I already feel that I may regret adding this to mole-hill of conroversy that Hatrack is experiencing at the moment, but I feel that this has been brushed but not investigated and I personnally feel curious about the definition of "white" or "caucasian." What physical characteristics and/or genetic backgrounds would qualify a person for a descriptor that is used so universally? I ask this because someone of Greek heritage and another of Irish certainly dont have much in common genetically or aesthetically, are they both "white?"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The generally employed answer is that if you're ancestors spent a few thousand years in Europe, you're probably white. The actual answer is that race is made up construct so the question is mostly meaningless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's mostly characterized by lighter pigmentation. Even though it differs from culture to culture, the crude fast test for it is to look back at when categorization by western nations was lumped into 'caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid' — anything that was in 'caucasoid' back then is a near certain pick for what constitutes 'white.'
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Anything from this to this.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
It seems like in America, with so many different heritages we just group things together based on easy to identify skin color. I know I've got Irish, French, Swiss, English, German, etc. all in my heritage, so that type of ethnic identification becomes harder to pinpoint.
But maybe I'm mistaken. I know there are people here from other countries. What is it like there? In France and England, do they still talk about "white" or do they normally refer to ethnicities like "French" and "English"?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Whiteness in America today seems like it has less to do with cultural heritage and more to do with how others perceive you (and how you perceive others). Scientifically, race is a social construct; however societal race is filled with assumptions or lack thereof about your class, family situation, criminal record, the neighborhood you live in, etc. More to the point, being white has a lot to do with the sort of privileges you enjoy in your society. This "white privilege" is difficult to see (if your white) but it does inform our worldviews and our upbringing.
In my class this summer we've discussed this quite a bit. Some great articles to read are "Engaging Whiteness: how racial power gets reified in education" by Kathy Hytten and John Warren and "Da State of Pidgin Address" by Lee A. Tonouchi. There's also a great resource in a book called "The Everyday Writing Center" called the whiteness inventory. It is a series of yes or no questions intended to help tutors in training take notice of what sort of things inform white privilege. I can find it if you would like.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I ask this because someone of Greek heritage and another of Irish certainly dont have much in common genetically or aesthetically, are they both "white?"
I seem to recall that at one point in this country's history, neither of these groups was considered "white."
--j_k
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: ... I ask this because someone of Greek heritage and another of Irish certainly dont have much in common genetically or aesthetically, are they both "white?"
The latter mind you is relative of course. I find that they both look the same
One interesting note, if you go do genetic clustering, and choose to cluster into three or more groups, you can find that most in the Middle East (and even South Asia (as in India)) end up clustering together with white people.
quote:In France and England, do they still talk about "white" or do they normally refer to ethnicities like "French" and "English"?
Well, on forms in the UK, in the ethnicity section they often have 'White British' and 'White Other' options, among many others.
I don't fill in that bit of the form anyway, if I can help it, as I don't think it's anyone's business. You can look at me and decide what you think I am.
BNP (British National Party - the tiny little racist right-wing skinhead political party) members talk about 'English Ethnicity' and think that they're in some way superior. Thankfully, most people laugh and point at people who go on like that. It's almost impossible to know that all your ancestors are from the UK, or even Europe, considering the amount of immigration we've always had. There were African soldiers in England in Roman times.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Depending on who I was with at the time, I've been classified as both white and "brown" (Though I have light tan skin.)
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: [QUOTE] It's almost impossible to know that all your ancestors are from the UK, or even Europe, considering the amount of immigration we've always had. There were African soldiers in England in Roman times.
Probably Syrians, Arabs and every other neighboring peoples as well I imagine. The Romans were a mixed up lot.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: It's almost impossible to know that all your ancestors are from the UK, or even Europe, considering the amount of immigration we've always had. There were African soldiers in England in Roman times.
It's a guaranteed certainty that not all of your ancestors are from England anyway- the question is as academic in Europe as it is in America. Are you of Anglo-Saxon derivation? Norman French? Gaelic? Gallic? Pre-Roman? It's a virtual certainty that there is not a living person in England with all of his ancestors, or even the larger part of his parentage comprised of pre-Roman islanders. We don't even know much about those people or the languages they spoke, or where many of them ultimately had come from- the island has been inhabited since before even the most recent glacial period.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I ask this because someone of Greek heritage and another of Irish certainly dont have much in common genetically or aesthetically, are they both "white?"
I seem to recall that at one point in this country's history, neither of these groups was considered "white."
--j_k
The idea that anything European is white is a recent phenomenon in American history. Historians that look at this type of stuff (strikes me more as sociology or anthro really, but we dabble) might quibble by a decade or two, but even as recently as the 60s and 70s, ethnic communities were far more defined by their cultural differences than their skin color. It's only the last generation or two, people born in the 60s or later who came of age in the 70s and 80s, who white-washed anyone from Europe into a single race and stopped looking at where they came from. I haven't read any studies/research that hazards a guess as to why this happened, but it would be an interesting research topic.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Whiteness in America is more than a collection of racial or ethnic traits. It is also the schema for traits associated with high(er) socioeconomic status or those holding that status or mainstream culture.
I know black people who have been called white because they are college-educated. I've been called white because I don't hold traditional Chinese values. I know white people slinging slurs like white trash or cracker, the former removing association with the latter because they are lower class or have less education.
You can't talk about what is white in America without talking about the term's complete and complex meaning.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
A quote from a horrible (yet funny) movie comes to mind
"If you white, you Ben Affleck!" - Rolemodels
Most of my ancestors migrated here in the mid 1800's from Scotland. My wife is Albanian, and though she is white, she has what I would describe as olive skin. It is not brown at all, just....different.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
White is simply the "modern" label for European in America. In Europe I rarely hear people use the term "white", but they tend to speak more of Europeans, specifically Western European, as a group. Even within that group I hear Germans often speak of the "lazy Southern Europeans" or things like " that is just how they do it in the south."
In Germany people tend to not see the British as really being European, and they don't see Russians as being Europeans ( go figure ).
The classification of people into groups is really pretty typical throughout history, what changes is what specific trait or quality puts you into a group. Due to the nature of slavery in American history there is an emphasis on skin tone, Europe has a focus on national origin, and Japan gets serious about what neighborhood you come from.
That and I laugh when people talk about Europeans as being "white" as I know many people in Germany and other "white" countries in Europe that tan extremely dark, but then I also know pasty people from Spain and Portugal. I tend to think of myself as pink, because if you put me next to white paint it is obvious we are of separate pigmentation.
American emphasis on skin color also comes from an anthropological concept known as hypodescent, which simply is the idea that if one of your ancestors is a specific race/ethnicity/descriptor then all descendants retain those characteristics. This came about due to the American legal system and is now firmly rooted into American culture. To the shock of many Americans hypodescent is not the norm for the world, interestingly in Latin America it is the exact opposite.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Being "white" is just being lighter than the person looking/judging you to be so. When my white freinds look at my wife and say, "damn, she's white"....they're being somewhat literal. I've heard black people use the same type of language for the opposite spectrum. Unfortunately, saying someone is white or black isn't just stating the obvious,ie that person is lighter or darker than you. Many people don't consider themselves white, red, brown or black... it sais more about the speaker than the individual. I hate to self identify and I'm only slightly mixed race. If I were half white and half black,...which would I embrace and which would I reject? Should you pick what society thinks you are at a glance? Which half of your family do you not identify with, or at least affirm on a job application that you don't.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My brother in law is mixed and he identifies as black because he is treated that way. He doesn't view it as disavowing those family members that are white. In fact, based on his relationships with his family, if he is disavowing any side it is the black side. He has to face all the racism and negatives of being black and gets none of the white privileges so he feels like saying he is black is more fitting. Of course, to be fair, his black relatives do say he is not black and don't get how to relate to him at all. If you ever read stuff white people like, my brother in law is so the white guy they are profiling. Except for the dark skin.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
"White" has been subject to scientific classification for quite some time, as much as I hate to disagree with the majority. Even though the scientific community has refuted the old theories of human taxonomy that were prevalent around the turn of the last century (caucasoid, mongeloid), there are several fields that are actively involved in categorizing racial differentiation.
Craniofacial anthropometry is used in forensic anthropology to determine race and other characteristics, with a high degree of accurately, by taking a series of skull measurements. My father is an archaeologist working for the BLM, and he is regularly consulted to perform this type of profiling for law enforcement agencies.
