Someone mentioned to me that they found the behaviour of a certain nationality frustrating because… and then went on to give their reasons.
Now some of what they said could probably be legitimately attached to the nationality in questions, but of course, as any sane person knows, caricatures – while they may see and exaggerate certain traits – are NEVER actual portrayals of individuals.
It did get me to thinking though…
When I lived in the West Indies, it was quite normal to refer to people from one island as being a certain way as compared to the people of other islands. Now, the reasons for this were varied: sometimes the island in question was smaller, and therefore less culturally diverse; sometimes the island was more affected by criminal elements; sometimes the island was more influenced by one colonising European nation than another.
Whatever the case, it seemed quite natural to characterised islands in general terms.
Back in Canada, though, I know that had I casually referred to the people of say, Barbados, as being laid back, and the people of, say, Jamaica, as being intense and unfriendly, it would have been met with accusations of racism. (That was a common caricature on the island where I lived, incidentally.)
But I am not sure that that’s racism. It would probably be racism if a person denounced all West Indians as being a certain type, but to be culturally-specific seems more ‘culturalist’ than racist to me.
And while all prejudices are unhelpful – and sometimes downright evil – the latter seems a little less diabolical than actual racism.
Or are they the same? What do you think?