I included an example of it being used in the context I refer to in the post description.
Comment on Is referring to countries as "civilized" and "uncivilized" racist?
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 day ago
Depends on context. In the context of an informal conversation about a specific kind of law it’s fine IMO. It’s also fine if it’s obviously not that serious, like e.g. different styles of toilets that are both found in the ‘developed world’. When you’re talking about a topic where overwhelmingly, richer countries do it one way and poorer countries do it another way, that’s where calling the poorer countries ‘uncivilized’ starts sounding racist (or maybe just classist, considering countries like Belarus which are poor, authoritarian and underdeveloped but not inhabited by any brown people).
Tiffany1994@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
White on white can still be racism. There are subtle differences between nations.
“Jews” is actually a good example. Its both a religion and a race.
Its actually quite telling how when the less different looking people there are the more we start hating on even the smallest physical differences.
Lembot_0002@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Jews are not a separate race. Separate religion and nation, but not race.
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
You can look this up easily.
Wikipedia:
Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group
An ethnoreligious group is a group of people with a common religious and ethnic background
An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of peoplewith shared attributes. … It is also used interchangeably with race.[7]
Lembot_0002@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Ethnos and nationality isn’t a race. Completely different concepts.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 day ago
I don’t think that can accurately be described as “racism” though, if even the “racists” won’t say that the ethnicity they’re hating is a different race. More general terms like ‘chauvinism’ would fit better.