Mitrochondrial DNA haplogroups can also be tested to determine origin and evolutionary development among people's matrilineal genetic heritage From what I understand, you can submit for a (relatively) inexpensive bloodtest and determine your genetic ancestry.
Why are so many people claiming that "color" is a product of the most recent few generations? Scientific texts from a hundred years ago were full of references. And then there was eugenics.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
To head off the whole "race is a social construct" vs. "race has scientific biological underpinnings" argument (although I'm impressed by the discussion here thus far, Hatrack - way to go!), I'd like to present this link. Basically, it points out that race, as socially constructed in the US is connected to race as it can be constructed biologically.
Summary Quote:
quote:First, an important preliminary-- there are millions of places in the human genome where any two given people could possible differ, either by a single base change, the addition of an entire chunk of DNA, the inversion of a chunk of DNA, or whatever. Keep that in mind: millions and millions of places (for a database of many of the single base changes, see the HapMap). Now, the intuitive argument: after humans arose in Africa, they dispered themselves throughout the world. By both chance and in response to selection due to their new environments, populations in different parts of the world ended up with different frequencies of those millions of DNA variants. Simple enough. Now, below the fold, I will present the evidence that 1. the patterns of genetic variation form clusters on a world-wide scale, 2. genetic clusters coincide with what is commonly called "race", and 3. genetic variation between clusters is relevant phenotypically.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: To head off the whole "race is a social construct" vs. "race has scientific biological underpinnings" argument (although I'm impressed by the discussion here thus far, Hatrack - way to go!), I'd like to present this link.
Thanks for the link. I'd just like to pull this quote:
quote:I have enough faith in human intelligence to think that the first person who called race a societal construct did not mean that it had no biological component as well--note that the Wikipedia entry on adolesence refers to it as a "cultural and social phenomenon" but also "the transitional stage of human development in which a juvenile matures into an adult". People seem to somehow be able to keep the cultural and biological aspects of adolescence in their heads at the same time, as I imagine the first sociologists to study race were able to do (I may, of course, be wrong), yet somehow the fact that biological differences are interpreted through a cultural lens has somehow morphed into the idea that the biological differences don't exist to begin with (see, e.g. the ASA statement on race).
Whiteness is both a biological and social construct, but the term is very commonly used with its social definition.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think the current trend for geneticists is to say hereditary differences in populations instead of race. And instead of racial traits, they say phenotypic traits.
Posted by Can5 (Member # 12244) on :
White is asking "what is white?".
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
For the record, whenever I've heard anthropologists say "race is a social construct" it's been in the context of discussing infinite variation. What I meant, and I think what others mean by race as a social construct is that there is no distinct separation, in genetics or phenotypes, between races. For that reason, concepts of black, white, hispanic, etc. are cultural classifications that don't reflect biology.
Edit: or basically what scholarette said...I need to read more carefully Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: What I meant, and I think what others mean by race as a social construct is that there is no distinct separation, in genetics or phenotypes, between races. For that reason, concepts of black, white, hispanic, etc. are cultural classifications that don't reflect biology.
Then why are there certain biological differences between races? There are health problems and conditions that are common to one race and rare in another. Certain obvious physical differences, etc.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: For the record, whenever I've heard anthropologists say "race is a social construct" it's been in the context of discussing infinite variation. What I meant, and I think what others mean by race as a social construct is that there is no distinct separation, in genetics or phenotypes, between races. For that reason, concepts of black, white, hispanic, etc. are cultural classifications that don't reflect biology.
Edit: or basically what scholarette said...I need to read more carefully
Yes, there are many distinct seperations, in both genetics and phenotypes. Both the nasal cavity and ocular cavity are distinctly different, from race to race. This is one of the first things that anthropologists learn in osteology. There are genetic diseases that only occur in certain races (sickle cell, Pompe's syndrome), and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are distinct indicators.
We are all different, and we should celebrate those differences, but to deny that they exist is bad science.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
To say we are all different is not nearly the same thing as saying "race" is somehow stamped into us. Physical difference does not equal race. If Race were somehow a biological thing, why do we not have races for other animals?
We do have sub-species, but even the definition of a sub-species is an odd one, normally they are sub-species if they have certain differences and can still have viable off-spring. Do not attempt and say that race is some sort of objective fact simply due to the fact that there are differences between people. In the end race still ends up being a subjective grouping with dubious value as a grouping tool.
That and even the idea of race is not universal, it was rather normal to consider different nations to be different races. The United States has continued to change and expand the "races" that exist.
Race is a rather loose term to say the least, and to have any fruitful discussion on the matter it should be vigorously defined.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem is defining what is race. Our races are too fuzzy right now. For example, West Africa and East Africa seem to have different gene frequencies. Yet, for most people, those groups are just "black." This is why geneticists like to use common descent, shared heredity, whatever.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Meeeeeh.
There is no genetic determination for race. Genetic differences within a racial group are larger than those among different racial groups. We have phenotypic and genotypic differences that reflect the history of the populations from which we came, but it is inaccurate to say all those differences are linked only to certain races or that they are applicable to members of a certain race reliably.
For example, sickle cell is not only found among black people. It's highly prevalent among black people, especially in Africa, because the heterozygous genotype is resistant against malaria, a prevalent disease in Africa. The correlation, however, is no indicator whether someone is black. Add evidence that sickle cell shows up in much lower rates among black populations in North America where malaria never has been endemic than among those in Africa where it is still widespread, and that sickle cell also shows up in high rates in Sicily among non-black populations, the argument that sickle cell is a racially linked disease falls apart.
Race, as a term, may have some meaning in reference to distinct human populations when there were much lower rates of genetic drift, but today with so much intermingling, biological racial lines are blurred and the classification, obsolete.
[ August 10, 2010, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Amberkitty ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ... In the end race still ends up being a subjective grouping with dubious value as a grouping tool.
The value is definitely debatable, I agree. But I don't think race is all that subjective. Both Jhai and I have linked to papers (or their results) where non-biased clustering algorithms have been applied to genetic differences and found clusters that are well correlated with our general ideas of race.
Ex:
quote:The basis for this assertion comes from a paper (open access) by a different set of researchers at Stanford, who assembled a group of Americans who identified themselves as either African-American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. They followed a similar protocal as the studies in the first section-- they took DNA from all individuals, looked a hundreds of different DNA variants, and applied a clustering algorithm. They then looked to see if their clusters corresponded to self-reported group. And indeed, in 3631 out of 3636 cases (99.85%), the individuals were clustered by the algorithm into the "correct" racial group.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
These papers sound interesting, and I agree it's still worthy of debate. What I think is interesting is what the conclusions mean for the way that race is perceived. My fear would be that if we suddenly say that the concept of race is scientifically supported, it gives another reason (however ill-conceived it is) to those who want to label others as "different".
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Both the nasal cavity and ocular cavity are distinctly different, from race to race. This is one of the first things that anthropologists learn in osteology.
Different ancestries may be distinctly different in the examples presented in textbooks, but in practice, many times the difference isn't distinct. Take nasal opening width, for example. In textbooks, African ancestry is a wide opening, Asian is medium, and European is narrow, but in reality there aren't just three different distinct groups. There's a whole line of continuous variation from very narrow to very wide. Many skulls have traits that are associated with multiple ancestral groups. You have to go with the ancestry that the majority of traits are from. And the eye orbit isn't one of the best traits to use. Ancestry determination also isn't one of the first things osteology students learn. First they learn names and features of bones and how to determine left and right. Then they do stature. Then they do sex. And then they do ancestry, or they might do trauma and pathology first. My graduate forensic anthropology class probably got ancestry wrong more often than we got it right. It's not easy.
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: There are genetic diseases that only occur in certain races (sickle cell, Pompe's syndrome)...
False, but Amberkitty already pointed this out.
If you look at physical variation in the world as a whole, there aren't distinct racial groups. There's a continuous line of variation, but we're human so we want to divide people up into distinct groups even if they don't quite fit. In my mind, ancestry is genetic and race is social, and specific racial categories often correspond to specific ancestral groups (in the U.S.), as Mucus and Jhai have pointed out.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
The problem with a study of Americans is the question if social factors contributed to the those groupings. When you look at the social reality of America through most of its history "interracial" marriage was not common. This alone would lead to groupings along a society's idea of race.
