First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.
With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.
First, a few starter questions.
- How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
- Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
- Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
- Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
- Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?
Also, a personal question from me.
- Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?
edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf
@Wermacht,
If ethnicity is just a set of (I don't want to use the term stereotype, but I hope you know what I'm getting at) that people inside the group choose, would this be an ethnicity or a stereotype?
https://
unitedgangs.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/delman-heights-bloods1.jpg
or how about this?
https://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/KKK_night_rally_in_Chicago_c1920_cph.3b12355.jpg
I ask because a lot of the things we'd normally call stereotypes are internally enforced things. Let me give an example of two phenotypically black dudes I know.
We'll call the first guy M. I met M when I was still living in the US and playing basketball in a city league. M was a walking collection of every black stereotype you can imagine. He spoke in ebonics, he ignored city league rules and then cried racism when people mentioned that he was breaking said rules. He introduced himself by lying about his "legendary tenure at Illinois during their final four run" which of course never happened. He started a fight with a random guy on the other team for some vague reason of "respect" and then yelled about racism when horrified bystanders called the cops. Nobody was imposing black stereotypes on M, he was embracing them and living them. By your definition, his behavior was ethnic and not stereotypical since all the white, Hispanic and Asian people in the basketball league really, really wished he would stop. The only people I ever saw encouraging his behavior were other people from his neighborhood.
The second guy we'll call W. I met W when we both joined the high school football team. He spoke in a typical California accent. He attended classes and did his homework. He listened to the coaches and did extra morning session workouts with me four days a week. He liked baseball and grunge bands and drinking everclear next to bonfires on the weekends. W's skin and hair were jet black, but nobody ever treated him as an African American. He was, by your definition of ethnic, significantly whiter than me.
This is why I'm being a stickler about the differences between ethnicities and stereotypes because, in my experience, stereotypes are often (usually) internally enforced things. That observation about negative stereotypes being internally enforced is why I characterized the essentially empty signifier of "white" as being such an advantage over a proud ethnicity, or an ethnicity that has actual meaning.
@Physical Stamina, When I say avoiding a heritage, I mean trying to strip said heritage of as much meaning as possible. I'd much rather take meaning and identity from historical people I actually like/admire/find interesting than identifying with whoever happens to share a phenotype.
When I ask, "what is my identity" I would much rather get that answer from Soren Kierkegaard, Sejong the Great, Marie Curie, Han Fei-tzu, Freiderich Nietzsche and Theodore Roosevelt (people who I think are interesting) than the string of people who got laid that one time and made my family (my literal ancestors).
edited 6th Apr '16 5:35:44 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.Why not just find admirable people and identify with them?
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.So, let's take the example of the KKK. The culture of the KKK is to hate black people. The stereotype of the KKK is that they hate black people. The stereotype is mostly imposed by members of the KKK on themselves. Right?
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.It is not a stereotype if it is always true. (Well it is, but more importantly, it is an actual universal.) I don't think you need to be racist to join the KKK. But if you weren't, you'd probably be missing the point. Being racist is part of the practice of the KKK. Being racist is also the stereotype of the KKK. Your example does not clearly identify the distinction.
The distinction would be evident in any culture where the stereotypes of that culture vary from the practices. A stereotype is how someone sees something. It is owned by the observer. A practice is something that is physically done. It is an action.
I believe that is the incorrect use of the word impose. To realize a stereotype is distinct from imposing it.
Okay, so let's say that some KKK members don't actually hate black people, they just really love "the white race," whatever that means. Such people DO exsit, by the way. As such, the stereotype that the KKK hates black people is a genuine stereotype and not a cultural/ethnic feature because it's not always true.
However, by wearing the white hats, burning crosses and opposing the mixing of races, aren't they creating the stereotype and putting it on themselves? In other words, would the stereotype exist if the KKK wasn't actively reinforcing it?
My argument is that white privilege exists largely because there isn't anybody sitting around imposing meaning on it. Very few people are proud to be white. Very few people want to uphold the white heritage. Very few people want to define white "ethnicity" specifically enough to mean anything for an individual white person.
This is one reason I think you'll find "white" has such fluid boundaries. If a Peruvian immigrant and a Japanese immigrant have a kid in the US, that kid is probably going to be perceived as white because Peruvian-Japanese just doesn't have any meaning in the context of the US.
edited 6th Apr '16 6:53:45 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.Ummm... I think I just realized a thing or two about your argument.
First, and this is important, It is also racist to love a race in a discriminatory way (positive discrimination).
