Albasini racist?

[Sciocco]

The funny thing about food-related racial stereotypes is that the food is always always really good food. Seems kind of silly to make fun of black people for (according to the stereotype) liking fried chicken, or Mexicans for liking tacos, or Japanese people for liking sushi, etc., when all of those things are pretty frickin' great.

See, good food should unite us, not divide us!

Yea! When I went down to Mississippi (from Pennsylvania) for a few years a black student told the class (social psychology I believe) that all black people think all white people eat casserole. Well you know what, casserole can be dam good.

Yes it should.

 

[the delgados]

The funny thing about food-related racial stereotypes is that the food is always always really good food. Seems kind of silly to make fun of black people for (according to the stereotype) liking fried chicken, or Mexicans for liking tacos, or Japanese people for liking sushi, etc., when all of those things are pretty frickin' great.

See, good food should unite us, not divide us!

Anyway, to your larger point, I think it's just easy for people to latch onto the ready-made controversy of a racist statement by a public person, because it's easy for us to appear moral and right at no particular cost to ourselves. It's a confrontation that we basically can win by default. Not that I'm excusing Albasini in any way whatsoever, if he said what he allegedly did he should probably be fined and really needs to take some time to reflect on his beliefs, but I don't award any brownie points to people who castigate him for it because it's largely a "free win." Ideally situations like this would inspire people to pitch in to address some real problems in the world that have more widespread and tangible impacts and which actually require effort to deal with, but in reality, it's too easy for people to just grab the low hanging fruit and use people like Albasini to get a high off their own moral superiority.

I agree with everything you said. But I'm ashamed to admit that I'm racist to any culture that eats liver. It's horrible. There, I said it. Sue me.

 

[Bushman]

Anybody else in the UK picture Joan Collins eating a Snickers when you read this?

Also in Denmark, actually.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Your post makes no sense. Are you saying this could be a case of ignorance? There might be certain rare exceptions, like an older person in a rural area being ignorant of the meaning or implication of a word but this certainly isn't one of those situations (if he said it).

And I've already addressed your abuse/racist intent argument.

That post was referring to other use, I have made no direct comment on the language Albasini used as I do not know what was said. I am not sure what your abuse/racist intent argument was but needless to say that some would use a racist term without racial intent, it would be nieve to think otherwise.

OK, but if you don't want those dots to be joined, don't make those dots so easy to join.

I have no issue with people questioning his ethics and whether he is racist and the subject being discussed, in fact I hope people in cycling / his team are doing just that.

You don't get it do you? A racial term when used is de facto being racist.

It's not up to me to punish or give clemency to anyone. Mine was just to point out that in identical situations in other contexts the consequences for the Swiss rider could have been much more severe. Such as losing his job.

Using a racial term can/will be seen as racist but that does mean that was the intent, do you understand that?

Again I find it bizarre that you are happy to sit in judgement as to whether a man you do not know is racist but baulk at the idea of proposing a punishment, if you think an office or warehouse employee should be sacked why do you protect a 'privileged' cyclist?

 

[Jerkovin]

That's not racism. Skin color/ethnicity/etc. have to be involved for it to be racism.

I was talking about in the context of this incident. If calling someone a "dirty negro" (as he allegedly did) isn't painting Reza as inferior to him because of his skin colour, I'm not sure what is.

Using a racial term can/will be seen as racist but that does mean that was the intent, do you understand that?

Again I find it bizarre that you are happy to sit in judgement as to whether a man you do not know is racist but baulk at the idea of proposing a punishment, if you think an office or warehouse employee should be sacked why do you protect a 'privileged' cyclist?

And I find it bizarre that you're sitting here and arguing about "intent". How exactly would insulting someone with a racist comment not be maliciously intended?

The only way this could possibly be relevant is if someone says a racist word without having any idea what it means.

 

[SeriousSam]

How exactly would insulting someone with a racist comment not be maliciously intended?

In a private conversation, is using a racial slur to cause offense ethically worse than using a non-racial slur to cause equal offense?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think he's saying the rider is gainfully employed by a pro tour team and he will be treated as such.
I recently heard a radio interview with the South African equivalent to John Stewart. He told a story about a friend in New York who apologized after suggesting they eat chicken for dinner when he was in New York. The guy apologized because he thought he made a racist comment. The South African laughed his *** off. Compared to what happens in South Africa, he said, the comment meant absolutely nothing.
Point being is we seem to feel better about ourselves by policing language while ignoring the fact that black people are living in poverty.

There was an advert for fried chicken in somewhere like Australia a couple of years ago, where the family that went out to eat fried chicken were black. This caused a minor stir when seen by Americans, but the "black people eat fried chicken" stereotype doesn't have any real currency where the advert was made.

However, to tie it back to what we're talking about here... the N-word has currency anywhere, so the connotations of relatively inconsequential, accidental use of racial stereotypes are pretty irrelevant in the discussion.

 

[pugdog]

In a private conversation, is using a racial slur to cause offense ethically worse than using a non-racial slur to cause equal offense?

Now that is an excellent point.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

And I find it bizarre that you're sitting here and arguing about "intent". How exactly would insulting someone with a racist comment not be maliciously intended?

The only way this could possibly be relevant is if someone says a racist word without having any idea what it means.

And when did I say that it wasn't? as I've said previously if Albasini used a racist term then he should be punished, there is no excuse for such language, but the possiblility that he used such a word should not result in him being widely condemned as a racist without any further discussion. Do you seriously not see the danger and harm in labelling someone, especially without proper thought?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do you seriously not see the danger and harm in labelling someone, especially without proper thought?

Evidently Michael Albasini doesn't.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

How do you guys detect racists, because "uses racial slurs in an attempt to cause offense" is pretty high up my list.

Offending someone because he's black.

Now that's a sensible post.

So you're an apologist for racists. You have company on this thread. Must make you feel better about yourself...:rolleyes

Now this is the reason why some people are getting worked up. You're in an argument with someone arguing that maybe you can't make a definite deduction about someone's sentiments or beliefs about race, based on two words he shouted when he was angry. And here you come up with some ridiculous ad hominem statement calling him an "apologist for racists". And you're not the only one making this kind of silly accusations.

I'm really done with this thread. I started posting here because I disagreed with people saying your true self comes out when you're angry, so when you use a denigrating racial slur when you're angry, it's completely impossible that you said something stupid you aren't serious about. The only possibility is that you actually secretly harbour some deep resentment against black people which came out now you're angry. It's that kind of speculative psychology that I've been arguing against. Now you can disagree with my critique on this line of thought, you can feel that my critique is ridiculousness or whatever, but I've stated in almost all of my posts that Albasini's behaviour is completely unacceptable and still there were accusations of being a defender of racism and nonsense like that. If you feel the need to show how anti-racism you are so bad, go do something about actual racism, rather than accusing people of defending racism, when this whole discussion really has nothing to do with whether using this kind of racial slurs is acceptable. Again read what people are saying. Nobody is saying calling a black person a dirty ****** is acceptable. Nobody is defending Albasini saying that. You're tilting at windmills.

 

[SeriousSam]

But if Chewie lives on Endor then Chewie is right

 

[rhubroma]

That post was referring to other use, I have made no direct comment on the language Albasini used as I do not know what was said. I am not sure what your abuse/racist intent argument was but needless to say that some would use a racist term without racial intent, it would be nieve to think otherwise.



I have no issue with people questioning his ethics and whether he is racist and the subject being discussed, in fact I hope people in cycling / his team are doing just that.



Using a racial term can/will be seen as racist but that does mean that was the intent, do you understand that?

Again I find it bizarre that you are happy to sit in judgement as to whether a man you do not know is racist but baulk at the idea of proposing a punishment, if you think an office or warehouse employee should be sacked why do you protect a 'privileged' cyclist?

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that? It isn't thus for the one who used racial epithets to decide whether or not he's racist, but always his victim.

To the last remark: if I called one of my colleagues or students a "dirty n!gger," I'd be fired on the spot. No if, ands or buts. Now if I were Albasini's sponsor, I'd have sent him home, but it's not up to me.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

Evidently Michael Albasini doesn't.

Hence

if Albasini used a racist term then he should be punished, there is no excuse for such language,

But again people fail to see or do not wish to see the correlation.

 

[The Principal Sheep]

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that? It isn't thus for the one who used racial epithets to decide whether or not he's racist, but always his victim.

To the last remark: if I called one of my colleagues or students a "dirty n!gger," I'd be fired on the spot. No if, ands or buts. Now if I were Albasini's sponsor, I'd have sent him home, but it's not up to me.

Please try and be an adult about this, so you believe that Albasini should be sent home from the tour but keep his place in the team, that is all you need to say.

I disagree with your comment that it is always up to the victim, if Reza said that he had no problem then does it make the comment alright? Of course not, if racist language is used then we should all take offence and see that some form of action is taken.

 

[SeriousSam]

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that?

Taking you at your word (sentiment of the one spoken to determines racism, intent of the speaker is irrelevant) would lead to absurd conclusions. You need to heavily qualify this for it to become remotely plausible.

 

[rhubroma]

Taking you at your word (sentiment of the one spoken to determines racism, intent of the speaker is irrelevant) would lead to absurd conclusions. You need to heavily qualify this for it to become remotely plausible.

What, pray tell, then, would you consider to be more significant, the intentions of the aggressor or sentiment of the victim? Yours is the type of inanity that isn't even worth thinking about.

 

[deValtos]

It doens't matter the intent of the speaker, but the sentiment of the one who received it! The latter denotes racism. Do you get that?

No it doesn't ?

And just to be clear that's pretty much what this argument has been about for the last 20 pages, everyone has agreed on what Albasini said was bad. We are just literally discussing the definition of racism now ...

