Racism

This might be dangerous territory - but so much more important because of it.
(Please comment on this post)

I'm from Denmark, and although I'm not proud of the way politics have turned in the past decade (very xenophobic), I'm still inclined to think that we are a kind and tolerant people.

The other day this was challenged by and Irishman, who in particular did not like our use of the word "indianer" (similar to the English "indian", but with a slightly different meaning).

The discussion lead to these two questions:

1. Is it racism if you use a common (non derogatory) word to talk to others about a non-present ethnic group who finds the word derogatory?
2. Or do you become a racist if you use words that are non-derogatory to you, used in a non-derogatory way, but perceived to be so by a third person?  

In both these cases I think the answer is no.

Some further thoughts on this:

In Danish the word "indianer" means: 

"Person belonging to an ethnic group that together with inuits and aleuts are the indigenous people of the North and South America". (picture)

In English, this is what an American-Indian is:

"A member of any of the aboriginal peoples of the western hemisphere except often the Eskimos; especially :  an American Indian of North America and especially the United States".

(Merriam-Webster)

So the definitions don't line up completely; the English definition does not include Eskimos, and is emphasising the native Americans of north America to a higher degree. An Indian is thus only a person from India.

The discussion was mainly about whether or not it was racist to use the (Danish) word "indianer" when talking about the indigenous people of South America.

My own opinion on the matter lies very close to the following (taken from the introduction to ethnic slur on wikipedia):

"For instance, many of the terms listed below (such as "Gringo", "Yank", etc.) are used by large numbers of human beings in many parts of the world as part of their ordinary speech or thinking without any intention of causing offence, and with little or no evidence that such usage does in fact cause much or indeed any offence, while the implicit or explicit labeling of such large numbers of people as racists (or similar terms such as prejudiced, bigoted, ethnophobic, xenophobic, etc.), simply because they use some words on the list below, can itself be deeply unfair and insensitive and can thus cause deep offence".

So among Danes there's no issue here, but when you mix it up a little and add a Swede and an Irish to the company things get more interesting. They will now perceive the Danes as being insensitive and racist - who's right here? Can all Danes be deemed racists just because the same word has a different meaning abroad? 

There are words of cause, where even I know not to use the Danish word outside conversation with ethnic Danes. E.g. it's safe to use the Danish equivalent of Negro in Denmark, it's spelled "neger" and just means that your ancestors lived within 20-30 degrees of the equator. This is backed by multiple court rulings, and not my just my opinion.

Racism by naming/labelling 

It was pointed out that maybe it has to do with who comes up with the name. If you don't yourself come up with the name given to you, it is racist to call you by it, if you have your own name for yourself. A little reading on etymology reveals that almost no ethnic group carries a name they chose for themselves. This makes sense as names for ethnic groups are usually needed to talk about the group, which is a thing most often done by people not in that group (if you're in the group "us" suffices). 

I certainly don't think of myself as a racist, and surely you're only a racist if your actions (or words) causes harm? - with or without intention.

Please leave comments