they are superior, and it helps them focus to save American history or economy, that's fine, that's a good use of those beliefs in White power or Black power or whatever motivates them.
What is destructive is when people divide over conflicts they won't forgive, but fear and blame other people or groups. We can have civil separation, such as by religion or party, and not get divided and fight. So I even will tolerate this "inferior/superior attitude" as long as people can forgive each other's beliefs and still get work done we all agree is helpful and productive.