First two paragraphs from wikipedia ...

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.

Some consider any assumption that a person's behavior is tied to their racial categorization is inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity. In sociology and psychology, some definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination."

Why are you so keen on telling people what denotes "racism" when it's not actually defined as racism ?

It's your opinion and saying "don't you get that?" over and over doesn't make it a fact.

Intent in my opinion (and other posters here) is the key to saying whether someone is racist or not, you and some others disagree ... it's that simple.

 

[rhubroma]

Please try and be an adult about this, so you believe that Albasini should be sent home from the tour but keep his place in the team, that is all you need to say.

I disagree with your comment that it is always up to the victim, if Reza said that he had no problem then does it make the comment alright? Of course not, if racist language is used then we should all take offence and see that some form of action is taken.

I'm saying in other occupations he would have been sent home. Reza didn't say it was alright, in fact he was driven to tears. And you are correct, even if he had that wouldn't make it alright. In the case I brought up, however, there would have not been much of an alternative but being fired.

Your point is thus that given the racial slur some form of punishment should have been inflicted. I think that this would certainly have been justifiable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it could not have been worked out in other ways.

I tend to find mere punishment as something that doesn't address the real issues anyway. At any rate, my contention is that if you choose a certain approach then, at the very least, you should be held fully accountable for it and, if brought to task, don't cry victimization. The idea, though, that somehow Albasini's words should not bear the ponderous weight and responsibility that comes with them, is merely pathetic and displays a gross misunderstanding of the issues.

 

[rhubroma]

No it doesn't ?

And just to be clear that's pretty much what this argument has been about for the last 20 pages, everyone has agreed on what Albasini said was bad. We are just literally discussing the definition of racism now ...

First two paragraphs from wikipedia ...

"Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. It often takes the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. It may also hold that members of different races should be treated differently.

Some consider any assumption that a person's behavior is tied to their racial categorization is inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity. In sociology and psychology, some definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination."

Why are you so keen on telling people what denotes "racism" when it's not actually defined as racism ?

It's your opinion and saying "don't you get that?" over and over doesn't make it a fact.

Intent in my opinion (and other posters here) is the key to saying whether someone is racist or not, you and some others disagree ... it's that simple.

In fact, calling a black man a "dirty n!gger" denotes racism as per the definition you yourself provide. Again, some here haven't got a clue.

 

[deValtos]

In fact, calling a black man a "dirty n!gger" denotes racism as per the definition you yourself provide. Again, some here haven't got a clue.

Again, no it doesn't ?

It says racism consists of prejudice and discrimination ... which can take the form of a comment "dirty n!igger" ...

It doesn't say the comment "dirty n!gger" denotes prejudice and discrimination.

 

[Jerkovin]

In a private conversation, is using a racial slur to cause offense ethically worse than using a non-racial slur to cause equal offense?

Of course. You can insult someone without discriminating against them....

 

[Jerkovin]

And when did I say that it wasn't? as I've said previously if Albasini used a racist term then he should be punished, there is no excuse for such language, but the possiblility that he used such a word should not result in him being widely condemned as a racist without any further discussion. Do you seriously not see the danger and harm in labelling someone, especially without proper thought?

Again, you seem to think that being a racist = some card-carrying KKK member who spends their spare time lynching black people.

Of course if, when angry, someone's first thought is to point out that the person in front of them is inferior to them because of skin colour, they are a racist. Why would that even appear in the mind of someone who isn't?

It doesn't mean they hate all black people and doesn't mean they can't apologize, admit they were wrong and refrain from speaking and thinking like that again.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Again, no it doesn't ?

It says racism consists of prejudice and discrimination ... which can take the form of a comment "dirty n!igger" ...

It doesn't say the comment "dirty n!gger" denotes prejudice and discrimination.

Are you seriously trying to argue that that phrase does not in and of itself denote prejudice and discrimination?

 

[kingjr]

Soooo, using your definition, do you think he would have used a term related to the skin color of a white rider who was p!ssing him off? Because your an idiot of you think he would have said something along the lines of "you white piece of sh!t"...he might have used the latter, but the "white" part would not have been part of his sentence. Thus, he discriminated because he used skin color to insult someone with that skin color where he would not have done so with a person of a lighter hue...(yea, that fits the definition of discrimination...look it up junior)

If a white rider was p!ssing him off, he would have probably used some other apparent traits about that rider to insult him. Sexual orientation for example, or some traits about that persons face, such as a long nose, or large front-teeth. Anything that will surely hurt the other one. You get the idea? It's the lowest and ugliest form of insulting someone, no question.

And no, what we need is the definition of racism:

Definition of racism (Oxford Dictionary)

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

I don't see it here


In a scenario where the group comes through and Albasini chases down Reza not because it's tacitcally sensible but because he's black and he doesn't want the black guy to win, now that would be a great example of racism, and Albasini wouldn't even need to be a KKK member for that.