Second, your statements about there being very few people interested in white heritage is very wrong. A ton of people with various heritages simply don't care about their ancestors' cultures. But some irish descendants love their Ireland, some brit descendants love England, some people are fans of Belgium, France, or Canada. There are museums all over the place dedicated to cultural heritage. And those places are all really white.
Edit reason: terminology snafu.
edited 6th Apr '16 8:50:21 PM by war877
Every one has admirable people and heroes but they are role models or someone to look up to, but they are not people who usually represent the group you belong to.
The issue here is belonging to a group of people who share something in common, either a faith or ancestry. I am torn between rejecting the paradigm of accepting an ethnic group I am tied with and simply ignoring my heritage and being indifferent towards it.
There is a part of me who wants to embrace the heritage, convert to Judaism and take the mantle of being Jewish but there is also a part that rejects the ideals that people shouldn't be defined by ethnicity and faith and reject those concepts altogether.
Identity politics should be simple in theory but they are not, the idea of belonging to a group even if you're only tied to a loose heritage and history isn't something to scoff at. I could identify as a Brazilian on nationality but I feel I have more in common with my Jewish ancestry than I have with my nationality and at the same time my denial of those things as being the definition of me is just as strong.
Currently I identify as an Atheist Jew and I am aware of the contradiction but only with time I will be able to tell which paradigm satisfies me as a person, but the feeling that something is lacking about my family's origin still lingers as something important on a personal level.
Inter arma enim silent legesPeople are interested in Irish heritage (though again I'm not sure why they'd want to identify that way), but that's different from generic whiteness, isn't it?
My original interpretation of white privilege is that the generic nature of "white" constitutes most of it's privilege. People who are proud to be Irish or whatever are, in my conception, renouncing white privilege. Once again, though, I don't know why anyone would choose to do so.
As for positive discrimination, excellent point! I completely agree that loving an ethnic group a lot is discriminatory. It's one reason I feel lucky that nobody has ever pressured me into identifying with a proud heritage. For me, this is the core of white privilege.
@Angelus Nox Why can't you get a sense of belonging from existentialists, atheists or even a professional group? These are identities that people actively choose, actively earn admission to. Brazillian or Jewish, that's just a function of where your mother's womb happened to be on your first birthday. I guess I don't understand why someone would prefer a group based on chance to a group they've earned or chosen.
edited 6th Apr '16 8:21:17 PM by garridob
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.Then they're in the wrong organisation.
It's true for the organisation and the meaning of the organisation. Yes it's not always true for every member, but it's like when you get misigonistic feminists, Jew-loving Nazis, or any other situation where someone joins a group about hating a particular group despite not actually hating them.
Only in that it's a specific subset of whiteness, so an interest in Irish history would be the same as an interest in Kenyan history. You get all sorts of stuff devoted to white culture, be in European culture/history or the more specific American definition of whiteness with Anglo-Saxon culture/history.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBernie Sanders: I would apologize for slavery as president.
edited 7th Apr '16 5:25:58 PM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Two words for the people who evaluate candidates based on the demographics they belong to: Clarence Thomas.
I would've preferred Srinivasan over Garland, but the fact that he would've been the first Asian American on the court would've been a nice bonus rather than something to tout in and of itself. Garland himself is also pretty qualified, and as Mousa pointed out he's less contentious in multiple ways, therefore a pragmatic choice. IMO the thing liberals should concern themselves with, if they are to judge him on anything besides his experience and ability to properly uphold the law, is less his ethnicity and more his potential stance towards civil liberties, .
edited 7th Apr '16 5:41:18 PM by AlleyOop
Small town in Illinois near Chicago.
I think Obama considered Srinivasan but didn't want to drag him through a possibly futile process when he could be appointed by Clinton instead in a few years. Garland is moderate and quite old for a new appointee (so he probably wouldn't be there for a generation); he was a way to shame the GOP into admitting that they were going to obstruct the process no matter what.
edited 7th Apr '16 8:10:06 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Would you feel ashamed if you were a Republican representative? I get the very strong impression most Republican voters are okay with a policy of "spite Obama's eye to skin your own nose."
Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

@garridob Mostly due to an identity crisis and having a sense of belonging, having a Jewish heritage is something important to me but I don't think I am ready to assume the religious aspect of it yet.
Also I am not happy with the Jewish erasure ethnic Jews suffered through the ages and I don't want to be part of that erasure.
I am at conflict with my Atheistic and secular mindset and my heritage as being part of the Sephardi Jews that struggled with persecution.
Inter arma enim silent leges