That and if the American idea of race corresponded to the general regional origin of a person it would also lead to the same type of groupings.
Anyhow, what I am arguing for is not that there no biological differences between peoples of different "races" but that the American definition of race is one built on social mechanics. Subjective valuation can often create objective differences, for instance it is an objective fact that African-Americans are more likely to end up in jail or belong to a lower socio-economic group. You can even look at standardized tests and they can show an obvious gap along all socio-economic groups between African-Americans and "whites."
However, the fact that we differ genetically due to regional origin (regional origin also can be used to ascertain skin pigmentation and the average size of a head) does not objectively lead to race. Why call it race and not sub-species? It all ends up being subjective valuation to assist human beings in categorizing. Race is a subjective value in the same sense that something being a coffee table and not a dinner table is subjective.
It also does not help in the fact that a lot of biological terms are best suited to animals in the wild, ones that have been geographically separated. In the modern world this is just no longer happening with people as persons from all over the world are mingling genetically.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Why call it race and not sub-species?
Yeah, just try calling ANY minority a sub-species and see what happens. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: ... My fear would be that if we suddenly say that the concept of race is scientifically supported, it gives another reason (however ill-conceived it is) to those who want to label others as "different".
Well, they are different. The question is in which way are they different and whether that even matters depending on what subject we're examining it in relation to.
I get that it can be a concern, but I'm not particularly moved. There is a parallel debate in evolution as to whether we should call evolution a "fact" or a "theory" because there exist creationists that are eager to misinterpret what "theory" means.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: [QUOTE] We are all different, and we should celebrate those differences, but to deny that they exist is bad science.
Depends on the difference. Positive differences, you're free to speak. Some negative differences are ok and have had movies made after them....IE White Men Can't Jump. Great movie and I wasn't offended, despite having a 40 inch vertical leap at the time. A movie titled, Black Men Can't Swim probably wouldn't go over too well, despite the obvious racial "profile" in the pool learning how to swim in Navy Boot Camp. On the other hand, I spoke to a black Navy Seal today.
Posted by Amberkitty (Member # 12365) on :
Though racial categories may be constructed from phenotype, the definition of these categories themselves are mutable and therefore arbitrary.
quote:The definition of race is not consistent across societies, as seen in the US and Brazilian examples, nor is it consistent within societies or over time. The difficulties linked to defining race in a precise and unchanging manner directly affect the validity and reliability of this concept. Given the lack of scientific support for the claim that the human species is subdivided into different lineages (races), it is neither possible nor desirable to establish a valid measurement of race in biological terms. At the same time, race is a very meaningful social category that can determine differential access to a broad range of societal resources. Measuring race is not simple or easy because the concepts of race, skin color, ethnicity, origin, ancestry, nationality, and identity overlap.
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: [QUOTE] We are all different, and we should celebrate those differences, but to deny that they exist is bad science.
Depends on the difference. Positive differences, you're free to speak. Some negative differences are ok and have had movies made after them....IE White Men Can't Jump. Great movie and I wasn't offended, despite having a 40 inch vertical leap at the time. A movie titled, Black Men Can't Swim probably wouldn't go over too well, despite the obvious racial "profile" in the pool learning how to swim in Navy Boot Camp. On the other hand, I spoke to a black Navy Seal today.
Yes, but I recently saw a study that compared swimming ability versus race. Whites had the highest percentage of swimmers, followed by Latinos and Pacific Islanders, then Asians. Blacks had the smallest percentage of able swimmers. They did state, however, that the disparity seemed to correlate somewhat with income level. They surmised that it was income -- not race -- that determined the swimming ability.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: ... In the end race still ends up being a subjective grouping with dubious value as a grouping tool.
The value is definitely debatable, I agree. But I don't think race is all that subjective. Both Jhai and I have linked to papers (or their results) where non-biased clustering algorithms have been applied to genetic differences and found clusters that are well correlated with our general ideas of race.
Ex:
quote:The basis for this assertion comes from a paper (open access) by a different set of researchers at Stanford, who assembled a group of Americans who identified themselves as either African-American, white, East Asian, or Hispanic. They followed a similar protocal as the studies in the first section-- they took DNA from all individuals, looked a hundreds of different DNA variants, and applied a clustering algorithm. They then looked to see if their clusters corresponded to self-reported group. And indeed, in 3631 out of 3636 cases (99.85%), the individuals were clustered by the algorithm into the "correct" racial group.
Re: the passage quoted above: I for one, and I think many here who caution against the overvaluation of race as a scientifically valid concept are addressing the notion that race can be defined by clustering the world's populations into discrete groups. It's of course possible to cluster sample groups in this way to show that there is a genetic link between self-conceptualized "race" and actual genes, but it would be impossible to actually group the entire world population into discretely meaningful racial categories. That is to say, you *can* cluster people into racial categories, but you can't make those categories meaningful. You *can* figure out that out of a group of 10 people, 3 are Chinese, 2 Black African, 3 white, 1 native American, etc. What that doesn't tell you is much at all about those ten people. You can group them according to phenotype, and then what do you do? The variation amongst individuals of each race are still equal for all practical purposes for those individuals. You can use race as a function in statistical projections: incidences of genetic diseases of various kinds, average heights, colors, other properties, but the groups you have created amongst your 10 individuals tell you very little about them. The point is not that "race" as phenotype does not exist, because that phenomenon is self-evident. However, "race" as a useful identifier for an individual is indeed subjective, and its value is indeed dubious.
You can take a social concept like self-identified racial background, and cluster it according to genetics and do so accurately so that they match up, but you're proving that apples are indeed red and that oranges are indeed orange. That there is a genetic basis for phenotype is not a mystery, and that phenotypical differences are generally recognizable is not a mystery. That any of that matters particularly much on an individual basis when not specifically addressing the very sociologically significant question: "what are you?" is I think where we need to be careful.
Re: race as subjective: It all depends on what you mean by "subjective." In the sense that I am lighter skinned than a black person, this is not a subjective question. I am lighter skinned than any black person who is not a genetic anomaly. But that, skin color, is one of a limited set of reference points upon which we define race. Consider a society that is colorblind, or is in fact simply blind. How would we categorize ourselves? I imagine scenarios in which categories or "races" of people might be defined by the sounds of their voices, by the size of their hands or textures of their skins. The size and shape of mouths, of eyes, the textures of hair might become unimportant to us, because these are not the apparent aspects of other people as we experience them. I could imagine that given say, 25,000 years for the human population to go on living in different areas, we might all develop into noticeably different versions of the same basic thing. Only now, hair on the knuckle of the hands means something about race, deepness of the voice is a racial characteristic, and so on. The items that vary the most among individuals, like the flexibility of fingers or the rate of nail growth, or the width of the space between fingers, or manner of speaking, rather than actual size of the vocal chords are "non-racial" characteristics, and so they are ignored. Search for what makes us recognizably different, and search for the genetic mechanisms that cause this, and you will find them. Search where variation is more common, and where you have trouble noticing differences because you are blind, for instance in the shape of the nose, or in the color of eyes or of hair, and you will not encounter differences that are meaningful to you.
So in the sense that you can define race as phenotype and then say it's a valid and provable system of categorization, whatever. Fine. What does that signify about an individual? Does the existence of a category, and your knowledge of that category assist you in understanding an individual? Can it harm your understanding? Can it lead you to false assumptions? To dangerous ones? We know these questions and we have seen the answers already, and they aren't pretty ones.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: [QUOTE] We are all different, and we should celebrate those differences, but to deny that they exist is bad science.
Depends on the difference. Positive differences, you're free to speak. Some negative differences are ok and have had movies made after them....IE White Men Can't Jump. Great movie and I wasn't offended, despite having a 40 inch vertical leap at the time. A movie titled, Black Men Can't Swim probably wouldn't go over too well, despite the obvious racial "profile" in the pool learning how to swim in Navy Boot Camp. On the other hand, I spoke to a black Navy Seal today.
