Not sure if you’ll see this response…this conversation is kinda lost back here on an article from almost three years ago ;-). But I appreciate your point, and think it deserves a response.

Racism IS a difficult concept to define…there are some real gray areas, along the edges anyway. Certainly cultural differences, and the way people respond to them, can fall in that gray zone. But there are also some actions/behaviors that are NOT gray, and are indisputably racist under any accepted definition of the term.

Re Barbie — My only real point in replying to her was that she seems to have a completely mistaken (and rather bizarre, not to mention disturbing) concept that something can be defined as racist ONLY if it involves bodily injury or damage to property…which is utterly ridiculous. While I’m not sure I will ever understand how her mind works, I can’t help but feel some curiosity as to where she ever came up with THAT idea, because it’s just so obviously wrongheaded.

I also had to laugh at her twisted interpretation of the warning about “weasel words” on the Wikipedia article about racism. How she interpreted that to mean that the subject of the article ITSELF is a “weasel word” I will never understand. But I do hope she sees this comment and goes back and actually reads the article…and, even better, does some research using more reliable sources to learn what racism really is. Frankly, her refusal to accept racism as anything beyond actual physical violence troubles me. That’s why I threw in a few non-violent, but just as despicable, examples of racism.

Although to be perfectly honest, I doubt that anything I say to her will make any difference.

But to get back to your point…and to bring this back to the article, and the accusations of racism contained in this comment thread…

I agree that there are cultural differences which influence values. Cultural and racial differences also influence behavior, standards, appearance, and a whole host of other things. And that’s something that should be able to be discussed…meaning, we should be able to mention differences between races without being accused of racism. Saying “black people usually have dark hair” or “Asians eat a lot of fish” is not racist…these are just objective, verifiable facts, without any negative judgment behind them. But to say something like “Middle Eastern people are all terrorists” or “all Asians are rude”…that’s when you begin to move into the realm of racism.

Remember, racism is all about the idea that one race is superior in some way to another. It’s perfectly fine to say “my race is different from yours” or even “people of my race act differently, look differently, eat differently from yours.” It becomes racism when you say “my race is BETTER than yours,” or, worse, “all people of that race are bad.”

And that’s what I think people saw in Jean Turner’s comment above, that inspired the cries of racism. She is essentially saying that Indian/Pakistani people are dirty and don’t clean properly BECAUSE of their race/culture. And that’s where people objected.

Personally I think her comments fell into the gray area…it could very well be a culturally influenced behavior. But I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to branding people negatively based solely on their race or national origin. I personally think it just shouldn’t be done…period.

As for Barbie…it’s pretty obvious she’s going to object to ANYONE using the term “racism” in this entire site, because she was accused of being racist herself. I’m sure she’d like to wipe that word out of existence. Unfortunately for her, she can’t. Racism exists…racists exist…and some behavior simply IS racist. And that’s a fact.

Ignoring Barbie for the moment. This is a difficult one. One one hand, we do not wish to make generalizations about someone based upon their race, religion, etc. But at the same time, there are cultural differences which influence values.

Not an easy one.

But ignoring the odd timing of your comment, I just can’t stop myself from pointing out that your definition of the term “racism” is not, by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, anything resembling the actual definition as it is used in the English language. Racism is most certainly NOT limited only to “bodily injury” or “damage to property” due to someone’s race or nationality. Racism does not always involve physical harm. Where on earth did you come up with that?

Further, clearly you need to study up on Wikipedia, and how it works. Wikipedia does have an article about racism, but the article is topped by a warning that it CONTAINS “weasel words”. Specifically, the warning says this: “This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.”

That doesn’t mean that the word ITSELF is a “weasel word,” it means that somebody, in writing the article ABOUT racism, used “weasel words.” Further, you really need to understand that Wikipedia is not in any way a valid resource for information about anything. It’s all user-generated content…not official definitions.

A better source would be the dictionary. That’s where you will find true word definitions. So, to help you, here is an actual published definition, from Dictionary.com:

Racism:
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

As you can see, racism does not always involve physical violence. Are you suggesting that a company who only hires caucasians isn’t racist? Or a landlord who won’t rent to blacks isn’t racist? Are you suggesting that the KKK protesting outside black churches isn’t racism…unless they physically harm someone?

Sorry, barbie, but your…um…”true colors” are showing again.

There was nothing that would have justified me getting a refund, but at the same time, it is a property that I absolutely would never return to. It just wasn’t run very well.

There were people smoking in the hallways, smoking rooms in the same hallway as the non smoking rooms, the breakfast area wasn’t well kept up, the rooms were dated and old.

I never get it when people put smokers near non smoking rooms…..

Actually, there are lots of places where the cost higher than that is justified. Beds, linens, and other items only last so long. Properties have to be upgraded, and taxes have to be paid. Additionally, investors have to get a return on their investment. If they did not do so, then they wouldn’t invest in hotels.

Certainly, there are hotels that overcharge a great deal..but a lot of them just need to take a reasonable profit at the end of the day.

Cleaning ability isn’t just an American thing. It’s a customer service thing. In your case, maybe it’s a jealousy thing?

Something I have to tell you. As has happened in most vacation areas, South Lake Tahoe experienced a large number of Indian and Pakistani people buy and operate properties. When we bought in 1985, there were 2 owners. In 1999, these folk owned about 50% of the motels in town (about 60 properties).

Their “cleaning” abilities were a joke. They wiped down the bathroom with the towels. They wiped out the glass and put a new paper bag on it. They put the top sheet to the bottom and a new one on the top. They pulled a clean pillow case over the used one. I could go on and on. I talked to people who had slept with their clothes on.

I was active in our lodging association, but we were never able to do much. I left the area in 2002. When I travel, and pull into a motel, if an Indian or Pakistani person comes to the desk, I leave and we go on until we find a place with American people managing the property.

I don’t know what ti is, but the “standards” are just not there. I don’t know why they have not learned how to do it right. I do know that a lot of people are just happy to get ANY place late at night or if they had had some drinks, so they don’t care.

Then, when it was the “slow” season, they posted $29.00 signs in their windows!! Their rooms were not worth that, and they charged a LOT of money on weekends and holidays, but on Monday thru Thursday, the rest of us, charging maybe $35 to $50, were having to compete against $29.00 in their windows.

The other BIG problem is hotels charging outrageous fees like $100.00 or $150.00 and more for a room. There is not a room in the world worth over $50.00 to $75.00 a night. Just because there are folks who have enough money to throw it away, doesn’t mean that hotels should charge such rates. It is criminal. If I HAD it, I’d give it to charity, not the Ritz!!