Hi Alan,

>Of course it makes a difference who says the words.

I'm saying that it should not. The act of discrimination, at least if you want to convict someone for it, you should have a rational definition rather than an vague and emotional one. This because then much depends, on how the words were said, the context of the event, the group of minorities (Skin colour, ethnic group, religion, country, etc) which were 'generalised', etc.

>On the other hand, who says only whites can be racist? I don't know how prevalent it is today, but there certainly was a time when even blacks had a pecking order depending on how dark a person's skin was. The darker the skin, the lower the person on the racial hierarchy.

Oh, that still is common practise in a lot of poor countries (e.g. Dominican Republic).

>But to answer your question, maybe discrimination is the wrong word. Racist or derogatory may be a better choice. Refusing to hire a black; that's discrimination. Hating or abasing a black because of skin colour; that's racism.

I agree.

>The shout "You black rat" is probably better called racist than discriminatory.

I don't see that. The guy is black. And AFAIK, blacks want to be referred by as blacks, so the word black should not been seen as offending any more than 'Red'. the word 'rat' was only ment for the person who he was talking to. By definition: if you make a statement about one individual exclusively it is neither discrimination or racism.

It would be entirely different if he said: "You blacks are all rats".

>The difference is in how it is perceived. If there were a history of discrimination or abasement to persons with red hair, then "You red haired rat" would be perceived as derogatory. But there isn't.

I strongly disagree, here. The one shouting might not be aware of this history. How can you blame him from "Discrimination" then ? IOW, its too vague...

Walter,