I'm just sitting here wondering what your deal is. You're not offended. So why are you mentioning it? You take it for granted that a black person would be offended, and you act like you don't care, so why are you mentioning it? Are you just mentioning all these things to flout the fact that you don't buy "PC" even though you live it? Do you think you are the only person in society who notices that you have to be racially sensitive, and everybody else is just unaware that this exists? Or do you just like to scratch at the veneer of racist attitudes and blow off a little steam and vent a little bit of your envy by mentioning black people and swimming, without directly saying: "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T SWIM LOLZ!" And then quickly cover it up by saying you met a black seal, and so really it's ok that you are saying this because "you get it," and also lend yourself the credibility you desperately crave by reminding us all that you are somehow involved with the military.
I notice your wife is now white, by the way. I remember when you needed her to be, what was it, Native American? Magically she wasn't white before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... It's of course possible to cluster sample groups in this way to show that there is a genetic link between self-conceptualized "race" and actual genes, but it would be impossible to actually group the entire world population into discretely meaningful racial categories.
I don't see why that would be relevant. Neither the two papers, nor the more general concept of race necessarily requires discrete racial categories. People can be mixed, either way.
quote:That is to say, you *can* cluster people into racial categories, but you can't make those categories meaningful.
They have already. As the first paper points out, the "social" debate others are having is pretty irrelevant, these categories are already useful in science:
quote:In general, representations of human genetic diversity are evaluated based on their ability to facilitate further research into such topics as human evolutionary history and the identification of medically important genotypes that vary in frequency across populations. Both clines and clusters are among the constructs that meet this standard of usefulness for example, clines of allele frequency variation have proven important for inference about the genetic history of Europe [15], and clusters have been shown to be valuable for avoidance of the false positive associations that result from population structure in genetic association studies [16]. The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease.
quote:You can group them according to phenotype, and then what do you do? The variation amongst individuals of each race are still equal for all practical purposes for those individuals.
For a lot of the rest, you mention phenotype a lot. But it should be pointed out that both papers use genetic sequencing, as in genotype, not phenotype. The exact purpose (and thus their phenotype) of these areas that they're sequencing is still an area of active research.
Also, these are unsupervised cluster algorithms, so they would be able to detect if variation on the micro-satellites really was equal for all individuals. One way that the authors appear to have verified this is by running repeatedly (367,220 times) with random seeds, to verify that the clusters they found really were most probable.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: They surmised that it was income -- not race -- that determined the swimming ability.
That makes a certain amount of sense, if Micheal Phelps had to start working atleast twenty hours a week at sixteen to help out with bills and went to a school with no pool let alone a swim team, I doubt he would have ever reached olymipic standards.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The generally employed answer is that if you're ancestors spent a few thousand years in Europe, you're probably white. The actual answer is that race is made up construct so the question is mostly meaningless.
One of the best answers I've heard in a while.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Since the beginning, Brazil had a lot more racial integration while what became the U.S. was more segregated. Today, there's really no such thing as an african/black sub-culture in Brazil.
In general, in Brazil you're considered black if and only if you look black. It doesn't matter who your parents were (after all, most Brazilians have black ancestors somewhere in their family tree), or what culture you grew up in.
For example, Halle Barry, at least as she's looked since around 2000, would likely not be considered black in Brazil. Her facial features don't look African, and her skin tone isn't very dark.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've always been interested in comparisons between Brazil and America when it comes to race issues. They had similar foundations as colonies from Europe, but the composition of the colonists was drastically different, and how they interacted with and intermarried with the locals and with slaves was vastly different as well. I think those differences make up a lot of the differences that exist today in how both countries view race in their respective societies. I'd love to read a good article that compares the two.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would guess a fair amount of the difference had to do with religion. The British colonies were non-Catholic, and I suspect Catholic teachings, having come out of Rome in the early centuries AD, was especially tolerant of racial intermarriage, when compared to Anglican, Lutheran, or quaker beliefs and practices.
I'm not saying there's that much difference in regard to actual religious teachings, just that Catholic society had always been multi-racial and pluralist. The protestant sects developed in more mono-racial settings, and their adherents probably idealized a mono-racial society, which discouraged exogamy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've always thought more of it had to do with the composition of the colonists. Brazilian colonists tended to be single males, whereas American colonists tended to move in family units far more often. The result was that in America, there wasn't a lot of intermarriage. In Brazil, intermarriage with natives was necessary, so you got a huge number of interracial families very early in their development. That would force Brazilians to rethink race in a way that Americans have never had to, because the option is almost always open for us to choose between large numbers of our own "race" for marriage.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The generally employed answer is that if you're ancestors spent a few thousand years in Europe, you're probably white. The actual answer is that race is made up construct so the question is mostly meaningless.
One of the best answers I've heard in a while.
Ironically, I do not remember writing that. In fact, reading it without looking at the name, I assumed it was posted by Orincoro.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In the Brazilian version of Pocahontas, the Indian princess and the Portuguese prince fall in love. In the story, their child, a mix of both Indian and European, is the first Brazilian.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This is a separate story that happens to share characteristics with Pocahontas, or this is a re-imagining of the Pocahontas story for Brazilians?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The generally employed answer is that if you're ancestors spent a few thousand years in Europe, you're probably white. The actual answer is that race is made up construct so the question is mostly meaningless.
One of the best answers I've heard in a while.
Ironically, I do not remember writing that. In fact, reading it without looking at the name, I assumed it was posted by Orincoro.
So it's *working!*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: This is a separate story that happens to share characteristics with Pocahontas, or this is a re-imagining of the Pocahontas story for Brazilians?
It's a separate story. Her name is Iracema, and for some reason is called "The Virgin with the Lips of Honey".
Wikipedia has a small article about an 1865 novel of the story. (It appears that the story might have originated with the novel, but I can't confirm that.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In Germany people tend to not see the British as really being European, and they don't see Russians as being Europeans ( go figure ).
The British generally don't think of themselves as being European.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm 1/8: Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Swedish and 1/2: Russian Jew. My wife is Italian, Jewish, Irish and German. My family looks like a pail of milk. And yet I associate myself mostly with the Swede, as that is where my sir name comes from and I can track my great great grandfather back to Sweden. That and Scott/Irish/Welsh/Russian all are heavily influenced by the Vikings genetically.
All that being said, when on forms it asks for my race I pick "None of your business, piss off wanker" whenever it is available.
Seriously, who cares?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Seriously, who cares?
A very large number of people, unfortunately.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think it depends. If we're talking about things like the census, it's actually a good thing that people track things like institutionalized discrimination, labour mobility, social mobility, and so forth by race.
(Of course, it would be better if people didn't care AND there weren't racial social problems as well, but I'm being literal here)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We are one race, the race of human being (homo sapiens sapiens). Of course there sub cultures, (and anthropologically speaking other differences, but those only matter to anthropologists) but defining your identity by that of your tribe goes back as far as we do. It is abandoning this view of our very slightly different neighbor as "different" which will make it impossible to feel okay about raiding them for their resources, and will help move us forward so we can establish the Federation and wear colorful uniforms and put up our shields and set our phasors to stun.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Ironically, I do not remember writing that. In fact, reading it without looking at the name, I assumed it was posted by Orincoro.
This makes me laugh, but doesn't fade my agreement with the statement. Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... And yet I associate myself mostly with the Swede, as that is where my sir name comes from and I can track my great great grandfather back to Sweden. That and Scott/Irish/Welsh/Russian all are heavily influenced by the Vikings genetically.
All that being said, when on forms it asks for my race I pick "None of your business, piss off wanker" whenever it is available.
That's not a very Swedish thing to say.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Untrue, announcing oneself to be one or the other would be un-Swedish. While blatantly declaring that whatever he may be, he will not be sharing that information with anyone is very Swedish.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: We are one race, the race of human being (homo sapiens sapiens) ...*snip*
Being all colour-blind may work out long term, as in generations from now when institutionalized discrimination works itself out of the system, but right now it probably contributes to the problem if you're unable to see why (or even which) groups are disadvantaged or how you unknowingly benefit from being white.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
From age 13-18 I grew up in northern rural Minnesota, where there was two "races", white and native American. The vast majority of people were white, like 99%.
It had nothing to do with anything.
I'm sure it's not always like that, but again, I say it's about subculture and family income level, and not about skin tone or where your great grandfather came from.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm half Irish, quarter Scottish and quarter Filipino, am I white?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Do you feel white?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I feel pretty white. (Not even joking)
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Untrue, announcing oneself to be one or the other would be un-Swedish. While blatantly declaring that whatever he may be, he will not be sharing that information with anyone is very Swedish.
