That's not presenting an explanation of how it would not be racism, that's presenting an explanation of the manner in which the racism was formed. And, yes, racism usually forms based on negative experience (either personal or relayed through others, some of which may be intentionally or unintentionally distorting events) of either specific target races or “not-like-me” races generally.
And, it's cyclical, because racism contributes to such experiences in others when it is put into action.
“Racism” is well-established for discrimination by race or ethnicity (the distinction between which is entirely arbitrary, anyway.)
Edit: words and grammar.
This goes against popular opinion, I know, but it has been my experience.
Indeed, just from my experience.
However, I have visited the States once and was very much impressed by how approachable and friendly people are - much more so than anywhere else I have been (border control staff excepted, of course).
I know a few people who say they hate Americans but, when pressed, they usually admit not having much of a reason that's based in any sort of reality. In other words, they have never been there and haven't met that many in real life.
Again, just definitionally; that's not what that word means.
When everything is equally bad, then nothing’s any worse than anything else. I think that second statement is clearly worse than the first and, as an ideology, has implications that are orders of magnitude more awful.
Viewing an identity group as morally inferior (and yours, therefore, as superior) based on what some members of that identity group did in the past does involve a notion of superiority.
On the one hand, this is a very silly debate and I don't know why I'm having it. But on the other, I don't really understand this new impulse to widen the tent doors of racism so that we can definitionally have more of it and maybe if I did understand that I'd have less to disagree about with people on the Left with whom I'm otherwise politically sympatico.
The explanation about it not being racist is simple: this has nothing to do with your race, and more with what your people and army did to them.
Others with the same race as you, but different nationality, wouldn't haven't gotten the same treatment, thus, not racist.
There is, in fact, an ethnic difference between Germans and Poles. On the other hand, you are correct that people often don't describe something as racism if they feel it is justified (or at least excusable) based on history.
It still is racism, and a lot of what is described as racism has similar roots; people are highly selective (and often racist) on which ethnic bigotries they describe as “racism”.
They also don't describe something as racism if it's not based on race.
>It still is racism, and a lot of what is described as racism has similar roots; people are highly selective (and often racist) on which ethnic bigotries they describe as “racism”.
It seems like you fall into the error of describe something as racism if you feel it is not justified and non-excusable, not caring one iota whether it has to do with race or not.
Most ethnic bigotries are totally unrelated to race. And not forgiving some country for bombing yours, or gasing your parents in concentration camps is not an "ethnic bigotry" anyway.
Sounds like discrimination based on nationality.
I guess better forgiveness for German aggression are due to good behaviour from post-war Germany, okay education in north and western Europe, and also that Germany behaved _relatively_ good on the western front. Of course it will take longer for eastern Europe mostly due to the extreme ugliness of the eastern front, and the huge economic differences.
Um... yes? I'd be pretty ashamed and disappointed in myself if not. I think I know the difference between the actions of a government versus the beliefs and values held by any particular individual, even if they lived under that government. Not to mention the fact that people are not responsible for the sins of their ancestors.