We are at cross purposes here. Racism as understood here in the UK, which was the locus I was referring to when discussing the issue earlier, is largely about skin colour. I have heard of mixed race twins, one of whom looks 'White' and one of whom looks 'Black', one of whom has had some experience of racism as understood in the UK context, and one of whom has not as he is not noticeably different to the majority because he lacks the skin colour identifier. I think you would agree with me that the twins share exactly the same "heritage and ethnicity as a whole"; they just look different. And it is this looking diffferent which counts in the UK context.
But it's not as simple as that, of course, and it's easy to cite European and indeed British examples of overt racism that have little to do with skin colour. The case of the Protestants and Catholics has already been cited, but it's not hard to cite others. EDIT: I'm also going to point out that in your example, whilst they share the same heritage/ethnicity, those who are being racist against one of them is making an
assumption - probably an incorrect one - of their heritage/ethnicity and then judging them based on their assumption, not based on the truth of the matter. Racism and reality share few friendships.
And again, if it is logically indistinguishable from racism - ie. religious or caste/class discrimination - than the same arguments apply. It is the
logic that is troublesome, not whether it refers to skin colour or not. And I would assume that people here would naturally extend those arguments to any kind of broad-based ethnic or cultural discrimination.
As for the Thai/Vietnamese reference it seems to me that you are just making the same point I made in the original post you were responding to when I lamented the anti-racists' "attempt to project some sort of common feeling between diverse peoples in Africa, the subcontinent, the Caribbean, the Americas, Oceania etc on the basis of shared similar darker skin tones merely" and said that:
Yes, I am, but with the critical caveat that it is not those who fight racism - of whom I definitely count myself a part, having been subject to a great deal of racial abuse and/or stereotyping in my time - who are at fault for this. It is the racists who made skin colour an issue in the first place, who are the originators and the prime perpretrators of the fallacy. Without them, the issue goes away.
(And anyway, I'd argue anyone who does argue that we should lump together all these disparate groups under the guise of skin colour to "protect" them somehow is racially stereotyping and hence being somewhat racist themselves, but no one here is actually doing that)
"The fact that in many cases the discrimination within and amongst the protected groups which anti-racist crusaders like BB is seeking to protect, Galahad-like, is stronger than the discrimination which we are all supposed to be outraged about should indicate that we are at least partially on the wrong track in some respects with this racism obsession."
See above.
In the UK, Thais and Vietnamese would be lumped together as protrected groups wrt to the anti-racism campaign, but the reality is of course that they are sufficiently different as to engender racist strife between the two groups in their common SE Asian homeland. This is just one of a number of reasons why I feel that this whole racism discourse as it stands today is to a great extent invalid as it rests on false premises, some of which have been itemised in the preceding post.
But again, it is the
racists who fail to make the distinction. It is the racist who causes these issues. And racism
must be fought at every opportunity (though obviously not via racist discriminatory policy of its own). The reason the racism discourse is being held on these terms is that because it is by its nature reactive; it exists to fight whatever abomination racists come up with next.