Yeah but "piss off, wanker," is more of a Norwegian thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: From age 13-18 I grew up in northern rural Minnesota, where there was two "races", white and native American. The vast majority of people were white, like 99%.
It had nothing to do with anything.
I'm sure it's not always like that, but again, I say it's about subculture and family income level, and not about skin tone or where your great grandfather came from.
Now your attitude makes more sense.
Ostentatious color blindness is typically the domain of people from places where race is a non issue because there is little diversity. I say this as a person who believes race is based on fallacy, but recognizes that racial awareness is beneficial to a truly pluralist society.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Hey Stone Wolf, what part of Northern Minnesota did you come from. For the sake of space, you could basically say I come from the Twin Cities.
That and how on earth did this thread come back to life?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:That and how on earth did this thread come back to life?
odouls268 went on a mad necromancy spree.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm not going to get personally involved here, but I did listen to two podcasts over the last month or so that addressed this question.
I found them both interesting, so I hope they help.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I feel pretty white. (Not even joking)
Then you are white. I mean, white people are pink so, and black people are chocolate brown to toasted marshmallow or whatever, so...who cares, go for it!
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ostentatious color blindness is typically the domain of people from places where race is a non issue because there is little diversity.
Well, before and after I've lived SoCal, which is very racially diverse. My attitude is that people are people are people...and Aholes and saints come in every color.
I live in a small pocket town which is basically a Navy town...but the real city (not like LA or NYC) which surrounds us is majority Hispanic.
It's not that I haven't experienced "racial diversity" since I have for the vast majority of life, it's not that I'm color blind, it's not that I don't recognize subcultural differences, it's just that I don't care!
Thinking that the amount of melatonin in your skin makes a person different from another, makes just as much sense as thinking that you are a different person before getting a tan then after.
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Hey Stone Wolf, what part of Northern Minnesota did you come from.
I'm a 4th generation Los Angelino (that great great grandfather came from Sweden to LA) but where I lived is called McGregor in Aitkin county, basically up from the Twin cities and directly over from Duluth. Tiny little town...I only recommend being anywhere near it in fall, as all the other season suck, and then only for watching the trees change color because there is nothing else worth seeing there.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I grew up in Duluth. Small world, SW.
I haven't lived there since 1992, however.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I feel pretty white. (Not even joking)
Then you are white. I mean, white people are pink so, and black people are chocolate brown to toasted marshmallow or whatever, so...who cares, go for it!
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ostentatious color blindness is typically the domain of people from places where race is a non issue because there is little diversity.
Well, before and after I've lived SoCal, which is very racially diverse. My attitude is that people are people are people...and Aholes and saints come in every color.
I live in a small pocket town which is basically a Navy town...but the real city (not like LA or NYC) which surrounds us is majority Hispanic.
It's not that I haven't experienced "racial diversity" since I have for the vast majority of life, it's not that I'm color blind, it's not that I don't recognize subcultural differences, it's just that I don't care!
Thinking that the amount of melatonin in your skin makes a person different from another, makes just as much sense as thinking that you are a different person before getting a tan than after .
This is not me calling you out as a racist or anything, but that is overly simplistic and naive. The thing about it is, I think you talk this way because you see it as a way of saying that you hold no malicious prejudice againt anybody on account of race. But saying that you don't care, I don't think that's likely at all. First off, just to be sensitive to how others wish to be treated and regarded in terms of race, you have to care. And if you are interested in ending institutionalized forms of racism, then you really DO care. What your saying is that matters of race do not trouble you or cause you great doubt. That is fine, but you have to understand that your freedom from race associated feelings of guilt and confusion doesn't make you more enlightened than someone who who has those issues. As I said, you grew up in a place where you felt secure and in control of your identity. That is not the case for many, and ignoring that, as if ignoring it and being free of it is a choice, rather than a privilege, is silly and not a little naive. If you had grown up in your old neighborhood, say, but you had been black, you would likely have different feelings. And that is to highlight for you that your personal experience of race is a function of your place in society, and less a choice than you might now believe.
I think it is important for white people in our society to understand that not caring about race as a concept is a privilege and freedom that few enjoy. And in neglecting that consideration, that the way you live may be unimaginable to others, is in fact the root of racist attitudes. Racism is neglect, first and foremost. Neglect of thought, neglect of empathy, and neglect of perspective. Saying that, I feel very blessed to have black and Hispanic relatives, as a white person. The need to reconcile and understand their feelings and experiences reminds me that I am not, and that no one is, an island to himself.
[ August 08, 2011, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not a matter of "no malicious prejudice against anyone on account of race" nor sensitivity to how others a treated by race either. -I- don't care. Both as a good thing and as an insensitive thing. I just don't give a rip. People can be proud of their heritage, heck, I know I am.
quote:As I said, you grew up in a place where you felt secure and in control of your identity.
You clearly didn't read my landmark. I was as much of an outsider as if I had three heads and no arms, and I really wish you wouldn't make such assumptions.
quote:And in neglecting that consideration, that the way you live may be unimaginable to others, is in fact the root of racist attitudes.
This is utterly ridiculous. Yes not caring about race can mean you are "insensitive" to an issue that others care about, but the root of racist attitudes? Utter poppy cock! Treating all people as human beings, and letting their character be the determining factor of if you like them or not is the polar opposite of racism.
Don't get me wrong, there were times in this country, and still are places where how much melatonin you sport makes a huge difference in how you are treated, but those days are mostly long gone, and the ones that are still around are mostly a matter of ignorance or excuse.
When I was living in that frozen, bug infested, swampy, ignorant backwater I was told by someone (direct quote), "I've never seen me a ni**er, but if I ever did, I would hate them."
The human experience is fulled with soaring triumphs and crushing hardships, but the more we focus on how we are different, the more we loose a great opportunity to understand we are all the same.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ... there were times in this country, and still are places where how much melatonin you sport makes a huge difference in how you are treated, but those days are mostly long gone ...
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: This is not me calling you out as a racist or anything, but that is overly simplistic and naive.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Treating all people as human beings, and letting their character be the determining factor of if you like them or not is the polar opposite of racism.
There is a difference between treating people with respect, and acknowledging that there are still issues with racism today. (Because there ARE still issues with racism. People just don't admit to them anymore)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I see your point RA, I'm only saying that as an individual, I treat other individuals as fellow human beings without considering their "race", for good or ill. I'm not suggesting that issues of racism should be ignored, but I do think if everyone abandoned the concept of race that the problem would solve itself, although I acknowledge that the likelihood of that actually happening is basically nil.
I still say that culture and social class are much more telling then "race". For instance, if you compared the rate of crimes committed by people in one particular race vs all races in a low income level vs how many people in that race are in that low income level group I bet it would be a very telling comparison.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
For reference, this is the sort of way in which race (not just economic class) still matters:
Summary: Identical Resumes were sent out with black sounding names and white sounding names (i.e. Jamal vs Dave). White sounding names got 1 call-back for every 10 resumes sent out, black sounding names got 1 call-back for every 15.
The problem with a lot of modern racism is that it's unconscious, and because racism is considered such a big deal, people don't want to admit it to themselves and either ignore it or come up with justifications for it.
This isn't a problem that can be solved by just telling people "stop thinking about race." People need to actually look to be more aware of their behavior so they can make changes to racist behaviors they may not be aware of.
[ August 08, 2011, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's not a matter of "no malicious prejudice against anyone on account of race" nor sensitivity to how others a treated by race either. -I- don't care. Both as a good thing and as an insensitive thing. I just don't give a rip. People can be proud of their heritage, heck, I know I am.
quote:As I said, you grew up in a place where you felt secure and in control of your identity.
You clearly didn't read my landmark. I was as much of an outsider as if I had three heads and no arms, and I really wish you wouldn't make such assumptions.
quote:And in neglecting that consideration, that the way you live may be unimaginable to others, is in fact the root of racist attitudes.
This is utterly ridiculous. Yes not caring about race can mean you are "insensitive" to an issue that others care about, but the root of racist attitudes? Utter poppy cock! Treating all people as human beings, and letting their character be the determining factor of if you like them or not is the polar opposite of racism.
Don't get me wrong, there were times in this country, and still are places where how much melatonin you sport makes a huge difference in how you are treated, but those days are mostly long gone, and the ones that are still around are mostly a matter of ignorance or excuse.
