>i'm not sure what you're on about and don't have time right now.
that's okay. but i was responding to what you'd written:
>i'd call this ethnocentrism, though charles had
>another word for it, though i don't recall. the point is that such a
>belief doesn't necessarily have a deleterious effect on an american's or
>americans' [as a group] lives.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au --------------------------------
>ange
>>I would have thought it was fairly obvious that just because something or
>>someone is not powerful enough to have _the desired_ deleterious effects on
>>others does not change whether it is racism or not. americanfront will not
>>have much effect on what happens in the US I suspect, but that doesn't mean
>>they aren't racist. One Nation is in a pretty poor state at the moment,
but
>>that doesn't mean they aren't racist. et cetera...
>
>this is because there aren't any powerful
>>social institutions and practices that intersect in complex ways with other
>>beliefs and practices which systematically and systemically diminish the
>>lives of americans.
>
>i'm not sure what you're on about and don't have time right now. i was
>simply responding to the claim that the japanese are racists because they
>think americans smell--i don't think that's racism or racist for a japanese
>person to think this. so i post the sum. of young's work as i'd mentioned
>a while back. i was talking about structural racism --and miles jumped in
>with an important point about how firms practice discrimination w/o seeing
>it as racist. the comments were specifically to henry and michael wrt the
>way in which racism against people of asian descent works in the u.s.
>