exactly

that is what most people would think or assume

not that mumbo jumbo from the UN shown above

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mumbo+jumbo

i quote the dictionary in case some think 'mumbo jumbo' sounds suspiciously like 'bongo bongo'

Not sure why the aim to not discriminate on several grounds rather than just one should be 'political' but there you go.

The UN definition is for one type of discrimination but rather than limiting the definition to what should reasonably be included in that definition the UN definition includes other aspects. It doesn't follow that discrimination based on the other aspects is acceptable, only that such discrimination doesn't reasonably fall within the definition.

Another issue is that discrimination can be positive or negative. The positive form for the benefit of one group can only take place with balancing negative form against another group.

A better definition. The UN definition is too broad. The only irony being that "race" as we used to conceive of it prior to genomics, no longer exists. It is really a case of people belonging to specific cultural heritages, and debating whether it is right to discriminate between cultures.

Probably more that a new expression is needed.

"Global warming" doesn't fit well when you're being lashed with rain or you see more snow in a part of the world in a couple of days than the whole of the last decade, for example, so "climate change" is better.

The UN definition is good in that it recognises more than one kind so rather than redefine racism to suit the expanded definition, rename it.

I think that when people resort to semantics they are missing the point completely.

It's unfortunate an earlier poster introduced a definition not recognised (quite rightly as they subsequently admitted) most likely by the vast majority of reasonable persons understanding of the term.

… any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.(Part 1 of Article 1 of the U.N. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) [

wow

WHAT A MOUTHFUL

My guess is that it must have taken a small army of international diplomats, plus several lawyers, and scores of faceless bureaucrats, to come up with this precise wording, after it must have been debated to death in one of several sub-committees, before it was put to a vote and approved.

I must have been distracted in 1966 since until a few days ago I had never heard of it!

You should spend more time on the guardian football blogs. It comes up regularly over there.

I guess we will see 70,000 Utd fans arrested then when they start sing You Scouse ****ards or Cockney Rent Boys or enquiring as to when Leeds fans last had sexual relationships with a sheep.

Er I think it was I who introduced the definition, I don't remember admitting anything. I certainly wouldn't call those who do not have a grasp of the concept of race/ethnicity/culture reasonable.

I see them more as dodos, ostriches with their heads in the sand, cuckoo, birdbrained, obstinate in their refusal to see anything but what comforts them.

In the absence of any more bird analogies I'll stop now.

Indeed you did post the definition. I see it was someone else who suggested the definition is incorrect but you still seem to have your head in the sand to borrow your phrase. Most people have a grasp of the concepts of race, ethnicity and culture. Your rather hysterical opinions on these issues don't really add to a rational debate.

thanks a lot

you are entitled to your opinion

my dear mama, some 60 years ago, taught me that opinions are like arse-holes in that everyone has one.

Well so be it from one who is a dodo, an ostrich with my head in the sand, a cuckoo, a birdbrain, and obstinate in my refusal to see anything but what comforts me

I made no comment on the proportion of people who understand the current concept of racism when I gave my opinion of those who chose to ignore or deny it.

The 1966 definition as provided by the dis-united nations only serves to confuse. If it ain't broke then don't fix it.

I do not agree it would wise to rename it as it would only make matters worse

Leave well enough alone.

(And i doubt that bats would be pleased, after all, it is not a black and white issue)

Pun intended