When I was living in that frozen, bug infested, swampy, ignorant backwater I was told by someone (direct quote), "I've never seen me a ni**er, but if I ever did, I would hate them."
The human experience is fulled with soaring triumphs and crushing hardships, but the more we focus on how we are different, the more we loose a great opportunity to understand we are all the same.
First of all, you typically confuse me making apt judgments about you with me making blind assumptions. I do not blindly assume, I aptly judge your attitudes basd on what you say. Nothing you've added has changed that judgement. In fact, your typical response is to deny and then immediately and emphatically reinforce my view.
As you do here. Your claims about the state of society in terms of race are frankly laughable. And it's not a surprise, because you don't understand your own base assumptions well enough to know why they are contradictory. Consider your idea that people ought to be judged "on character." Fine idea. Do you think you're more likely to find someone of your same religion, child rearing practices, language, and social circle to be of good character than someone of alien customs, religion, and beliefs? Really thnk about this. Don't just react. Here are the underpinnings of racist attitudes. "good character" and righteousness are found in the familiar, and the alien and different is abhored. You deny this? You believenyourself to be above this? That is naive.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...you typically confuse me making apt judgments about you with me making blind assumptions. I do not blindly assume, I aptly judge your attitudes basd on what you say.
I disagree. Not that you are judgmental, but that your assumptions are apt.
Why should I bother "really thnk" about this as you have assumed my answer, and already told me that it is naive. That's the great thing about talking with you, I don't actually need to say or do anything, you will tell me what I think and then tell me how I'm wrong before I even open my mouth.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I am not making *assumptions* I'm judging your views according what you've already said. And if you're going to get persnickety about my spelling, because I'm using an iPad that I'm getting used to, rather than deal with what I'm saying, I'm not likely to put a whole lot of faith in your ability to engage in adult conversation about anything. You are, as is your habit, saying whatever comes into your head, then getting indignant when insight is applied to your contributions in a manner that doesn't flatter you. You haven't opened your mouth? You've been running your yap without heed for how you may be perceived. It's childish to do this, then hope that somehow you'll be given the benefit of the doubt, when to all appearances your a thoughtless reactionary. The great thing about talking to you is that you telegraph the subtext of every point you try to make so very clearly. Your addled musings scream out about where your comng from. That isn't some voodoo that I do- you're obvious. Your painfully obvious.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I love you too! Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Right, you've seen me be glib, and think you can be too. It doesn't work for you. Sorry.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
RA, I was just sent an article recently by my mom about how HR people break all kinds of laws when it comes to hiring practices, that basically, they get so many people applying that they can be insanely picky, discriminating against people with children, older people, people who are overweight, race, gender, etc.
I'll see if I can find the article.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The point is: we do not live in a time when "the days where how much melatonin you sport makes a huge difference in how you are treated are mostly long gone." It is still the case. Cops still arrest more black people.
You are right that this is not just limited to race - yes, age, gender and disability all have their own forms of prejudice. And in all these cases, the answer is not to say "I see all people equally, and so should you."
Because the default is NOT to see all people equally. The default is to not even NOTICE that you're not seeing all people equally. The default is to subtly prefer people who fit in with your version of normal, and to ignore the needs of people you're not used to thinking about.
I can't speak for you. I haven't been inside your head. But personal experience and numerous studies have led me to a default assumption that most people (myself included) are prejudiced in ways they don't realize. So I assume people are prejudiced until they show me otherwise.
Over an internet forum, you don't really have the power to prove otherwise, and that's okay, because it shouldn't matter to you whether I think you're prejudiced. But it SHOULD matter to you whether or not you ARE prejudiced, and statistically you probably are, even if you think you're not. It's worthwhile for you to think about the places you might be biased (race-related or otherwise), not to prove anything to me or to Orincoro. Just to learn what your biases are and try to counter them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I had this roommate in college who claimed not to dream. I said, "what if you just forget your dreams and never realized it?". No he said, he would have remembered that. There's lack of insight, and then there's just sort of stupid.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It is always a Good Thing™ to seek self enlightenment, and I'm sure there are areas where I'm less even handed then I would think I am, but it's prolly more about subculture then race. For instance I strongly dislike "hiphop culture", with loud music, obnoxious jewelry, aggressive behavior, bad grammar, idolize gangsters, etc. This culture is not limited to one "race" and I don't dislike it irrationally, but I am likely biased against it. Another example would be if a group of people walked toward me at night, would I feel fear and finger my pepper spray? It would be more a question of gender, age, dress, attitude, etc, then the color of their skin.
It's not that I'm saying there isn't any racism in the world, what I'm saying is that the age when it was socially acceptable to hang a black man from a tree outside your house for touching your white daughter is long and thankfully gone. There are residual issues, but they are a mere echo of the problem that were faced in this country only fifty years ago. Yes we should continue to work on these issues, but I think accepting "race" as a division of humanity is hurting the situation and it would be helpful to be phased out.
Orincoro, perhaps you should consider being less abrasive if you want you voice to carry weight. I personally am discouraged from speaking with you as I find you so casually and flippantly offensive. If you really want to reach someone, a fist rarely helps them open up to new points of view.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
On the contrary, you've responded best to me being very hard on you. Friendly disagreement, you typically ignore and deliberately distort to diffuse argument, like you did in you last post.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There you go assigning my motives again. Let just make this clear. I have no intention of discussing anything with someone who assumes my intent. If you continue to do so, I will not discuss things with you. You can assume that means anything you like, or you can simply understand that is something I do not accept, and either accept that, or not, and the repercussions of that choice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Reasoned assumptions are not bad. You give plenty of evidence about yourself. You don't like being judged, I understand. If I were wrong, it probably wouldn't sting.
and consider the alternative. You unintentionally distorted the point being made because you didn't have any grasp of it at all? It's one or the other here. Either you don't get it, or you don't wanna get it. And you have complained before when ive concluded that you were just dense. And don't pull some crap about a third option here there's a simple point you're missing, and even if you don't agree with it, you should be able to understand it. Nobody is having trouble understanding your views here, and they don't even make sense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good day sir.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I accept your apology.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm glad we understand each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's not that I'm saying there isn't any racism in the world, what I'm saying is that the age when it was socially acceptable to hang a black man from a tree outside your house for touching your white daughter is long and thankfully gone. There are residual issues, but they are a mere echo of the problem that were faced in this country only fifty years ago. Yes we should continue to work on these issues, but I think accepting "race" as a division of humanity is hurting the situation and it would be helpful to be phased out.
There are two things here which are contradictory and/or mistaken. One, racism =/= tacit public acceptance of lynching. By setting the bar for saying our society has a problem with racism that high, you're artificially ensuring it's not a topic that will be addressed, because you've redefined it to the point of overt murder and covert approval.
The contradictory idea is that racism is a problem that's one of 'residual issues' and echoes...but that it would be best if people would no longer acknowledge race as an serious factor in evaluating humans-meaning we still do it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To the former: I was saying this was the height of racism. The social acceptance of the group as "other" and "lessor" so much that even their lives are not valued. It's not that this is the only legitimate racism. Please note that the echo I referred to was not that of murder, it was of the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s where segregation was the law.
As to the latter, I don't actually understand your point. Saying that things are much much better AND that if society abandoned the concept of "race" things would get even better doesn't seem to be contradictory to me. Could you please explain?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, yes. Things are better than they were. And, yes, it would be great if race truly did not matter. But the way to get to where it truly doesn't matter is not to pretend that it doesn't matter now. That just lets us off the hook for trying to make it better. We need to recognize where it is still a problem in order to address those inequities. Does that make sense?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes and no. Yes we should absolutely address where it is a problem. But I don't see how addressing a problem with prejudice is mutually exclusive with abandoning the imaginary category of race. And it is imaginary. Subcultures, nationalities, skin color, language, etc are all real differences which are difficult to overcome, but what can help is if we recognize that underneath it all, we are all human beings, and though we may seek different ways of fulfilling our needs, our needs are all pretty much the same. Unity is hard to accomplish when we are all divided .
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:underneath it all, we are all human beings
This is a noble sentiment that everyone agrees with, but noble sentiments don't solve problems.
I say this without any judgement - I know the point you're trying to make and its laudable, but your previous post is the sort of thing you say that comes across as smug and naive. You're acting like this idea is new or non-obvious, and that if we just accepted it the world would improve.
We KNOW people are all human beings and we all deserve the same rights. We don't need you to tell us that, and the wink at the end makes it sound even more condescending.
Again, I don't think you're trying to come across that way at all, but I think it'd be helpful to work on your presentation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Part of addressing the problems of institutional racism require "seeing" race. Making an effort to hire minority professors for example (among equally qualified candidates) is an important step toward recruiting minority students and them being successful. If we didn't look at ethnicity when hiring, the inequalities that are present in higher education would become more entrenched.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
RA: I appreciate the advice and the kindness and benefit of doubt. I will try and work on that...although I'm not presenting these things as a new concept under the assumption that people don't know...just that they are my beliefs and that they make logical sense. I mean, it's a point in contention, so I was trying to explain it is all.
Boots: I see what you mean...and I'm definitely of two opinions about it. Part is that there is a problem and doing what you suggested (equally qualified candidates is a personal requirement, if "race" is used as a consideration over other candidates who are more qualified)...but I also tend to think that any consideration given to race at all is part of the problem.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is also the problem with just pooh-poohing it away as 'imaginary'. Sure, it's an artificial, arbitrary distinction, but...so is money in some ways. $1 is worth what $1 will buy because we say it is, not because a bunch of metal or ink, cloth, and paper is worth in and of itself.
Likewise brushing it aside as imaginary blinds you to when it's actually happening, because it's already trivial in your mind. We see evidence of this in your approach to discussing the matter. Lots of talks of echoes, and of racism being a thing of the past, well the *worst* racism, anyway, there's still problems but they're 'rresidual'. I'm not sure what that means, but it's language that trivializes.
As for what I meant by a contradiction, you claim that the world would be a better place if everyone abandoned distinctions of race-meaning that we haven't yet. But you *also* imply, repeatedly, that racism just isn't a serious problem anymore.
On another note, I'm quickly skeptical when white people in this country, just laypeople without professional experience or education in such matters, suggest that racism is something that's not that bad anymore. Stone_Wolf, I'll ask you straight up: how would you know? Do you have a large number of minority friends with whom you regularly check how their job applications went, how they dealt with police, how their children's experiences in school went?
Or is your opinion perhaps formed more on your self-acknowledged almost unanimously homogenous racial upbringing, and the fact that we don't see white people turning fire hoses on black people on the news now?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf, I understand where you are coming from. I grew up in a mostly white suburb and believed much as you do until I actually worked in more diverse communities. I get that "recognizing" race seems like part of the problem and I was shocked when I discovered my own completely subconscious prejudices.
Racism is like an infection and we have to treat it - often in ways that seem counter-intuitive.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh: I understand what you mean about the comparison with money, but that is part of my point. We make the concept of race true with our beliefs (aware of them or not) in it and how it affects our actions. What I'm suggesting is that we can make that work for us by starting the process of abandoning the belief. I do acknowledge what you are saying about just because it is not factually based, as a concept it becomes real by our belief in it.
I hear you that my language choice shows I don't feel it is a life or death problem, and I don't. I think AIDS, starvation, cancer, lack of basic education or medical facilities in third world countries ARE a huge problem. That doesn't mean I don't think racism is not a problem at all. Also saying that it was a huge problem and is now a shadow of that huge problem doesn't mean it isn't still around and need to be dealt with. Do you agree that racism in this country was an order of magnitude worse 50 years ago then now?
As to your question of how I formed the opinion that racism is not as bad anymore, having lived the vast majority of my life (26/31 years) in a very racially diverse SoCal, it's from first hand knowledge, talking to people, etc. I fully admit that my first hand knowledge is not as extensive as some other people's, but it's not nonexistent either. I used to work security in an ER, and we had all kinds of gang violence, drug users, etc. Anytime a police officer had a suspect in custody that needed medical attention, I was there, witnessing the interactions.
Boots: Hmmm...out of curiosity can you think of any other examples of how acknowledging "race" is a prerequisite to fighting racism?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The example I gave about hiring professors was one example. It is important not only for the diversity that the professor brings but also so that minority students can imagine themselves succeeding in academia.
In a larger sense, without being intentional about racial equality it becomes far too for the majority culture to completely eclipse minority culture. We (consciously or not) judge people by how well they fit into the dominant culture rather than appreciating the gifts of their culture. We see them as failed versions of us rather than great versions of themselves. We assume that white Protestant values (for example) are the only valid values and try to make the pegs fit the holes rather than the holes fit the pegs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Just had a huge post eaten by the forum, so here goes again.
Stone_Wolf: I think what many would have you understand is that racism is still very much a problem today, and that while there have been gains made, that progress is not guaranteed, we could easily back track into where we were some time ago.
More importantly, while racism is not as violent today as it was in days past, there are still myriad non-violent ways racism manifests itself. Remember after the Civil War, it was about a century before segregation was finally removed as a legal institution. Today though, racism manifests itself in the form of job applications, housing applications, school applications, racial profiling, neighborhoods.
It is well documented that having a "black sounding" name means decreased chance of getting a job, getting accepted as a renter, getting into certain schools. It means being stopped more by the police and being checked at security checkpoints. It frequently means being asked where you are going, why are you in a certain place. I've relayed this story before, but I was so surprised to hear my date from Hawaii, a very vivacious, friendly, and sweet girl suddenly turn cold on the topic of the police, and speak how much she resented being stopped about 1-3 times a week in her car and being asked to provide a green card or proof of citizenship because she was brown.
For you and me it's a similar obliviousness to how women have to think. We don't have to wonder if it is safe to park in a certain location, or whether we can safely make two trips so as to bring our groceries in, or whether we should try to do it all in one trip and have our hands full.
It's not as if a person who offers us a job is ever going to say, "There was another applicant named Tyron, and you had all the same qualifications, but he sounded black so I called you back." And so in many ways we just hop along not realizing the racism that still exists around us.
I was watching the film Of Gods and Men and during the movie my grandmother said out loud regarding the gang of Muslim militants roaming the countryside, "We should kill them all". When we pointed out that many attrocities have been committed by Christians, and that not all Muslims are evil, blah blah blah, she at first resisted, then conceded because she had no argument, but the sad thing is I don't think we changed her mind.
edit: One of the most commonly discussed topics in my college political science courses was the resentment my classmates felt that minorities qualified for grants, schools, etc "purely because they are in a minority" and that they were being muscled out for those slots. The anger was inescapably apparent, I can't imagine those feelings of frustration are not a part of their interactions with those same minority groups. That does not mean they mistreat them, but it could easily mean they feel those negative feelings to a degree when they interact with a member of a minority.
That's one of the worst things about racism, you can call somebody out on it, and as soon as they stop hearing why their beliefs are wrong, they promptly return to them, like a dog to its vomit as it were.
It is only through long suffering, love, persuasion, and allowing racist elements to become marginalized, and die naturally, is progress continually made, but again that progress isn't permanent by a long shot.
Much of the resentment against illegal immigration translates into hatred for Latinos. Smae thing for Islam its association with terrorism. Much of Europe is seething with resentment for their Muslim immigrant population. In Norway a racist just killed 60 people, his own people, because he said his country was becoming too pluralistic, and that only by engendering feelings of anger could he get his country to start hating all of those Muslims.
None of this even begins to approach the problem of racism in the other direction. The resentment and frustration the oppressed feel for those who share a race with their oppressors. This is the other side of the problem, and it is no less important those who feel the effects of racism, feel able to let go and unball their fists.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
BB, having lived in china, would you care to relate your experiences of being a minority in a large country?
I've shared my experiences, but they are not fraught with much racial tensions per se- as I've shared before, I'm typically regarded as "one of the good foreigners." what are your recollections about being white in China?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: It actually sounds quite similar to you. It should be remembered I lived in Hong Kong, which is not like many other parts of China, for one thing it had a fairly benevolent minority controlling it for a very long time. Attorneys and judges in Hong Kong still wear powedered wigs like they do in Britain.
I will say though that white Europeans and especially Americans enjoy a fairly exalted status in the Mainland and even in Hong Kong. In China, while this less the case today, it is still quite common to be peppered with questions by curious strangers if you are white. Where are you from, what's it like there, do you like China, wow your Chinese is excellent, etc.
While in Beijing last summer there were several times me and a half Chinese friend walked up to a group of youths and asked if we could play basketball, almost without exception the Chinese folks were flattered to have been asked.
In Hong Kong where people are less enamored with being around foreigners, you are usually treated with traditional Chinese politeness, i.e you are left alone, conversation is kept strictly professional. Ocassionally you will be treated rudely and you can usually tell because suddenly they start speaking to each other in Cantonese. In short I didn't feel like I was treated much differently than how they might treat another Chinese person.
What has surprised me is just how differently dark skinned people are treated. One problem is that the Chinese like most Asians consider dark skin to be ugly. Further, Chinese films that feature Asian stars such as Bruce Lee often display black men as being pimps, gangsters, and criminals. For some reason black people are still largely seen in this light by the Chinese. A big part of it *might* be that there isn't a country where blacks are the predominant population that has reached any sort of power notoriety, and so the Chinese conclude that blacks are an inferior race.
But if you take the Chinese who are into sports, especially basketball, they adore all the same athletes we celebrate here. Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Michael Jordan, etc. Because black athletes dominate the league, it *feels* like to the Chinese mind that means they deserve be liked.
If Kobe Bryant walked down the street in Beijing, he'd have tons of admirers fawning over him. If Kobe Bryant had a brother and that brother tried to date a Chinese woman, I'd expect he'd experience serious setbacks all because he is black.
Malaysia was an entirely different experience. Again they used to be an English colony, but they were readily given their independence when they wanted it. There I felt like the people were just generaly courteous to all races. I might have been too young really get it though, I left when I was 12 years old.
I do know that US policy towards Muslim nations has engendered a good deal of resentment to many of the people there, but I'm not sure if one can call that racism.
So to sum up, like you, if you are white in Asia, you won't experience much racism, in fact you are more likely to experience the opposite of racism where you are assumed to be very bright and worth knowing just because you are from America/Europe, etc. If you are another race though, that does not hold true.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That fits my experiences with Asians in Europe as well, actually. I have *never* been fawned over with such embarrassing sincerity as I have by the parents of my korean and Vietnamese students in Czech republic. These people are nicer and more complimentary to me than my grandparents. It's often entirely too much to handle.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:So to sum up, like you, if you are white in Asia, you won't experience much racism, in fact you are more likely to experience the opposite of racism where you are assumed to be very bright and worth knowing just because you are from America/Europe, etc. If you are another race though, that does not hold true.
This is true for the most part in my experience as well, but there is something a little different that I'm trying to figure out how to articulate.
It's not racism in terms of violence or rudeness or feelings of superiority, but there is still a very large concept of separatism (and I don't think a lot of expats who live in wealthy neighborhoods and refuse to learn the language are doing much to help.)
I experienced it a little bit in Taiwan - the weirdest feeling in the world was when I went swimming with a friend and every. single. person. in the building stared at my white, white legs the entire time. I even had a little boy come up and ask me why I was so white. "I'm a white person," I explained. (It doesn't sound snotty or condescending in Chinese, I promise. Just descriptive.) He then asked "When you were born, was your mom surprised you were so white?"
I think that illustrated to me the main characteristic of East Asian racism - most people simply have so little experience with foreigners that they don't know how to think or act, and it's natural to have a very "we're this way, and they're that way" mentality.
This is even more pronounced in Japan, which has perhaps the world's shortest history of multiculturalism. It is such a predominantly homogeneous culture that there are still a lot of problems caused by sheer inexperience. And so they treat foreigners with a lot of extra care but also a lot of trepidation.
My personal experience was always mild. People, especially young people - often talked to each other about me right in front of my face, (assuming that I didn't understand what they were saying). On one occasion, I turned in a cell phone I'd found to a police station and told the officer that I wanted to waive my legal right to keep it if it wasn't claimed and he was totally flummoxed about what to do. He then spent the next 10 minutes on the phone with his supervisor trying to figure out if it was OK not to follow policy in this case because I was a foreigner who conceivably didn't understand what was going on. I understood perfectly well, but simply had no use for a cell phone. I had to sit and wait as he diagnosed my language ability to his supervisor and then asked me a few more test questions before letting me go. When the Japanese are faced with a foreigner they are typically very polite but kind of freak out at any attempt to overlap the two worlds. (I had one old lady who would ring her hands and apologize when I came over for dinner because she knew foreigners didn't eat rice but she just didn't have any bread in the house.)
There was a more sinister side to it, though, and I saw most of that in the Nagoya region where there's a sizeable minority population of Brazilians and Peruvians. One Brazilian friend whose husband worked at a factory had some chilling stories about how he was treated there. I also heard Japanese people in Shizuoka Prefecture express outright fear when a Peruvian family moved into their neighborhood. "It's just scary," the woman explained, "because, you know, they steal cars and things."
So I think my own personal experience has taught me that "racism" in the terms we're used to thinking in, and the concept of race in general, are uniquely American phenomena that are changing rapidly as the numbers of multiethnic people increases. But I think the underlying concept of "us vs. other" is universal and is most dangerous when groups are separated by long-standing differences in economic status, religion, etc. In Northern Ireland, after all, we see the same problems erupt between "racially" identical people. It's worse when understanding is lowest, and tapers off as understanding increases.
So the whole discussion of "what is white" is necessarily couched in American standards and culture. (And most of those shaped by demographics of our large, influential cities that tend to have upper-class white populations and lower-class black populations.)If you go to Latin America you'll get an entirely different answer (and, ironically, this comes from a group of people that most Americans would identify as a "race.") Heck, I even had my concept of "white" totally upended when I moved to Utah. I had grown up as a white person as far as I knew, and now I'm living among a group of predominantly English and Danish people who seem to be overwhelmingly blond and free of body hair. For the first time in my life I feel hairy and dark and it's really been an odd thing to get used to.
So all that babbling and it all boils down to: it all changes every time you leave the city limits. But underneath it all it's still "us vs. them."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Funny, I had a friend in Barcelona when I lived there who was ethnic Japanese, but whose parents immigrated from Peru, where they had been raised as Peruvian. She was studying spanish with me to be able to speak her parents language, even though they all lived in Japan, in Nagoya in fact, and were all Japanese. I always loved the strangeness of that scenario.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
There are actually pretty sizeable populations of South Americans in Japan and vice versa. It's because there's a secret warp tunnel between Mt. Fuji and the Amazon.
No, actually, it's because a lot of Japanese emigrated to South America to escape the poverty and starvation right after the war. Then, when Japan's industrial economy started booming in the 60s and 70s they needed a lot more manual laborers, especially to build cars, so the government offered Japanese citizenship to anyone of pure or mixed Japanese ancestry, and a lot of the emigrants and their children and grandchildren have moved back to Japan. Of course, now most of them are native Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Toyota City near Nagoya is basically a little Brazil.
That was, until the 2008 downturn. When I was back in Japan last summer Shizuoka Prefecture was turning into a ghost town and all the Brazilian groceries I used to love to go to were shut down. Very sad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No, actually, it's because a lot of Japanese emigrated to South America to escape the poverty and starvation right after the war.
Actually, there was considerable emigration from Japan to Brazil in the 1920s and 1930s. When the flood of Japanese came over after WWII, there were already many Japanese communities there.
quote:the government offered Japanese citizenship to anyone of pure or mixed Japanese ancestry, and a lot of the emigrants and their children and grandchildren have moved back to Japan.
A lot of them only move to Japan for a few years. They can go to Japan for five years, work their butts off, get treated like dirt, and come back with enough money saved to be able to buy a car, start a business, or similar. This can have a major and permanent effect on their economic security.
At least, that's how it was in the mid-90s when I was in Brazil.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm just sitting here wondering what your deal is. You're not offended. So why are you mentioning it? You take it for granted that a black person would be offended, and you act like you don't care, so why are you mentioning it? Are you just mentioning all these things to flout the fact that you don't buy "PC" even though you live it? Do you think you are the only person in society who notices that you have to be racially sensitive, and everybody else is just unaware that this exists? Or do you just like to scratch at the veneer of racist attitudes and blow off a little steam and vent a little bit of your envy by mentioning black people and swimming, without directly saying: "BLACK PEOPLE CAN'T SWIM LOLZ!" And then quickly cover it up by saying you met a black seal, and so really it's ok that you are saying this because "you get it," and also lend yourself the credibility you desperately crave by reminding us all that you are somehow involved with the military.