Anthropology-related questions like this or this may fall in unwanted trouble regarding racism or politics or such-kind of complications.

So, before asking such kind of answer; how could we understand which terminologies may be considered as attacking/ racist/ hurting etc; and which are safe; and how could we make our sentences 'moderate', so that no-one feels inferior or superior.

So we should have some sort of guideline. Isn't?

Since by-definition science deals with truth; in subjects like anthropology, human-biology, genetics, genetic disease and their control, etc; inevitably every times there will come discussion about genetic variation in human races or populations. May it be about lactose-intolerance or sickle-cell-anaemia. If we censor them out; world's knowledge would be tampered.

So we should have certain guidelines as well as certain amount of permissions too.

Isn't that?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The general guidelines I'd follow is avoid using terms which are derogatory or used to insult an individual belonging to a certain race. Also depicting one race more deserving than the other is racism. But , stating the facts of it without insult like Caucasians have larger bodies and eyes than east Asians is not at all racism as it merely states a biological fact. Finally lack of information or disinformation should not be racism as long as OP wishes to accept and correct the mistake. Everything else is racism for over-privileged snowflakes $\endgroup$ Oct 20 '16 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ but which comment might be derogatory, and which one not; could that be defined in logical terms? Also Someone may have lack in current vocabulary about 'derogatory'. in this question; "red indian" was consedered as a racist word but once upon a time in our school exams on literature we used the term "red-indian". Maybe it was then not considered derogatory. $\endgroup$ Nov 21 '16 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ I think it was back when the minority rights were still very poor and racism was still very prevalent in the united states. I'm sure a term which is known to be derogatory by very few people can be forgiven and considered as a mistake instead of deliberate insult, unless the user of that term is purposefully using it in an insulting context and refuses to acknowledge the mistake and make it clear that he had no intention to insult, $\endgroup$ Nov 22 '16 at 5:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1062760 I'm pretty sure that quite a number of people still thinks this is a fair description of the current situation: "...when the minority rights were still very poor and racism was still very prevalent in the united states." $\endgroup$ Nov 25 '16 at 9:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @fileunderwater perhaps! But atleast today the blacks have right to vote and can hold high ranks in the government as we saw with barak obama. Rascism still exists in the stated but compared to older times now there are laws against rascism which are often enforced as well. So not a solution but some improvement $\endgroup$ Nov 26 '16 at 6:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .