“But that happens to me too!” is a common way whites have of derailing an argument about racism: when a person of colour gives an example of racism whites try to find an example where a white person – themselves, a friend, someone in Colorado – experienced something that sounds like the same thing. Even if they have to stretch it.
Other forms of this argument:
- “Whites do it to whites too!”
- “Everyone does that. It’s just human nature!”
Whites are trying to show that it is not just something that whites do to people of colour – it is more general than that. Therefore it is not racist.
To the person of colour it comes off as Missing The Point or Belittling Their Concerns.
Some examples:
Example #1, from “Derailing For Dummies”:
Grown Black Woman: White people come up and touch my hair without asking.
White person: My child has beautiful white-blonde hair and people are always touching it!
Example #2, from the Texas State Board of Education – for them it is not an example of a racist argument but how to teach history:
History book: The American government sent Japanese Americans to prison camps during the Second World War.
In schoolbooks for Texas please add: They did it to Germans and Italians too.
Example #3, from the Arab Trader argument (which is also a moral argument):
Black person: Whites sold blacks as slaves.
White person: Arabs and blacks in Africa did that too!
The trick is this: when someone points out an example of racism on the part of whites you, as a white person, ask yourself these questions:
- Has something like it ever been done to you or any other white person you know (or can find out about on Google)?
- Have whites done something like it to other whites, like maybe to poor whites?
- Has the other person’s own race done something like it?
- Has anyone in history done something like it before? If you can come up with at least two examples then you can say, “It’s just human nature”.
You are bound to find something. Especially if you overlook the cause and scale of what they are talking about (like racial profiling by the police of blacks and Latinos) and look just at the narrow form of the action (like being stopped by the police).
I doubt many white people think this nakedly about it. If they did they would not be so blind to their racism.
In fact, this argument is part of the white blindness about racism: it tries to talk away the fact that there is a true difference between the white experience of America and what people of colour go through.
Whites who are Jewish or gay sometimes use this argument a bit differently but they still try to make the point that what blacks go through is pretty much the same as what they go through. But unlike being Jewish or gay, being black is way harder to hide.
See also:
The main problem with this (apart from derailment) is the fact people can always find reasons to complain about their lives not being 100% fair, no matter how rich, or white, or male they might be. So it’s not difficult for you (especially if you are not rich, heterosexual or male) to find that others discriminate against you. And you are probably right about this, especially if you are female, gay, poor, disabled, etc.
However, the problem is, this prevents you from understanding racism, because even if you are a victim in some cases, you still have your white privilege. So it’s not fair to ignore people of colour by trying to point out you are having a hard time, too.
But at the end of the day, I do believe it’s in human nature to use power on those who have less power, and not to particularly care about things that don’t concern them or their group.
Bay Area Guy,
There are posts here not related to white people. Index page is your friend.
LikeLike
Well said Mira
LikeLike
I’m remembering a Kundera quote about how in conversation, when one person is telling an anecdote and another one says “something just like that happens to me!”, it’s not an attempt to bond, it’s essentially an act of violence. It’s an attempt to remove the narrative from the original teller and place it onto the other.
On some level, I think it’s an issue of white people not being able to handle a discussion not being about them (or being about them in a way they may not particularly like).
The last bit–hmmmm. I’m Jewish AND gay, so this hits home. I’d definitely say I’ve done this on some level–not trying to excuse myself here in any way but there’s this second when you become really uncomfortable with your privilege and you feel you have to remind everyone you’re not unilaterally so. And that doesn’t help anyone, it gets into oppression olympics and it alienates POC within whichever other oppressed community the person is aligning themselves with.
Pretty much co sign everything Mira said.
Excellent post.
(Not sure how relevant this is and I don’t want to derail but you have repeatedly coupled “Jewish” and “gay” together as examples of discrimination whites can experience. As one who is both, I’m not sure how appropriate this is. I know you’re not straight out saying they’re equal categories but really, in my lifetime–and I am a fairly secular, so not even trying to claim this is universal–but I don’t think being [Ashkenazi] Jewish, for most Americans, begins to approach being gay. Just in terms of institutional discrimination, hate crime statistics, media portrayal, personal vitriolic reactions–not trying to claim anti-semitism no longer exists but IMHO, this is really apples and oranges.)
LikeLike
This argument COULD be used as a bridge because sometimes the experiences ARE the same or close enough. A good example is making a suggestion at work only to have the powers that be dismiss it but then later on some white man says the very same thing and suddenly it is taken seriously. Both blacks and women have had that experience and I believe it is the same thing.
BUT in most cases this argument is used the opposite way, like M said, to DISMISS the experience of others. It becomes a racist defence mechanism, not an attempt to understand.
LikeLike
Could be used as a bridge, yes, but I’ve actually yet to see this happen in a positive way. Have you ever seen this be used as a bridge in practice, Abagond? Anyone else?
Very good example on the commonalities between race and gender.
Another example–POC from other marginalized groups being told by a white person from the same marginalized group that their experience was caused by oppression, but only the oppression they share with the white person, not racism.
This piece is particularly guilty.
LikeLike
Since we are all human – or so the argument goes – no seriously.
It is possible for Whites to draw from this reservoir of ‘humanity’ and suggest, they can understand a certain specific behaviour, which appears to be human afterall.
However, where this analysis cannot be used is with regard to ‘racism’.
Racism has nothing to do with ‘humanity’ and it has its own peculiarities which at oftentimes has to be examined outside of ‘humanity’
The victims of ‘racism’ will be able to understand this ‘better’ than those whose origins derive from a ‘racist culture’
And here I am reminded of a recent conversation about ‘hunting’ and ‘gun/powder’, from another thread.
LikeLike
It’s reasonable to compare experiences in order to have empathy or sympathy. The thing that makes it derailing, I believe, is when the interlocutor has a conscious or unconscious desire to deflect focus back to themselves, because they can’t actually bear to understand someone else’s experience. (Or that they so much want to deny the existence of racism that using Occam’s Razor to explain biased behavior is beyond them.)
As a Jew, I know that there are a lot of similarities between African American experience in the US and various events in Jewish history. For example, the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
was pretty similar to pogroms against Jews, for example those in the Ukraine in the same period. You can make the comparison in order to define the characteristics of a certain kind of violent oppression: mob violence, motivated by racism, with collusion from law enforcement and the government or legal system.
I have learned, however, that it’s important for Jews who have white privilege in the US right now (not all Jews are white, and I don’t want to erase Jews of color in saying this) to own it and recognize where we’re getting an unearned advantage. I like the phrase “oppression Olympics.” It’s not a contest! The reason to recognize those similarities is to motivate ourselves to extend our hands to each other.
LikeLike
The arguments “whites do it on whites too” and “everybody does it” don’t mean anything. Even if they – whoever it is – do it to all people, it still doesn’t prove they aren’t racist.
LikeLike
@ Ruth I like the phrase “oppression Olympics.” It’s not a contest! The reason to recognize those similarities is to motivate ourselves to extend our hands to each other.
This is definitely a personal experience. Each individual experience will be different based on personal path in life. Imagine taking the same individual and having them grow up in the Northeast Urban area of the U.S vs. Southern Mississippi. -or- Portland, Oregon vs. Miami, Florida. St. Louis, MO vs. Atlanta, GA. Now imagine throwing in different countries & cultures across the globe. You could take 2O clones of the same individual and send them on different trajectories in life and each would have different perspectives and stories to share: Including varying degrees of racism, hate, prejudice, mistreatment, unfair treatment, injustice, fear, friendship, companionship, kindness, luck, bad luck, love…..
J touches on this when a bit when he says, The victims of ‘racism’ will be able to understand this ‘better’ than those whose origins derive from a ‘racist culture
I think first, we need to define “victims” of racism. If comparing to the experiences of others one perceives to be so different (I.E. White vs. Black, Minority vs. Majority, etc…) I pose the question:
Is it so incomprehensible that any given human being at any given time cannot empathize through their own experience of suffering at the hands of “Hate”, with any other given individual? Why does this seem so “implausible” as to the outright denial such an event is possible.
The sky is the daily bread of the eyes.Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. Ralph Waldo Emerson
LikeLike
To me, cause and scale are the main, if not the only, really relevant considerations. Because without those considerations, all three of those derail-examples then have to become legitimate responses.
LikeLike
I find the “hard/impossible to hide” retort a copout used most often by homophobes to discredit queer civil rights. Non-black gays and Jews (and YES, there are black and nonwhite Jews) definitely do NOT face the same set of bigotries and unprivilege, but civil rights and equal protection under the law are everyone’s property.
LikeLike
Darth Paul–
Agreed but I think it’s important to see it within the context of the statement. On the one end, I have heard the argument that because it’s possible to hide one’s sexuality, het privilege doesn’t exist. I think most people would agree that’s ridiculous. But separating the natures of different forms of discrimination doesn’t HAVE to negate any one of them. Recognizing your privilege (and awful as the experience is in itself, my ability to hide my Judaism and homosexuality IS a privilege) doesn’t negate marginalization in itself.
But you’re right, it is sometimes used as an excuse to discredit civil rights. I’m not sure what intention Abagond had with the statement so I can’t really go beyond here.
LikeLike
CoorofLuv,
WIth regard to:
“Is it so incomprehensible that any given human being at any given time cannot empathize through their own experience of suffering at the hands of “Hate”, with any other given individual? Why does this seem so “implausible” as to the outright denial such an event is possible.”
The ‘problem’ with being ‘human’ is that individuals are at the ‘control’ of ‘society and culture’ and this process begins from the very day one is born right up to death.
I will broaden this out beyond ‘race’ and say that the individual who can go beyond the socialisation processes, his/her own experiences, and not too be significantly affected by ‘cultural norms’ within a society will be the ‘exception’ rather than the ‘norm’.
This is why I think only a few exceptional Whites can go beyond ‘racism’. Since this is what it means to ‘human’ in a ‘society’ etc. And as Fanon suggested the racism is figuratively the oxygen that people ‘breathe’ to survive.
LikeLike
M:
I have seen it used as a bridge to understanding, but not very often.
LikeLike
I think it has a great potential for being a bridge. In fact, it can be an excellent one. If one person knows what is like to be oppressed, or discriminated (your example with white guy and his suggestion at work), it is, perhaps, easier for this person to understand what is like to be oppressed because of another reason (skin colour, for example).
However, in reality, it doesn’t work that way, because people engage in the oppression Olympics which makes any conversation about racism with white people difficult, if not impossible.
I sometimes wonder how black people see this. Do they understand ways of other forms of oppression? Are they aware of their own privileges?
But all in all, Abagond, I do think it’s possible to use this as a bridge to understanding. For example, I must say I notice non-white Americans tend to understand American privilege much better than white Americans. They are proud of their country, but they also admit it’s not 100% fair, like white American seem to think. So sometimes, being oppressed yourself help you understand other oppressed people. (I also notice that those white Americans who claim to be most liberal are often really disrespectful).
LikeLike
To Mira:
Bay Area Guy,
There are posts here not related to white people. Index page is your friend.
I pointed this out to BAG about 2 months on another blog…. although you are correct for all of Ababond’s which go back a number of years…… the large majority of Abagond’s posts in the past year or so have been about Whites… the balance have tended to be about musicians.
LikeLike
[…] saw this piece at Abagond, which describes how White people will sometimes hear a minority’s story about […]
LikeLike
Bay Area Guy,
“I’m just wondering: Are you ever going to write a post that isn’t in some way or another related to white people?
Just curious.
Seems that you find us especially fascinating lately.”
I too would like a mix of topics rather than similar topics repeatedly.
However, this is not my blog. Nor is it your blog. It is abagond’s personal blog. Thus he can write about whatever he chooses and it seems a little pretentious to question him on his choices. Besides, he already explained how and why he chooses topics:
LikeLike
Bay Area said:
“I know. Perhaps I should have clarified. From 2006-2007, most of Abagond’s post were related to world history and current international events.
However, starting in 2008, he seemed to start zeroing on white people, which has only increased today.
I’m just interested in why he made such a transition.”
It is called having commenters, particularly white ones who say boneheaded things.
LikeLike
@ BAG (Bay Area Guy)
Kum ba Yah man. – – – – – kum ba yah…… I feel ya. Hey, I identify and relate with some of what you’ve said too.
The thing you have going for you is you’re not a troll. I think one of the reasons Abagond writes so heavily on these similar topics is because of the amount of ignorance floating around. There are a lot of fly by’s as I would call them. People who don’t really “get” what he is trying to say, or why is saying it: Nor do they take the time to even “try” and get it. Between the trolls and the ‘fly-bys’, the majority of the comments lack anything in depth or only serve to further illustrate an “example” that Abagond readily uses in his various, if not similar “threads” such as, purposely derailing a topic, purposely trolling to create chaos rather than organized discussion, or simply to slightly veiled racist agenda. (the worst are the sock puppets and trolls who use verbal smoke & mirrors to do nothing other than push ‘hate agenda/ignorance.)
As I’ve said in other threads: This is Abagond’s Universe where he exercises his passion for writing about whatever he wants. We are just guests. This doesn’t necessarily make Abagond an authoritarian on any given subject matter he is writing about. (nor does it imply the same for us as guests) Understanding that is all that is required.
Personally, I’m glad you added your thoughts on the thread. Thanks and…
CHEERS
LikeLike
@Bay Area Guy,
“Now, in absolute terms, what annoys me about the term “white privilege” is that it presumes that all white peoples’ lives are peaches and cream, and that they face absolutely no problems, and that issues ranging from class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and personal social issues are trumped by this privilege.”
I guess there’s an issue of comparability, though. Black status in the US is perceived by some as an immutable stigma. You can potentially change your class standing, personal social situation, and (despite common belief) your sexual orientation, but you can’t change your color or how society tends to view people of your color.
LikeLike
@ FG –
Let me play Devils Advocate.
You said, “You can potentially change your class standing, personal social situation, and (despite common belief) your sexual orientation, but you can’t change your color or how society tends to view people of your color.”
There are many white people or ‘perceived’ white people in the United States that would say the same thing regarding prejudice and attitudes they suffer for the very same reason: (to ‘paraphrase’) , white people can’t change their color or how people in society tend to view them.
I realize I changed a few words around, but it was only to illustrate a simple point. All people make snap judgements based on appearances. Unfortunately this goes across the board and transends: Race, etnicity, sexual orientation or gender. Hate is an equal opportunity Negative. White does not equate immunity from such hate.
LikeLike
I guess i should have clarified by saying, “But people hate me too!!!” LOL
LikeLike
I agree with Mira, it can definitely be used as a bridge to understanding. I use it that way all the time, although I keep that understanding to myself. I don’t use it to derail a conversation or to take over a conversation and make it about my own experience. But I can use what I know about racism and oppression to empathize with other disadvantaged groups. For the most part, I believe that systems of oppression exist for the same purpose, and that’s to maintain stratification so that some have more of society’s resources than others.
Also, I very frequently see some of the same oppressive and prejudiced arguments used against other groups. For example, take this Metafilter thread where women are recounting their experiences with sexism. Some of the men in the thread repeatedly use the argument that “it can’t really be that bad, maybe you’re hypersensitive about sexism”. Black people hear that sort of thing all the time. Also, when people use the actions of one person or country to condemn anyone of that same or similar culture worldwide. Just as I have seen people condemn all blacks because of Robert Mugabe (claiming we aren’t fit to govern), I have seen people blame all Jews for the actions of Israel.
However, we have to be careful about this because the fact is that people have to deal with multiple systems of oppression since they are intersectional. There will be differences between the experience of a black gay woman and a white gay man. That’s why I think the focus should be on the system and how it works.
LikeLike
the Metafilter thread if anyone wants to read it
http://www.metafilter.com/93914/Youll-be-pleased-to-note-it-also-makes-it-easier-for-you-to-dust
LikeLike
Danila–
Strongly co-sign. There are always differences, but on some level, commonalities.
I think (though I might be stating or restating the obvious here) that it really depends on whether you come from a place of self interest or one of respect.
I really think there isn’t a marginalized group on the planet that isn’t routinely called hysterical or oversensitive. Sigh.
And that thread is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Bay Area said:
“It just seems to me that anti-racists are more interested in revealing as many sob stories as possible and scoring rhetorical points, as opposed to actually fighting for meaningful change. “
I do not write these posts TO or FOR white people. I write them for myself and my own understanding.
You and RR seem to think I am in the business of telling sob stories to appeal to the pity of whites. That assumes a favourable view of whites and a paternalistic view of blacks that you two seem to share but I do not. As I have made plain elsewhere I think most whites have hearts of stone when it comes to blacks. This post nails it:
Maybe you need to read more of my blog, but you should have gathered from posts like this one that I think most whites are closed minded when it comes to race. I used to think it was because they did not know any better but now I think it is way worse than that:
LikeLike
^^^^
Please you’ve let it be know time and time again that you are a white nationalist/pro-white/whatever euphemism for race based discrimination against non-whites. Please dont come over here and spew that bullsh!t rhetoric painting this picture that every white person in America is bending over backwards to welcome blacks but cant because every black person is hates wh!tey and reads anti-white propaganda online in their spare time.
LikeLike
Bay Area said:
“So Abagond, keep up the good work! Thanks for letting us know exactly what your kind thinks of us!”
This is a personal blog. I speak only for myself.
LikeLike
The question I then ask is why do you and other blacks continue to bother with us?
Why not? Besides, it’s entertaining! Especially the racist ones such as yourself.
Why not embrace Farrakhan and lobby for a separate black state, as unrealistic as it might seem?
Maybe you should lobby for a state. Does the Antarctica sound nice?
We don’t like you, and we never will.
Mwaaha, sob, mwaha, sob sniffle snark. Who is we? I thought you whites were individuals who thought for yourselves. How is it you have come to be their spokes- person?
If they knew what blacks truly thought of them, they would disabuse themselves of their naive “can’t we just get along” racial liberalism, and start to adopt a pro-white mentality.
I didn’t realize that most white American were liberal! I also didn’t realize they had that “can’t we all get along” mentality. Too bad they can’t get along with each other as well as blacks. The thing is, most whites do not give a hoot as to what blacks think of them so three quarters of your battle is won. Whens the racial holy war going to commence?
It’s good to know what the other side is thinking.
What other side? Since most whites could give a rat’s a$$ as to how blacks think, reading blogs authored by blacks isn’t going to change their minds. If anything it will only confirm their already racist mindset such as the one you possess.
LikeLike
CoL,
You are still missing the point. Snap judgments made about Whites (as a group) by non-Whites don’t have the same amount of the power as the reverse situation. Saying “everybody hates, blah, blah, blah” is one of those kumbayah platitudes because it assumes that there’s some kind of tug-of-war going on in which the opposing sides are tugging on ropes of equal quality. The reality is that one side of the rope is strong, while the other is often threadbare.
General question: Why do White people always want to turn discussions like this into “let’s all play together” bullsh*t? It’s like when a kid beats you up, and the teacher makes both of you apologize–what sense does that make?
Danila,
I think you hit on something crucial in the first part of your comment: even if a person isn’t trying to derail the conversation or belittle another person’s experience, making it all!about!me! still lends itself to the assumption that your priority is making the other person’s experience make sense to you, not about hearing them out and validating their experience.
LikeLike
Now I’m a white guy and I do get along with anybody who gets along with me. Granted, it might be that because of my skin color I can do this, but I take people as individuals. You’re ok if you are ok. I really don’t give a s*** what is your ethnic background or skin color.
That being said, have I seen, heard or met any racism? Yes sir, I have. Racism is about your skin color in this context, basically, if I get this right. I know whites who are racist, absolutely. I know arabs who are racist. And I have met black who are racists. What I mean by this is that these guys, whom I call racists, define themselves superior to somebody else because of their skin color.
I had an encounter with a black guy who said he was going to kick my ass because I’m white. Fortunately it did not go that far, because I would’ve kicked his. This guy was little out of shape at the time so it would’ve not been a contest at all. I had a black friend of mine there and he defused the situation by saying to this other black guy that he should take his issues somewhere else. Luckily he did. Now, was that racism? I think so.
I was talkin with one arab guy when an african guy came by and said hello. Once he left the arab guy turned to me and started to rant and rave about n****** and such. He became very offended when I told him that some talk about them as towelheads etc. Was that racism? Yes, I think so.
So there is racism on individual level and this goes on in all ethnic groups. In every group there are those who define themselves superior compared to some one else who is different color.
BUT there is also institutionalized racism and I think this is the subject of this post here. This racism is something which is in the system of thought and thinking. USA has a long history of institutionalized racism. It began at the moment the first white men rowed their first boat to the shore. From day one, those whites were in conflict against the natives, the so-called indians. Why? Mainly because they looked different and has a different culuture and religion.
Those natives tried at first usually understand who these new guys were. That approach was abandoned by the natives once these new white guys started to murder everybody, including their own.
So racism was imbedded in the “American” system already when the first black slaves were brought to the continent. We have to remember that in Caribbean there were white slaves too, mainly from France and Britain, but the use of black slaves was more “economic” and less provocative in their homelands.
Thus when the first black slaves came to US they were taken in by a system that had already the idea of whites being superior because of their religion and race. And this mentality has lived on for centuries. It still lingers in the system and pops out every now and then. I’m not just talking about grown men running around in funny conehats and bed sheets. I mean the system of thinking.
How it pops out? It is easy to see it outside of US. It is in the idea that USA should and can bring “democracy” to other countries by force. That USA brings “freedom” trough war to some country. Half a million dead and countless of injured later, there is just hopeless chaos but even that is better than what the natives had before because this is “freedom” and “democracy” from USA. I’m not saying this to put the soldiers down. They go where they are told to go and do what they are told to do. It is the system that tells them to do this.
When I was in the States many people asked me do I want to live there. When I said no way, they were surprised. Some were even offended. “Why not? You think you’re better than us? This is the best country in the world! We have freedom!”. See? That is the racism in the thinking system right there.
It also comes evident in official goverment papers and documents, in other documents, passports etc. They all ask for your racial identity. Why? Not your nationality but your “race”. Like mine was “caucasian”. WTF? I’m a finn, from northern Europe. It’s like calling a newyorker an eskimo. Sorry, inuit. But there you go. And that is racist.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the country and I have lot of friends over there, I love the land and the food, music, movies, but the system is something else. The idea of it is ok, freedom and rights, but the racism in the thinking is not so much ok.
Is there a “white thing” that makes us all racist? I don’t know. I doubt it. I think there are the systems of thinking. After all, we killed tens of millions of our own in WW2 with no trouble at all. Most of the dead were the result of fighting between germans and russians. Then there was the holocaust. And several hunderd thousands of gypsies murdered too. And thousands and thousand of gays also were murdered. Was that all racism?
Okay, I know: Rwanda was also ethnic conflict. Was it racist? I don’t know. Maybe it could be. It depends how one defines racism.
These are just things that came to my mind about this topic.
LikeLike
Sam,
You are white. Deal with it. I don’t know how else to put it. We all live in a racist world (not to forget whites were the ones who invented race and still like it that way). This means you will be seen as white in all the circumstances when there are non-white people around. If you live in a place that is 100% or almost 100% white like I do, it’s easy to see yourself as raceless, but if you go out you’ll realize you do have a race. And you have to deal with it. Dealing with it means at least two things. First thing is to be seen as white, even if you don’t identify yourself as white, but as a Finn. The second thing is to realize you have white privilege, even if your life might not be perfect (if you’re poor, for example, or gay, or female, or disabled, or non-Christian).
On the other hand, I don’t think black people beating whites just because they’re white are good and nice. It’s a race crime. But it’s important to see them as individuals and not as “black people”.
Also, I do think black people, like others, need to understand their own privileges and try to unlearn them, just like whites have to unlearn theirs.
Look, nobody says blacks are “allowed” to be sexist or homophobes just because they are black and experience discrimination based on race. But same goes for whites: they are not “allowed” to be racists just because they might be gay or poor or female and experience discrimination based on sexual orientation, class or gender.
And also it is important to understand things are not equal. Blacks and whites don’t have the same power in society. Think about Jasmin’s tug-of-war example.
LikeLike
Mira, you can deal with it yourself. I have no problem of being white anywhere in this world. That’s what I am. As a person who has spent some time in Africa and USA and little bit around the world, I have learnt one thing: you are who you are. If you are an asshole, it doesn’t make any difference what color, nationality or creed you are.
I have spent nights in a slum bar in darkest Africa and been in parties where I’ve been the only white miles around. Those people I partied with were the ones that even the local well to do natives, that is black africans, warned about me. I had no problem what so ever being there. I have no clue why, but it probably was not because I was the only white guy around.
I’ve been in Harlem, I have been in South Central, I have been in places where a white man was supposed to be robbed and mugged and killed and what have you. Funny but I am still here. I never was hurt. I met some nice people in those places, I met some genuinely funny and sharp guys there and yet, I was white and they were black. I have no idea why these gangbangers and killas did not kill me. They were ok with me and I guess I was ok with them. Maybe it was because I was not a white american. I don’t know. I have no idea. The only thing I know is this: I had a good time with those guys.
I have met all kinds of people in several cities in the USA, and there has been the one incident where I was at risk because of my color. The one I told you about above. That makes me believe that regardless your color, so called race or what ever, if you are ok, everything will be ok. If you treat people with respect and understand that you are their guest at their will and do not act like a god given gift of mercy, or act like next best thing after Jesus, you’ll be ok. But if you sit on your moral high horse and act like you are above them, you’ll get what you deserve.
Now, I’m almost fifty years old. I’ve seen a bit this life and met some people. I’ve seen all kinds of stuff that would probably make your shoes spin around. When the push comes to shove, when the last call is in, we are all humans. If you are in a mortal danger, it means didledoo what is your color. When there is no bread, no water to drink, when you have no choice, you help your fellow man and he’s going to help you. Not because they are nice, but because their own survival depends on it. At that moment it makes no diffenrence weather you are black, white, yellow, red, green, purple, muslim, christian, heathen or anything. The only thing that matters is this: you are a human.
You talk about need for seeing black muggers as individuals. Just like I do. I have black friends. One asshole does not make me change my mind about them. I’ve met dozens of white a-holes. They don’t make me change my mind either. The reason is that I see everybody as individual, even you. You don’t.
We have a different idea about racism. For you it is something in bred in white folks. For me it is an idea. Just like christianity. I’m not christian, nor I belong to any other creed. Why? Because I have my own idea about those things and like it that way. Same thing with racism. It is an idea, an ideology. It is a system of thought. And I’m not with that.
That is why I see racism in either individual terms or institutionalized terms. It is a thought prosess. A way of thinkin. It is a consept. And as long as you make separation between all kinds of races, you uphold that concept. When you see and uphold the differences between different kind of people, you enforce racism.
You do not understand it because you think you are so good and against racism, but when you make a separation of people in your head because of their color, you are doing the same thing what a racist does. He does not see individuals, humanbeings, he sees their color, culture, religion, what ever, and he believes that the reason for their differences is that, just like you do. It is the bases of racism. You have to make a clear separation between humanbeings. You have to have one locker for the white, for africans, for asians, for so on and so on. That is in you head. That is racism. Making conclusions based on the skin color.
Me, I don’t. Like I said, I have no problem with any skin color, any culture nor any religion. If you are ok, you are ok. I respect you as you are. As an individual. As a person. You don’t have to agree with me, you don’t have to think like me. Most of all, you don’t have to be like me. Understand?
You talk about “white privilidge”. I know I was born in very privilidged place and surroundings. I come from a country which is rich. I have lived well. How that makes me a racist? What is your point? What is your point when you demand that I must see myself white first and foremost? I tell you what it is: it is called racism. And that, my dear, makes you one of that lot. Sorry.
I refuse to be a white as a concept. Yes, you can call me a white because of my skin, but I refuse to be A White of your idea. I refuse to be anything other what I am. I’m just me. I have no problem with that nor any of my black friends have. They are my friend first and foremost. Not my Black friends. My arab friends are just my friends. Not my Arab friends. I know this takes some effort to understand and judging from your writing you are not there yet, but one day you may get it.
One day you may understand why I refuse to be your Whitey regardless how much you like to think that in your own racist way. One day you might see people as people and not races. It takes an effort, I admit, and it is not easy when racism is all around and doing so well, but it is possible in you. You can be “color blind” and start the Twilight of the racism on your part too. It is the only way I know it can be done away.
But if you choose to keep on seeing people as groups of races, you stick with racism. Was slavery wrong? Hell yeah. Is it wrong that there is no racial equality in the USA? Hell yeah. Is it wrong that some whites think they are superior to every other color? Hell yeah. It is all based on the idea of race. Once that shit is gone, there will be only other kinds of oppression to fight against.
In conclusion: I am who I am. You do not tell me what I am. You may have an idea in your head who I am, but that is not who I really am. If you think that I am something because of the color of my skin, you are no different from those guys who eat hot dogs and drink whiskey around that burning cross. They make up their minds based on skin color too.
LikeLike
Sam,
Mira, you can deal with it yourself. I have no problem of being white anywhere in this world.
In you previous post, you seemed to be uncomfortable with racial identity. You didn’t want to be called white or Caucasian, but a Finn. You wrote:
“They all ask for your racial identity. Why? Not your nationality but your “race”. Like mine was “caucasian”. WTF? I’m a finn, from northern Europe.”
This shows you identify yourself as Finn, not as a white person. Fair enough, but that doesn’t prevent other people, especially those in the US, to see you as white.
Also, I don’t think national identity is a great thing either. Why would identifying with your nationality be better, or more fair, than identifying with your race? Both are cultural constructs and are equally “not real”.
As a person who has spent some time in Africa and USA and little bit around the world, I have learnt one thing: you are who you are. If you are an asshole, it doesn’t make any difference what color, nationality or creed you are.
Yes, this is true. But is the opposite true as well? If you are a good person, it doesn’t make any difference what color, nationality or creed you are? It should not matter, but it often does. Just ask nice, intelligent and good people about the treatment they get if they happen to be of a “wrong” colour or nationality.
You talk about need for seeing black muggers as individuals. Just like I do. I have black friends. One asshole does not make me change my mind about them. I’ve met dozens of white a-holes. They don’t make me change my mind either. The reason is that I see everybody as individual, even you. You don’t.
Where did you get this? (That I don’t see everybody as individual)
I must admit I don’t have any black friends, but what difference does that make?
We have a different idea about racism. For you it is something in bred in white folks.
No, it is not. For me, race is a cultural construct and racism as we know it is a phenomenon created in a specific historical time and under specific conditions. Different times and different cultures had different ideas about race and different forms of racism, but their ideas of race and their racism don’t exist anymore.
You do not understand it because you think you are so good and against racism, but when you make a separation of people in your head because of their color, you are doing the same thing what a racist does. He does not see individuals, humanbeings, he sees their color, culture, religion, what ever, and he believes that the reason for their differences is that, just like you do. It is the bases of racism. You have to make a clear separation between humanbeings. You have to have one locker for the white, for africans, for asians, for so on and so on. That is in you head. That is racism. Making conclusions based on the skin color.
Are you sure you’re talking to the right person? I never said I didn’t see individual, or that I make separation between races.
You talk about “white privilidge”. I know I was born in very privilidged place and surroundings. I come from a country which is rich. I have lived well.
White privilege is not about living in a rich country or even to live well. A white homosexual or a disabled person can have many problems in their lives, but they still have white privilege. Even if they don’t notice it, even if they are discriminated against.
On the other hand, white privilege is not the only privilege. There’s also male privilege, heterosexual privilege, or an American privilege. Any black heterosexual American have all of them even if he’s discriminated based on race on daily basis.
How that makes me a racist? What is your point? What is your point when you demand that I must see myself white first and foremost? I tell you what it is: it is called racism. And that, my dear, makes you one of that lot. Sorry.
White privilege itself doesn’t make you racist. And I never said you must see yourself as white; after all, I am not a fan of collective identities. I am not a huge fan of identifying yourself as your race or your country. But that doesn’t change the fact others will see you as white (especially in the US). You can’t prevent people from doing it.
I refuse to be a white as a concept. Yes, you can call me a white because of my skin, but I refuse to be A White of your idea.
Believe it or not, there is no such thing as my idea of “A White”.
I refuse to be anything other what I am. I’m just me. I have no problem with that nor any of my black friends have. They are my friend first and foremost. Not my Black friends. My arab friends are just my friends. Not my Arab friends. I know this takes some effort to understand and judging from your writing you are not there yet, but one day you may get it.
You seem to be misreading what I write. I never said it’s ok to see people as their races, or to expect a person to act in a certain way because he or she happen to be of a particular race. Where did you get that in my messages?
One day you may understand why I refuse to be your Whitey regardless how much you like to think that in your own racist way.
Again. Please, tell me where did you get an idea I want you to see me as “my Whitey”? And wtf does that even mean?
But if you choose to keep on seeing people as groups of races, you stick with racism.
I don’t see people as groups of races- once again, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT?
In conclusion: I am who I am. You do not tell me what I am. You may have an idea in your head who I am, but that is not who I really am.
Believe it or not, I don’t have any idea about who you are. I never said I had. The fact you’re a Finn, or white, doesn’t say much, or anything about you. So I don’t see why you’re defending yourself. I never attacked you. All I said you can see yourself as one thing, but others might see you differently. I never said that’s how I saw you.
If you think that I am something because of the color of my skin, you are no different from those guys who eat hot dogs and drink whiskey around that burning cross. They make up their minds based on skin color too.
For the last time: I never said you were “something” because of colour of your skin, so you don’t have to defend yourself. Btw, I didn’t know KKK were fan of hot dogs and whiskey. You learn something new every day.
LikeLike
To Jasmin
Snap judgments made about Whites (as a group) by non-Whites don’t have the same amount of the power as the reverse situation.
Expressions of hate or violence are often backed by having the upper hand in a situation, eg someone has or believes they have power over the other person. I don’t buy the notion that relative lack of melanin automatically makes me more powerful than someone who has more melanin. Especially when those people with more melanin are attacking me, threatening me, calling me names, or throwing things out of their car at me.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
Having the upper hand in a situation doesn’t mean you have the upper hand absolutely. Think about the difference in response between you (a White male) calling the police on a non-White assailant and a non-White male calling the police on a White assailant. You have the power of knowing that if you call the police and say a Black male attacked you, the police will follow up, no questions asked. All people are capable of violence (duh), but the systemic power behind that violence is different, and that is where Whites have the upper hand.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
Black male attacked you, the police will follow up, no questions asked.
In my particular case.. no they did not, nor did they for four of my tenants, a friend of my who was assaulted inside of a home depot parking lot. (there was even a surveillance tape of the attack..) I could go on. They were after all just assaults.. a very common occurrence in Oakland. (Which also happens to Blacks, Latinos, and Asians..) In crime ridden cities, often the thugs have the upper hand.
LikeLike
Bay Area Guy (post #34), are you serious?
Please go some place with that tripe. You don’t speak for white people. You speak for yourself.
LikeLike
@ Jasmin
Saying “everybody hates, blah, blah, blah” is one of those kumbayah platitudes because it assumes that there’s some kind of tug-of-war going on in which the opposing sides are tugging on ropes of equal quality. The reality is that one side of the rope is strong, while the other is often threadbare.
I know this Jasmin… Good analogy by the way. I was trying to more or less address the idea that this “empathy” can be used as a bridge: Whether it be understanding, friendship, love, etc…
Of course everybody hates. I’m not denying societal power or white priviledge. I’m also not trying to derail. I’m simply saying that empathy and understanding go a long way. To judge someone – anyone – based on the “color of their skin” rather than the “content of their character – is something all human beings are guilty of. I’m talking about the idea of individuals being able to relate to another individual that may superficially appear different, yet fundamentally have the same experiences. It seems as though a physical barrier such as skin color is being used, (almost uequivocally) as a limiting factor in the ability for human beings to have shared emotional experiences based on racial hate, gender hate, ethnic hate, etc…
Why should any person be subjected to hate and prejudice for the color of their skin? I think people in general want to be “included” rather than “excluded”, and thus try to identify through shared or similar experiences. (Even if those experiences are negative.) —Ever been caught in those conversations with peers?
LikeLike
@ BAG….
Dude…. seems like your troll in disguise with some of your comments.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
So do you deny White privilege? You seem smart enough to know that personal anecdotes (or the personal anecdotes of people you know) aren’t good enough.
LikeLike
CoL,
You are still missing my point: you tend to employ the Common White Tendency (TM) of focusing on “Everybody does it” which shows your reluctance to admit that “Yes, White people (or White institutions) do X and it has a disproportionate effect on people of color”. Doesn’t matter if you meant to derail or not; it still is a derailment. And it doesn’t make White people as a group “bad”, but it does show the negative effects of Whiteness (and I’m not talking about the skin color). Yes, you are denying “societal power and White privilege” when you wax poetic about “people in general”. I think you should reread this part of Abagond’s post, and then think about it:
“You are bound to find something. Especially if you overlook the cause and scale of what they are talking about (like racial profiling by the police of blacks and Latinos) and look just at the narrow form of the action (like being stopped by the police).”
LikeLike
@ Jasmin — I think you actually missed “my point” on bridging the gap and being able to connect with one another as human beings. I was attempting to address this point in the article. Simply because I chose not to support the idea of White Privilege. (which I do in many other threads) here does not equate to “derailing or missing the point. ” I’m actually addressing a very specific topic which was pointed out by Abagond himself.
You are actually wrong when you say I’m focusing on “employ the Common White Tendency (TM) of focusing on “Everybody does it” which shows your reluctance to admit that “Yes, White people (or White institutions) do X and it has a disproportionate effect on people of color”.
How can I be derailing if I’m sticking to a point Abagond himself made. How can I be guilty of employing this Common White Tendency if I’m trying to address the specific idea that Abaogond put forth. Once again, I’m a supporter in the idea of “White Privilege” and do not detract from that. (Often times pointing this out to the fly-bys here) If anything, I will have to say that YOU are missing my point and derailing my focus to that of a discussion on White Privilege – rather than my “focus” on “bridging the gaps” through shared experiences. (which is independent of the concept of White Privilege.)
LikeLike
Hmmm, let me simplify:
Abagon said, “abagond
M:
I have seen it used as a bridge to understanding, but not very often.”
I’m a supporter of the idea of White Privilege. I often discuss this topic in depth with fellow posters throughout the literary universe of Abagond’s blog.
May I please be allowed without accusations of derailment per original post to reply with my own questions and thoughts to Abagon’d comment regarding “bridges of understanding?”
I’m talking about the idea of individuals being able to relate to another individual that may superficially appear different, yet fundamentally have the same experiences. It seems as though a physical barrier such as skin color is being used, (almost uequivocally) as a limiting factor in the ability for human beings to have shared emotional experiences based on racial hate, gender hate, ethnic hate, etc…
I think the opportunities for building bridges far more abundant than not.
LikeLike
CoL,
Once again, you missed it. You cannot talk about “bridging the gap” without talking about White privilege. It is not as simple as “let’s all kiss and hold hands and make up”. White privilege isn’t something you can employ when it’s convenient and remove when it’s not simply because it is comes out of the fact that you are White. Your argument is condescending to people of color, because it reeks of “can’t we all just get along?” bullsh*t”. We’ll “all just get along” when White people (yes, like you, because you are WHITE) recognize and stop supporting systems that oppress people of color. Until you do that, your “empathy” is moot.
LikeLike
No, let me simplify: You are not derailing because you are talking about fuzzy-wuzzy “bridges of understanding”, you are derailing because, like most White people, you refuse to focus on what you (meaning White people) need to do to “bridge understanding” (in quotes because I still feel it’s nothing more than a platitude). It’s more comfortable for you to say “we” (meaning all people) need to do that because then you don’t actually have to feel blame (as a White person) for the systemic ways White people oppress people of color. In case you missed it, when talking about racism (or in this specific instance, the tendency of White people to derail discussions of racism by searching for examples in which the same thing has happened to a White person), White people need to direct their efforts toward other White people. You don’t get to tell people of color what to do, because as the saying goes, you need to “clean up your own house first”. The only White people who can actually “practice what they preach” when it comes to anti-racism rhetoric are those who are focused on fixing the f*cked-up mentalities and actions of other White people. In reality, most just want to get a pat on the head from Black people. Which one are you? (Note: You can be neither, if you don’t identify as an anti-racist.)
LikeLike
Sorry you “took” my comments that way. That was not my intention. I’m really sorry you feel that way Jasmin.
I still think you’re taking my words way out of context. If you don’t really get what I’m saying, that is ok.
C h e e r s …
LikeLike
CoL,
I’ll pass on the non-apology. I didn’t take your comments any way, I read what you wrote and responded.
Check out number 2 of this list: http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/01/offer-white-apologetics-instead-of-just.html
LikeLike
No Jasmin… I’m not focusing on any one individual at all – or myself. I’m certainly not “attacking your ideas” or beliefs. I’m only trying to express mine.
People can relate and empathize to one another – irregardless of the race game.
By the way Ever find out if any of your relatives or friends were at ISU while I was there? It is quite possible they would have known me if they were there during the same time. (especially if they were involved with the BSU or MultiCultural center.)
LikeLike
CoL,
There’s nothing wrong with expressing your beliefs (obviously), but what I am pointing out to you is that your beliefs demonstrate that you are reluctant to focus on your Whiteness (the collective “your”). Just like my Blackness, your Whiteness is never not part of the conversation. And power dynamics in the US make White-on-Black empathy specious at best.
Re: ISU–How old are you (if you don’t mind my asking?)
LikeLike
I was at ISU 94-98. A 24 year old Freshman in College!!! lol…
LikeLike
Lol, no, you definitely weren’t there when my mom was.
LikeLike
Dear Abagond,
I think you should do a post about “the tremor”.
When white people come on here “yelling” (whether they’re “joking” or not) at you, it’s like I can hear them in real life, you know? I can even see their facial expressions.
And once I imagine them that way, I suddenly can’t hear their words anymore, or even their volume. It’s as though some force strips it all away and all I can hear is “the tremor”.
That subtle trembling of the voice, old as the first language. You know it…it’s the sound of fear.
When describing white people, a lot of folks – white and non-white – throw out terms like stupid or ignorant. I disagree. I think white folks who talk this are either sociopathic or afraid, like wounded animals backed into a corner.
White Americans are a global minority loathed, quite literally, by billions. Those billions are not all helpless and unarmed. Contrary to American propaganda, their military forces are superior. That’s why America bombs and invades certain countries…but certainly not others.
White Americans adhere steadfastly to white privilege and racial categorizing. But with 85%-88% of the human species being noticeably non-white, that way of thinking is starting to lose its shine. The fear is sinking in, hence white Americans’ loathing of term “POC”. But since privilege has conditioned the humility, foresight, and self-discipline out of them, they don’t know how to handle that fear in a wise and insightful manner.
So they lash out and throw tantrums, they troll blogs run by POC, they do everything they can to feel relevant, significant, and in control. But they’re not in control, and they’re slowly realizing they never really were. And with that realization comes the weakening of the words, and a distinct, unmistakable “tremor”.
Nothing said here will change what’s to come…and they know it. None of their obnoxious “debate” tactics or precious opinions or flat-out tantrum-throwing is going to stay their inevitable decline. This juvenile acting out is akin to taking hits of privilege to ease the excruciating withdrawal… savoring each moment until, at last, they run out.
Love always,
Ankhesen
LikeLike
@ Thanks Jasmin ! lol
I was asking too because I know (knew) some of the staff that work closely with the Multi-Cultural institute and Black Student Union. A few of the ladies have been there for years, and as far as I know, still are.
I worked with some of them on multicultural awareness campaigns targeting both the campus and community. One of the slogans was, “Put the UNITY back in CommUNITY.”
LikeLike
This is a very interesting paragraph
“White Americans adhere steadfastly to white privilege and racial categorizing. But with 85%-88% of the human species being noticeably non-white, that way of thinking is starting to lose its shine. The fear is sinking in, hence white Americans’ loathing of term “POC”. But since privilege has conditioned the humility, foresight, and self-discipline out of them, they don’t know how to handle that fear in a wise and insightful manner.”
And in a way represents the thinking of a book that I raised with Abagond as a suggestion.
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/stoddard/rtc_1-01.html
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
White people need to direct their efforts toward other White people.
This is the same line that feminists used to use in regards to sexism. Men need to talk to other men about sexism. Well… on occasion when it’s overt. But in reality.. no.. I think thats not going to work.
LikeLike
To Ankhesen Mié
When white people come on here “yelling” (whether they’re “joking” or not) at you, it’s like I can hear them in real life, you know? I can even see their facial expressions.
Well I don’t know if you are including me in the trembling group but if you wish I can talk to you or any one else on this board face to face ( I live in the San Francisco Bay Area..) or over the phone. I may be reached at D A Rabinovich@gmail.com.
(Remove the spaces.. I placed them their to avoid spam bots..)
For the most part I would say it’s a small minority of Whites that think much about the percentages of White folk in the world. Pat Buchanan does not represent most Whites.
LikeLike
But in reality.. no.. I think thats not going to work.
No…it’s not.
LikeLike
@ J
Thanks so much for that link! I love it!
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
So do you deny White privilege?
Well I see that as a non-sequitur to your previous statement or at least to my point. In my experience when one is the object of violence (from any race) from one person or a group a people, it is because the perpetrator(s) believes they have the upper hand. A rapist generally does not rape thinking he will be caught, beaten, have his balls lopped off, or killed. The same can apply to robbers or people who commit aggravated assaults.
Would an elderly White person in a wheel chair have more power than a non-White assailant simply due to their skin color? (If the person in the wheelchair has a loaded .357 Sig Sauer well maybe so (but it wouldn’t be because of skin color..) but in general I would say no..)
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
So do you deny White privilege?
I think it’s to some exaggerated and some facts and figures to support it are erroneous. I do think class privilege >>> White privilege albeit a substantial portion of people in the power elite are White. A poster on another thread indicated that their relationship with the police improved substantially when they moved to an upper class suburb. (Same thing happened to me..) Ankhesen Mié (not exactly what I would call an Uncle Tom or a Aunt Tomasina..) has indicated that she has observed police harassment of Whites in Appalachia. My point being… if you don’t have much money and live in a poor neighborhood… you are more likely to be treated like crap and I know there are a higher percentage of poor Blacks than Whites but numerically there are more poor Whites than Blacks. But does that mean that I don’t think White privilege exists..? No.
As for anecdotal incidents…I suspect the discussion of White racism/privilege would have little impact on you unless you and/or your relatives and friends who are Black had not personally experienced problems. As I remember you used an anecdotal experience from a White employer (who was surprised when he heard you were going to attend college) to support a point you had made. If you notice I do try to delve further and look at hard data and statistics (which have their own problems..) to see if some assertions here are supported or not.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton:
If class privilege were greater than White privilege, than it wouldn’t make sense that a there are a substantial number of Whites in the lowest income bracket that have better outcomes on things that are correlated with wealth, not race than Blacks in the highest income bracket. Things like healthcare, interactions with police, availability of good housing, etc.
Anecdotes aren’t inherently bad; using anecdotes to support your point is bad science.
I’m guessing you are a person who doesn’t understand that “privilege” (in the sense of White privilege) can be understood as the absence of negative consequences (because you’re White) just as easily as people frame it as advantages you get (because you’re White). Abagond mentions some of these negative consequences in several posts:
1. Police harrassment/brutality
2. Assumptions of incompetence, regardless of how shiny your resume is
3. Assumptions that you are prone to rape (esp. Black males)
4. Assumptions that anything you say is racist is just your own “sensitivity”
5. Decreased chances of garnering employment, higher education, or the most current health treatment, from the get go
6. etc., etc., etc.
All of the above things can happen to you (or any person), but they won’t happen to you backed by the institutional power of Whiteness. A Black cop can pull you over and harrass you, but the law enforcement system (a White institution) is not designed to disproportionately assume your guilt because you are White. It’s almost too obvious (and redundant) to type out that any [insert negative action] can happen to anybody. The difference between it happening to someone who has White privilege and someone who doesn’t is that the issue of whether it happens solely because of skin color (on a systemic level) does not have to be taken into account by a White person.
You’re operating on a Racism 101 level here–step your game up.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
Things like healthcare,
Asians and Latinos live longer than Whites… Black women live longer than White men. Latinos and Asian have lower infant mortality rates than Whites.
interactions with police,
Elaborate…
availability of good housing, etc.
Elaborate…
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
2. Assumptions of incompetence, regardless of how shiny your resume is.
If White employers think non-Whites are incompetent why have they shifted a huge portion of the construction industry in the Southwest over to Latinos? Or that matter a large amount of engineering and computer work over to Asians..?
3. Assumptions that you are prone to rape (esp. Black males)
Just because some White nut cases like to point out Black rapists doesn’t mean that Whites in general think that Black men are prone to rape.
5. Decreased chances of garnering employment, higher education, or the most current health treatment…
As I posted Latinos and Asians live longer and lower infant mortality rates than Whites. I’d be happy to post the data.
In the past 20 years Asians have shifted from being a minority in the IT field to a majority. Latinos (in California..) dominate residential (and quite a bit of commercial..) construction as well as landscaping.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton, I think you misunderstand the the meaning behind my words. While we are both right… poor is AS big a factor as race when it comes to unwarranted police harrassment, RACE is another factor that cannot be exluded. And Race is just as as large, but the thing that makes it worse than poor, is it cannot be combated by the victim of the harrassment. The thing is, as a white person, you can remove all identifying markers of poverty from yourself (neighborhood, car, dental health, wardrobe, grammar, etc…) and the unfair treatment stops entirely. Without those factors it is unlikely a white person will ever be harrassed without cause. But the same is not true as a black person moves up the social ladder. Until a black man is a kindly old white haired gentleman, he will be suspect. He will be pulled over more than you, and sometimes he will even be speeding (sometimes you speed too, so do I, but i am not overly worried about it, cause I dont speed to the point of traffic endangerment, but neither to most blacks, they are funny like that i have noticed, they are just not anymore criminal than white folks) but sometimes he will just look like a black dude in a nice car in a nice neighborhood. And THAT will be a marker for harrassment too. He will have jettisoned the societal markers of poverty (like I did) or maybe he will have been born without them and never been any where near a bad neighborhood. In fact he might have never even thought to do anything even slightly illegal, like streaking through the green at the country club, because he grew up in fear of losing his spot on the polo team… But he will trigger police observational sense and something will register in the policemans mind, that he’d better check on this guy. This is borne out by traffic stop and arrest records in nearly EVERY state.
And also i dont know why i feel the need to mention it, but i did not abandon the hood for an upper class suburb, i abandoned it for a much safer middle class, but still diverse urban neighborhood. You dont have to travel too far above your station if you are white to take matters into your own hands and end the harrassment.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
Almost all the arguments and sociological studies regarding White privilege are about the relationship and between Whites and Blacks and ignore (or give little weight..) dynamics between Whites and Asians and/or Latinos.
LikeLike
To Kim:
Sorry… I will admit I did skim your post. I am not totally downplaying race differences.. and as I said I fully realize there are a higher percentage of Blacks in poverty than Whites. Black and poor generally is a worse off social position in the US than White and poor. No argument there.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton, Thanks for acknowledging poverty… but my point was EVEN MIDDLE CLASS BLACKS get harrassed. A black person born in the hospital room next to me in the same minute could live a life entirely on the same trajectory, we could both jettison our poor, but they cannot jettison thier black without putting on a badge themselves… They will not ever be treated by police like someone on thier level. Unless we acknowledge and get outraged. Cause Uncle Milton, it is an outrage. I admit, I might not have become outraged, or even become aware about it had I not learned from experience that some people are treated very differently by police, even though they behave no differently.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
I’m glad you know what the CDC is, but I don’t know what that has to do with healthcare…?
Asians make up about 6% of the US population. Even if every man, woman, and child were in the engineering and computer industries, they still wouldn’t touch the number (and percentage) of White people in that same field. Statistics (101) is your friend.
There’s plenty of data on disparities between Whites and Asians, Whites and Latinos, and Whites and Native Americans. Apparently you just haven’t read it. I would suggest looking at health and mental health outcomes for starters. Quality and access of care is better across the board for Whites than for minorities. That is what most studies across the board look at in terms of healthcare, because it’s impossible to design a study that looks at every individual health-related factor of every subject in the study and extrapolate life outcomes.
Your last comment to Kim is the definition of White privilege, so I’m guessing you just don’t know what it means.
As a White person, it is probably difficult for you to a) see yourself as part of a White collective and b) recognize that this White collective you belong to receives privileges based on your shared characteristic of being “White”. Just like I don’t see myself as part of a heterosexual collective and spend much time thinking about the privileges I have just for being heterosexual.
LikeLike
To Bay Area Guy:
Hey Uncle Milton, could you provide some statistics/evidence?
I find them a bit surprising. We’re always hearing about low life expectancy and high infant mortality among blacks and Hispanics.
I’m especially surprised that black women live longer than white men. I guess black male life expectancy is that low, hence the average 7 years whites as a whole live longer than blacks.
Life expectancy:
Click to access np-t7-b.pdf
White, Non-Hispanic (Male) 74.
White, Non-Hispanic (Female) 80.1
Black, Non-Hispanic (Male) 68.3
Black, Non-Hispanic (Female) 75.1
Asian, Non-Hispanic (Male)2 80.8
Asian, Non-Hispanic (Female)2 86.5
Hispanic Origin (Male)3 77.1
Hispanic Origin (Female)3 83.7
http://www.paho.org/English/DD/PIN/pr040609.htm
“Census data also show that Latina women have a life expectancy of 83.7 years and Latino men, 77.2 years—compared with 75.1 and 68.4 for African Americans and 80.1 and 74.7 for non-Hispanic whites. Yet health surveys show they have less access to health care services (63 percent of working Latinos have no health insurance) and to state-of-the-art treatment.”
Infant mortality by maternal race/ethnicity:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5524a6.htm
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
Asians make up about 6% of the US population. Even if every man, woman, and child were in the engineering and computer industries, they still wouldn’t touch the number (and percentage) of White people in that same field. Statistics (101) is your friend.
Well nope.. and I am not sure what your point.
6% (that’s too high by the way..) of the US population = 0.06 x 330 million = 19.8 million.
You are saying then that there are more than 19.8 million non-Hispanic Whites employed engineering and computer industries in the US…? (By the way I indicated employed as IT staff…)
19.8 x 2 = 39.6 million.
39.6 / 143.195 = 27 percent of the employed population of the US. Mmmm.. no. I don’t think so.
(.. The total number of people employed in the US is
143,195,793 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_S2401&-ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_ ..)
Anyway.. I’ll reiterate… there has been a marked increase in number of Asians employed the IT industry in the US in the past 20 years. This number exceeds markedly the percentage of their representation of the US. This is partially due to the H1B programs but it indicates to me that employers in the US (Often but not always..) want what they consider to be the most bang for the buck.
You’re moving to California aren’t you..? You’ll see.
LikeLike
Kim:
but my point was EVEN MIDDLE CLASS BLACKS get harrassed. .
Yes I caught that.. I’ll get back to you. In general I am ambivalent when it comes to affirmative action but not so for the hiring of Black police officers. (and Black defense lawyers..)
LikeLike
Arrgggh.. damn.. multiple grammatical mistakes in some of previous posts.
LikeLike
Related to this subject, I’ve been reading “At the hands of persons unknown: The lynching of Black America”. It gives some good examples of white people coming to understand some of the terror black people experience without claiming “it happens to me too”. White anti-lynching activists in the early 20th century and civil rights activists mid-century sometimes got a taste of what happened to black people on a regular basis. In 1919 the white Executive Secretary of the NAACP, John Shillady, went to Texas to meet with the attorney general and other officials over a racist law. He fully expected to have a civilized meeting and talk like gentlemen with these other white men. But he didn’t get to meet with the attorney general. Instead, he was hauled before a judge for “inciting negroes against whites” and then was beaten by several officials, including that same judge and the sheriff, for being a “ni**er-lovin white man”.
What struck me was Shillady’s reaction. He never recovered psychologically and resigned his position after experiencing what for many black people was a light punishment (I don’t minimize what happened to him, just pointing out the differences in scale). When he resigned, he said he no longer felt the NAACP would be able to overcome “the forces opposed to Negro equality” because he wasn’t sure they had the power to overcome such entrenched hatred and racism. So the terrorism of racists happened to him too, but it didn’t cause him to minimize what happened to blacks every day. Instead, he and other white anti-racists finally saw just how deep the hatred went.
LikeLike
Jasmin:
I’m glad you know what the CDC is, but I don’t know what that has to do with healthcare…?
on things that are correlated with wealth, not race than Blacks in the highest income bracket. Things like healthcare, …., availability of good housing, etc.
I asked you to elaborate on your second point.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
There’s plenty of data on disparities between Whites and Asians..
Yes Asians in the US on average live longer, have lower infant mortality rates, have higher household incomes, higher high school graduation rates, higher college graduation rates, and commit crimes at lower rates than Whites… but that wasn’t the point of my post.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton your statistics about asians in regards to health and lifespan are true as a whole until you look at them by subgroup, the asian population that has been here for generations (which is the largest by far, and is therefore the largest factor in making the numbers the cdc quotes) does have these higher numbers, perhaps genetically there is some reason for thier longevity, but more likely it is both financially and nutritionally related. When you allow for newly arrived asian groups like Laotians , Cambodians or Hmong, and separate them out of the larger “asian” subgroup, thier numbers are shockingly lower for life span and higher for infant mortality, education or lack thereof, poverty and all other factors too , dont measure up to the ‘asians are the good minority’ claptrap. It seem that when asians are on a lower socioeconmic par, that myth shoots itself in the head, so maybe instead of genetics, there is something to the socioeconomic factor? Which would mean that perhaps there might be something to this racism stuff you keep denying.
and as for this stat about black women living longer than white men, well its also a fallacy, when you try and use it as proof in this context it is bull, frankly. you see ALL WOMEN outlive men in thier socioeconomic or racial subgroups, usually by a factor of five to seven years or more, by saying well black women out live white men by one point such and such years, you are essentially saying this … well the long lived of your race outlive the shortlived of mine. well i would hope they do. but that does not mean that black women have an advantage over white men. statistically speaking uncle milton, i will outlive you by 6.1 yrs, but Jasmin will only outlive you by 1.4 yrs. To me that seems wrong. And while a Chinese or Japanese woman from a middle class background will statistically outlive you by up to twelve years, a ASIAN Cambodian immigrant woman will probably not even outlive you.
To make an accurate comparison you really can only look at similar circumstances… you cannot compare a short lived subgroup to a long lived one. Statistically speaking you will out live a black man by 6 yrs. and thats the ONLY honest way to quote those figures.
LikeLike
To Kim:
Which would mean that perhaps there might be something to this racism stuff you keep denying.
I am not.. but I am challenging the paradigm.
When you allow for newly arrived asian groups like Laotians , Cambodians or Hmong, and separate them out of the larger “asian” subgroup, thier numbers are shockingly lower for life span and higher for infant mortality, education or lack thereof, poverty and all other factors too , dont measure up to the ‘asians are the good minority’ claptrap. It seem that when asians are on a lower socioeconmic par, that myth shoots itself in the head, so maybe instead of genetics, there is something to the socioeconomic factor?
Yes I know there are differences. (And by the way I also know those differences are narrowing ..) There are also marked differences between ethnic Jews and Appalachian Scotch-Irish. I wasn’t really interested in going off on the Asians vs. everyone else but Jasmin took it that way. As it stands I know people from all three communities. Laotians, Cambodians, and Hmong… all share basically a similar history, that of fleeing their home countries (often with nothing..) in the past 14 to 35 years. (The same applies to Vietnamese but they have a better support community and I suspect much of their success could be laid at the feet of Confucianism. Some of their issues may indeed be due to racism.. but does racism adequately explain the differences between Northeast Asians, South Asians and the aforementioned groups..? Is your average White person going to racist against a Hmong but not an ethnic Chinese or Japanese person..? I tend to think not.
LikeLike
To Kim:
the asian population that has been here for generations
Yes some Asians have been here for generations but Asians have gone from being 1% of the US population in 1970 to estimated 4.4% now, so obviously the majority have not been here for generations.
To make an accurate comparison you really can only look at similar circumstances… you cannot compare a short lived subgroup to a long lived one. Statistically speaking you will out live a black man by 6 yrs. and thats the ONLY honest way to quote those figures.
And Hispanic males having a 3.1 year longer lifespan or Asian males having a 6 year longer lifespan than Whites males is not relevant or honest?
I cited the fact about Black women versus White men because some people in the US seem, to think that White men are at the top of the US heap and Black women are at the bottom. Yes of course women in basically all cultures and ethnicities outlive men.. I presumed that the majority of people reading my post would know that. I guess it was easier for you to go off on that factoid than the difference between Whites, Asians, and Latinos.
LikeLike
Jasmin’s right: you need to “clean up your own house first”. But in my experience, people rarely do that. It’s easier to say: “but your group is not perfect either!” and take it as an excuse not to do anything. Same goes for “I’ll do it, but they have to do it first, or at least at the same time with me”. That doesn’t help. At all.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton, there is a problem in latino statistics, the statistics from person to person, from birth or arrival until death are not tracked. Death stats are only gleaned from US coroners reports, saying asian man aged 89 dead. There is a phenomena among the shortest lived segmant of the Latino community, the illegals, in that many of them will work thier entire adult lives and then move back to thier home country for retirement. Ergo, the poorest of these people who live the least amount of time are more likely not to be included on US death statistics. This likely changes the example you have given, that blacks are at fault for thier problems and that whites are on top. Because things like that will effect the numbers enough to skew them, as for asian, like i said much of thier higher numbers can be attributed to to nutrition and income, but with the newly arrived people will die earlier, and considering these lower income new arrivals have not been here long enough to begin to effect the death stats, in 20 yrs, asian death stats might well look like white ones. There in fact, might be reasons to explain ALL racial differences in statistics away… for instance latino women could have lower infant mortality rates than Black women ONLY because the poorest ones, who would skew the numbers higher, dont make it to america at the same rate as the ones who lived comparitively in less poverty in latin america. And if you looked closer at the stats, the stats might show that most negative outcome, actually occurs in the poorest, most newly arrived spectrum of latinos. Since some self weeding of that population was done in thier home country, the numbers might look different if full birth to death statistics were collected on every person regardless of where thier lifes major events occured.
My issue with this line of conversation is that the stats you trot out that are making you believe (I think because you want to believe) that racism is not the primary problem. Apparently somehow you have extrapulated from your store of information that Blacks just THINK they are victims, but if they simply stopped thinking this… problem solved. Well here is what i challenge you to think about… Maybe the primary REASON we do nothing as a society to eliminate the epidemic problem of poverty (that treats whites, latinos, blacks and asians in the very same way) Is because we percieve it to be a problem that is ones own fault? That we look at it as a ‘black’ thing? We do this, i think, becuase poverty effects so many black people and in visible urban areas with large TV news capacity. And also because ‘other’ poverty tends to be hidden as a minority in predominantly black areas, where blacks are blamed for what are essentially color blind problems, And since so much of ‘other’ poverty is hidden well away from news desks, hidden pockets in the middle of nowhere (appalacia, indian reservations, small ag towns with a high concentration of latinos etc) where whites don’t have to look at thier own peoples suffering, or the suffering of other races that looks just like black poverty. Blacks are our most visible example of poverty in this country and that carries over on them even when they jettison thier poverty.
Just because a black gets out, does not mean he is not still looked upon suspiciously. It sticks even when they are upper class. For instance look at the reaction to michael steele in the republican party. The Tea party shows up and generates millions, some of which would have gone to the RNC, the supreme court rules corporate expenditures can be used for political spending, without the RNC or its feeder PACS as go betweens so THAT huge amount of money does not find itself in RNC coffers, and Michael steele is blamed for it. The RNC is caught at a strip club, without Michael Steele, but he is held responsible… due to these factors, which he had no control over The RNC suddenly finds itself 7 mill in the hole, yet he is blamed for it (even though the RNC, and the DNC have doubtless spent hundreds of thousands at strip clubs over the year) Michael Steele has spent his entire term under a cloud of suspicion, one that i dont remember EVER seeing directed at an RNC head before. Same goes for Barack Obama. Shirley Sherrod was most definately a victim of racism I could go on and on. A white person would NEVER have been falsely accused of racism for making a speech about overcoming racism. And a white woman, in front of you in line at the grocery with a cartfull of food and an ebt card will never invite the scrutiny in your mind that a black woman will (why is she buying so much meat, my tax dollars are buying her all that meat when I dont even buy that much?,,, the answer to that by the way, is she is buying a months worth of groceries, you are only buying a weeks worth.) These problems are never as simple OR as complicated as we make them, they are just there, part of the fabric of the country, and its only when we acknowledge tham that they can change.
LikeLike
@ Mira
You said, “Jasmin’s right: you need to “clean up your own house first”.”
This is so true and I completely agree.
My point is that ‘our house’ is America, and we need to work collectively to do the job effectively. Aknowledging separtist behaviors, identifying the “dirty areas” and understanding “why those areas” are dirty” is essential for “proper clean up” on one’s “HOUSE”. Working as a team is much more effective than working separately.
If we relied upon and created “bridges of understanding”, I believe we would be a much more effective team.
LikeLike
To Mira:
Jasmin’s right: you need to “clean up your own house first”.
Are you talking about me personally..?
LikeLike
To Kim:
Re: Statistics… yes I am not married to them. as for example but if one wants to talk about White privilege I think you need to include the data for Latinos and Asians. This is the same data (Whites vs. Blacks..) that is used by writers like Tim Wise.
As for the better off Latinos coming to the US skewing the statistics.. it’s possible I suppose but there are a substantial number of very poor people crossing also. I suspect the figures would only be moved by a few months if one were taking a truly random cross sample.
I reiterate:
And a white woman, in front of you in line at the grocery with a cartfull of food and an ebt card will never invite the scrutiny …
You’re wrong.
Shirley Sherrod was most definately a victim of racism..
(Knee jerk reaction…Pretty common here also…) When the USDA found out it was suckered (and allegedly Beibart was suckered…) she was offered her job back. Stupid political games.. reminds me of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
What Kim said.
You read my statistics incorrectly (I’m guessing my meaning was unclear), but if you are so interested, Google is your friend. You seem to have plenty of free time with the Angry!White!Male! chip on your shoulder, so have at it. And I hope you don’t turn into one of those blog creepsters like he-who-must-not be named–some of your comments are getting the TMI side-eye.
LikeLike
CoL,
I would agree with you–if people were actually interested in “working as a team”. Think about the difference between when a Black person says something is racist and when a White person says the same thing. If your idea was feasible, things would work like this:
1. Non-White person mentions a racial disparity/microaggression/burden on the lives of people of color to a White person.
2. White person learns more about #1 and finds examples on his/her own.
3. White person tells other White people so they will be aware of and work to combat racial disparity/microaggression/burden on the lives of people of color.
Instead of this:
1. Non-White person mentions a racial disparity/microaggression/burden on the lives of people of color to a White person.
2. White person insists the issue in question must be based on something other than race.
3. White person seeks out other White people (and a token non-White person or two) to back him/her up.
4. White person high-fives other White people for not being “tricked” into believing the myth of White privilege.
5. Rinse and repeat.
LikeLike
“You seem to have plenty of free time with the Angry!White!Male! chip on your shoulder, so have at it.”
LOL.
The last several comments do seem like perfect examples of the topic of the original post, although I get where Uncle Milton is coming from. But I think there is a little too much of an effort to make certain events seem like normal, human failings rather than white-specific.
LikeLike
@Uncle Milton
Are you talking about me personally..?
No. What makes you say that?
@Color O’ Luv
This is so true and I completely agree.
My point is that ‘our house’ is America, and we need to work collectively to do the job effectively. Aknowledging separtist behaviors, identifying the “dirty areas” and understanding “why those areas” are dirty” is essential for “proper clean up” on one’s “HOUSE”. Working as a team is much more effective than working separately.
Well, obviously, all Americans are Americans. But they are obviously separated into groups that don’t always share the same interests and don’t see each other as “one of our own”. In that sense, each group has its own “house” with its problems. While it’s ok to criticize the other group, focusing on problems within your own is a much better strategy. If nothing else, you have more control and can change things in your own group than you could do with other groups.
Just look at it. Blacks did acknowledge a problem in the white group (racism), but they can’t do anything themselves to stop it. Similarly, whites can’t solve certain problems in the black community; only blacks can.
LikeLike
To Mira:
No. What makes you say that?
Clarification.. that and I’m hung over.
LikeLike
1. Non-White person mentions a racial disparity/microaggression/burden on the lives of people of color to a White person.
2. White person insists the issue in question must be based on something other than race.
3. White person seeks out other White people (and a token non-White person or two) to back him/her up.
4. White person high-fives other White people for not being “tricked” into believing the myth of White privilege.
5. Rinse and repeat.
Like I said…”tremor”.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
You seem to have plenty of free time with the Angry!White!Male! chip on your shoulder..
Sometimes I don’t post for weeks at a time because of time constraints. As for being angry I have plenty of dough .. and I get laid as often (sometimes more often…) than I need. Life is good. I am scattered today but the thrust of my argument is I don’t think the solutions being (predominantly) proposed here are or will work.
LikeLike
And to the brilliant ladies on here who are trying, I offer you this (some of you already know it well):
“Years ago, when I first started talking to white folks about race, I used to tread lightly. I knew that the vast majority of white people can quickly get very defensive and shut down easily in discussions of race, so I bent over backwards to accommodate them. I would spend hours typing out huge responses that were as pleasant and non-accusatory and educational as I could possibly be.
“And what happened whenever I did this? I was accused of calling people racists, even though I had specifically gone out of my way not to do any such thing and never even used the word. I was accused of playing the race card. I was accused of being racist myself, because I dared talk about race and my experiences with race and didn’t pretend that race is meaningless.
“I can’t pretend that race is meaningless. Pretending that race is meaningless would mean pretending that racism is meaningless. And since racism costs actual lives (as in, racism MURDERS people of color), that’s not something that I can brush off of my shoulder.
“I learned, over several years, that my tone did not matter. How many educational links I posted did not matter. How many statistics I referred to did not matter. How carefully I coddled the feelings of white folks who just couldn’t stand the thought that they might not be the shining beacons of tolerance (which, by the way, is a word that I hate) that they hoped they were did not matter. And I learned that my hurt, my exclusion, the deaths and demonization of my people, did not matter. Any time I dared speak about race, I was labeled a racemonger. I was considered an angry black bitch, no matter what I said or how I said it. I was dismissed, ignored, or actively antagonized.”
~ August, from “What Happened to the Honey“?
LikeLike
Moi’s here! Yay! 🙂 Can we get some more on this “tremor” business?
And while I’m making requests, Abagond, you already know what I’m going to say… 😛
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
You read my statistics incorrectly.
You are referring to..?
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
TMI side-eye! 😛 (Stealing a) fashion tip from Moi: Men who get laid as often as they’d like rarely feel the need to mention it.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
Men who get laid as often as they’d like rarely feel the need to mention it.
You accused me of having an AngryWhiteMale (ad hominem by the way..) chip on my shoulders. I listed some of the reasons why I don’t. Simple as that and yes I know a bit tawdry but I felt more appropriate than calling you a name in return.
Have a good one. Really
LikeLike
@ Jasmin –
You said, “I would agree with you–if people were actually interested in “working as a team”.
Trust me, I am.
The problem I find is that most “people”, whether they are Black or White are interested in separating the team. Derailing can be done on both sides. Whites are not the only ones capable of derailing. The same can be said for non-whites derailing along similar steps you outlined above. Haven’t you ever witnessed this?
LikeLike
Uncle Milton, you seem like someone I would get along with irl. You remind me of my SO with your respectful manner and all the statistic quoting and analyzing. Cute. 🙂
[Not trying to be patronizing… serious comment.]
LikeLike
Enough with Uncle Milton’s trousers, please!
It’s interesting to note how people act when they are offended, though.
But back on topic.
Color O’ Luv
The problem I find is that most “people”, whether they are Black or White are interested in separating the team. Derailing can be done on both sides. Whites are not the only ones capable of derailing.
This sounds way to similar to “they do it too!”/Arab trader argument. Derailing is never a good thing, no matter who does it. It still doesn’t change the fact white privilege exist, and so does racism. And blacks can’t stop those things on their own, because they don’t have the power to stop it. Whites started it.
Now, I do believe thing are not that simple. Post-racial world would be a better place, but I do have my ideas about how that might affect black community (apart from positive ways, there could be negative ones), and that is something that would be a problem in their group. But ending white privilege is white group’s problem. Not many whites are interested in doing so apart from stating it’s a bad thing.
But to be completely honest, I don’t know what a honest white person can do, except to live her/his life according to anti-racist beliefs. I’m not sure that one person can make a global difference. So let’s start by doing it in your own world: with your friends, family and people around you.
LikeLike
With regard to the comment abount ‘tremor’.
Personally I found it ‘offensive’ and perhaps ‘un-necessary’
LikeLike
Tremors???
Why do I always miss the action? 😉
LikeLike
CoL,
But what does that matter when you are talking about real-world occurrences? That’s like, when talking about a war or something, you say, “Well everyone’s capable of killing people.” To that I respond, “Well DUH, but what does that have to do with the actual war we are talking about?”
I second Mira’s comment, though I can’t for the life of me figure out why you are so gun-shy talking about people and not just “White people” specifically.
LikeLike
I second Mira’s comment, though I can’t for the life of me figure out why you are so gun-shy talking about people and not just “White people” specifically.
Are you saying I don’t talk about people in general enough and focus way to much on white people instead?
… or was this directed at me at all?
LikeLike
To Mira:
It’s interesting to note how people act when they are offended, though.
I wasn’t I just thought this comment from AM was a little silly:
“That subtle trembling of the voice, old as the first language. You know it…it’s the sound of fear.”
From:
I responded in a serious manner:
And then became naughty when she made a second post on the subject. To each their own.
LikeLike
*nods* Tremor.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
Personally I think her point is valid, and although she did not say it, I think it bespeaks directly to the likes of ‘you’
LikeLike
To NatashaW:
Uncle Milton, you seem like someone I would get along with irl. You remind me of my SO with your respectful manner and all the statistic quoting and analyzing. Cute.
Thanks. I can come across as being obnoxious online and then I back off and try to lighten things.
LikeLike
Mira,
No I was talking to CoL still, but now that I re-read it I can see I wrote the opposite of what I meant: gun-shyness = talking about “White people” specifically.
LikeLike
The way I see it, all you did was to embarrass yourself in front of many present and future visitors of this blog. Not to mention you managed to portray several nasty stereotypes about whites, males and white males.
LikeLike
My previous comment was directed at Uncle Milton.
Jasmin,
Hmmm… No, you were correct, I think. I didn’t get “gun shyness” correctly.
LikeLike
“Thanks. I can come across as being obnoxious online and then I back off and try to lighten things”.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!
LikeLike
To J:
Personally I think her point is valid, and although she did not say it, I think it bespeaks directly to the likes of ‘you’.
Well J, I travel often to Asia and South America, my girlfriend is from Korea, I have two relatives by marriage from Mexico, roughly 3/4s of my work colleagues do not originate from European countries, and roughly 2/3s of the people in my apartment complex are from: Mexico, Brazil, India, the Philippines. I own two rental properties in Oakland. Two out of four of my tenants are Black. At one point five of my six tenants (I am remodeling a unit..) were Black Americans. Of the people I have hired to work on some of units, I’d say 15% were Black Americans, 55% were Latino, 10% were Asian, and the balance were White. My mother taught art at a historically Black college from 1969 to 1973. So… perhaps I am bit daft since I seem to be
continually commingling with people of color and causing my self undue tremors.
LikeLike
[…] one of Ankhesen Mie’s comments yesterday over at Abagond rubbed me the wrong way, and put me in a unusually angry and nasty racial […]
LikeLike
*shrug*
Tremor.
LikeLike
Cheers Uncle Milton,
Would you like to tell me what YOU think all of the aforesaid says about you??
And I may then consider giving you my own perceptions of you which I can guess will be different to how you perceive yourself??
LikeLike
To J:
AM seems to be saying I fear people of color. I am saying I don’t.
“And I may then consider giving you my own perceptions of you which I can guess will be different to how you perceive yourself??”
The Thad and J show becomes the J and UM show..?
LikeLike
What happened to Thad, btw? Did he get a one way ticket to ban land or something?
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
I think the ‘fear’ that is being alluded to is the fear of racism and its hypocrisy being exposed. Its as simple as that.
And I think Whites do fear ‘racism’ being exposed in all sorts ofways
As for this blog, this is my honest opinion. I think the White participants are nowhere even ‘close’ to understanding the issue of ‘race’ and its various issues, irrespective if they have partners who are designated as POC.
Perhaps Abagond you may want to do a topic on how those in inter-racial relationship actually choose their partners, and what does it say about both parties involved in these relationships??
If you follow my line of reasoing
LikeLike
Thad has not been banned.
LikeLike
To J:
I think the ‘fear’ that is being alluded to is the fear of racism and its hypocrisy being exposed. Its as simple as that.
As for being exposed.. if you look above I offered to meet anyone on this blog in person.
LikeLike
To J:
Perhaps Abagond you may want to do a topic on how those in inter-racial relationship actually choose their partners, and what does it say about both parties involved in these relationships??
Probably in keeping with the blog. Various threads (Why White men won’t marry Black women and Why Black women won’t marry White men…) are sort of in that vein.
LikeLike
Cheers Uncle Milton,
I have chosen not to read those post. So I do not know if the point has already been covered. if it has then do forgive me.
Some of the attitudes expressed on this board by the White commentators, would not be tolerated by some Black/POC that I know – and I would not describe these individuals as ‘radicals’.
Then there are some who would be more ‘tolerant’ of many of the racist attitudes expressed on this board, inadvertently or otherwise.
So what I am specifically is referring to the ‘insecurities’ ie the Black male or female is too militant cannot be chosen as a partner for an obvious reason.
The South Asian woman from India must be ‘Westernised’ and not ‘culturally Indian’ to be considered ‘acceptable’
And with regard to lady from E. Asia she must be ‘controllable’
For the instances I have sighted there are two sides
to the story – not just one.
LikeLike
As for being exposed.. if you look above I offered to meet anyone on this blog in person.
You just don’t get it…do you!!!
LikeLike
Thad has not been banned.
Thanks for the info. Maybe he’ll be back, though I’m not sure if people miss him here.
Probably in keeping with the blog. Various threads (Why White men won’t marry Black women and Why Black women won’t marry White men…) are sort of in that vein.
True, but there is a noticeable lack of posts on black men and white women and various aspects of their relationships, from honest and serious ones to rebellion against parents and false rape accusations.
One would expect for Abagond, as a black man, to write more often about these pairings (even though he stated he was never interested in white women). Still, he is a black man, and he is neither a white man or a black woman and yet he wrote so many posts on white men/black woman pairings.
PS-And yes, I’m actually writing all of this as a post suggestion.
LikeLike
To J:
The South Asian woman from India must be ‘Westernised’ and not ‘culturally Indian’ to be considered ‘acceptable’
Well almost all of the South Asians I work with are from India, a few from Pakistan, one fellow from Sri Lanka and two guys who grew up in the US. Only one of the ethnic Indian women I worked with grew up in the US. I get/got along with most of them.
And with regard to lady from E. Asia she must be ‘controllable’
I am not sure where those women are made.. the last time I was punched was by a East Asian woman. (Well in reality she struck me in the face with a clutch with a cell phone in it…hey I got to learn what a Clutch was… it was Gucci I think..) She was drunk and I was frustrating her, she has a pretty good swing.
You just don’t get it…do you!!!
Apparently not.
LikeLike
With regard to Thad, and others like him here.
What I do not understand is ‘why they visits this blog?
Its clear what type of blog this is.
Personally, even if it is a ‘mild respect’ on my part.
I would not go on Stormfront and try to ‘preach’ to the audience there.
Nor would I go on a Christian site trying to ‘preach’ comparative religion and showing theories where those parts of the bible could be considered wrong.
The nature of the board paradoxically dictates one’s presence, unless on a ‘wind up’ off course.
Here you go again Abagond, another posssible suggestion. Why do such people visit the inappropriate blogs, and what does it say about their ‘personalities’.
Deep psychoanalysing at work once again.
Hmmmmmmmmm!!!
LikeLike
Uncle Milton,
It really is a case off ‘more fool me’
Have a goodnight
LikeLike
@ J
I think the White participants are nowhere even ‘close’ to understanding the issue of ‘race’ and its various issues
*nods* Because they’re not trying to. It’s simply not their intent. It’s not what they come to blogs like these for. They come to make everything about them, which is more than fitting for the title of this particular blog post.
“Oh…that happens to you? Let’s go back to talking about me.”
To an extent their bravado is genuine; they are more than prepared to yell, browbeat, throw tantrums, and be condescending. That’s what they mean by “debate”. See, white Americans can have evidence staring at them right in the face, but if it incriminates them in any way, they automatically believe they should “debate”.
The existence of institutionalized racism is not up for debate. The existence of white privilege is not up for debate. The methods and tactics for remedying these problems, however, are up for debate…but that’s not at all what they’re are concentrating on.
As a wise woman I know said, “They don’t care.”
LikeLike
I am not sure where those women are made.. the last time I was punched was by a East Asian woman.
Your SO?
On a side note, I thought we all learned stereotypes of any kind are harmful and useless.
LikeLike
J,
Actually, no. It is not clear what kind of blog this is. Its author states he blogs about whatever he wants. I don’t think you could call this blog a black version of Stormfront or something.
Or are you saying that white people should not visit blogs owned by black people, or blogs about race and racism?
Or are you basically saying that people should be interested only about what’s happening in their group and ignore the others? (Well, that’s exactly what most of the people do- but it’s not a good thing!)
LikeLike
J,
that is a good question. What would lead white people to this blog? Personally I stumbled accross this blog quite mistakenly, I was discussing poetry at work and a coworker, whom i am uncomfortable around anyway, brought up phillis wheatley, whom he told us out of the blue and unasked, was adopted by kindly christian abolitionists. Anyway voices were raised, and i came home to try and figure out where he possibly could have come up with that nonsense, so as my search broadened on all sorts of terms relating to slavery, race, abolition etc. there was a link to this blog. And I have to say I love it! The writing is fabulous. But I wonder why commenters would have come on to a blog in order to express a polar opposite opinion. And what it says about them. And I also wonder how someone would FIND it in the first place if they were not concerned directly with the topic of race. And even though i have been growing more and more outspoken on the topic of racism in the past few years, i still have not ever seeked out personal blogs on the topic, and rarely search for anything related to it , blog or not, on the net, And i am unclear how someone who insists so loudly that racism is not an issue, would seek out so many racial topics to speak of…. to butcher a quote, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much…. I suppose it is entirely possible that search engines might put the link to this blog under subjects entirely different than race… quantum physics perhaps, or football…. but i sort of doubt that is a reliable way to stumble across this blog. Hmmm. Very odd.
LikeLike
But I wonder why commenters would have come on to a blog in order to express a polar opposite opinion. And what it says about them. And I also wonder how someone would FIND it in the first place if they were not concerned directly with the topic of race….And i am unclear how someone who insists so loudly that racism is not an issue, would seek out so many racial topics to speak of…. to butcher a quote, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much
I think it has a lot to do with what Abagond was saying about Rented Negroes. POC online drastically conflict with POC white folks see on TV, in both news and creative media (e.g., white guilt/white oppression fantasy films & shows). They conflict with that they’re families have told them about POC. And since white privilege tends to have softening effect on these fine folks, 99.999999% of them are not even remotely equipped to handle the cognitive dissonance blogs like these cause.
*kisses*
LikeLike
jasmin There’s plenty of data on disparities between Whites and Asians, Whites and Latinos, and Whites and Native Americans. Apparently you just haven’t read it. I would suggest looking at health and mental health outcomes for starters. Quality and access of care is better across the board for Whites than for minorities
Jasmin, sister to sister, uncle milton was right about Asians overall.
They seem to live longer than the rest of us. It’s largley due to diet and exercise. As a group, they are the lest likly to be overweight. They also live longer than the average American both here in the states as well as in Japan.
We should adopt their diet.
LikeLike
Chic Noir,
You still haven’t disproved my point (that White privilege fosters disparities between Whites and POC in the context of healthcare).
1. Health care disparities deal with quality and access to care, and on those points, Asians, like other racial/ethnic minorities, have significantly decreased quality and access, including a higher rate of mental illness than other groups.
2. Most studies on “Asians” focus on East Asians and Filipinos, so all other Asian groups are lumped together as “other”, which doesn’t make for reliable reporting (on “Asians” as a whole).
3. Asians are the only major racial/ethnic minority in the US in which most of the group members are immigrants, so talking about “Asian Americans” gets at a very different population than, say, Hispanic Americans (the majority of which are American-born). This is probably most relevant–data on Asian Americans includes a significant number of Asian-born (and raised) Americans, so it makes sense their stats would mirror that of native countries (in some cases).
I’m not seeing how “Asians live longer than White people” proves that White privilege doesn’t exist.
Abagond,
I think you should do a post on the differences between minority immigrant groups in the US (in relation to the minority population they join). There’s so much focus on incoming Hispanic immigrants, but I’m betting most people don’t know that the majority of Asians in the US are immigrants.
LikeLike
J,
That is a good question, especially since you have to pretty much seek out a blog to know about it–it’s not like Abagond is super-famous or anything (one day :-P). I don’t think I could be bothered with a topic I found boring (for example, animals) or a blog in which everyone disagreed with me (for example, one on uber-traditional households). Even if I were a glutton for punishment, it seems like it’d just be easier to be in a place where everyone thought the same as I did. After all, it’s just the Internet, not the Senate.
LikeLike
J:
Keep in mind that 99% of those who come here lurk. Those most likely to comment are the ones who most strongly agree or disagree with me.
Most whites who comment seem to be race conscious for one reason or another: they are married to a black person or lived in a place that was mostly black, etc. Many are Jewish, which would make them more interested in white racism than most whites.
Also, I often appear in searches on race issues with the likes of Stormfront, so it makes sense that I would get some amount of white nationalist traffic.
LikeLike
Sam, Uncle Milton and Color of Luv all gave good examples of what I talked about in the post.
LikeLike
Ankhesen:
Thank you for August’s quote. I needed that.
I did do a post on how whites lose their cool and make it all about their feelings:
LikeLike
Jasmin said:
“Abagond,
I think you should do a post on the differences between minority immigrant groups in the US (in relation to the minority population they join). There’s so much focus on incoming Hispanic immigrants, but I’m betting most people don’t know that the majority of Asians in the US are immigrants.”
I am thinking of doing one on West Indian immigrants as compared to American blacks. And stereotype formation too! 😉
LikeLike
J:
I will probably do a post on black men and white women in time, but I have been avoiding it. I am sure it would get 500 comments easy but it would not be pretty. Be careful what you wish for.
LikeLike
Uncle Milton:
You used to be one of the more intellectually honest white commenters but in your comments of the past few days you have been letting your white view of the world get in the way much more than in the past.
Also, I am not sure if you understood the post because you pretty much became its poster child in this thread.
LikeLike
@Mira
What happened to Thad, btw? Did he get a one way ticket to ban land or something?
No, I’ve not been banned. It’s conference season down here in the Southern hemisphere. I have 4 Brazilian conferences and one U.S. conference coming up between now and September, so I actually have to do some real work for a change. 😀
I have one word for the crowd here: intersectionality.
Race isn’t the only factor at play in the world, folks.
LikeLike
But unlike being Jewish or gay, being black is way harder to hide.
This comes from your long experience with being Jewish and/or gay, does it Abagond?
I myself have always wondered how the Nazis knew who was Jewish and who wasn’t. In any case, however, it wasn’t that easy for the Jews to just blend in, apparently.
As for gays… I have a lot of gay friends. YOU try to erase all – or even most signs – of your sexual preferences for one week, Abagond, and then come back and tell us how easy it is to hide.
As is, I’ll acept the word of the people who’ve tried to do this and haven’t had much success with it: it ain’t easy.
LikeLike
Which one am I, abagond? What kind of a whitey I am? Clarification, thank you. And do not be politically correct, nice or anything! Blast it. Thanks!
LikeLike
C’mon, people! We all know what is the hardest thing to hide: your gender. Men will NEVER understand what is like to be a woman…
On a more serious note, I guess I’m the only one here who a) don’t see “what kind of blog this is” and b) don’t see anything weird about participating even if you’re not black or a Stormfront type of troll.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I will probably do a post on black men and white women in time, but I have been avoiding it. I am sure it would get 500 comments easy but it would not be pretty. Be careful what you wish for.
Actually, I was the one who suggested that! 😛 And I also believe one post is not going to be enough to cover even the most popular/important aspects of black men/white women relationship issues.
So what are you saying, people are going to spam and troll? For some reason I assumed white men/black women pairings are considered more “controversial” these days than black men/white women ones…
LikeLike
Mira,
Does that mean I do not have to answer your question, with regard to your comments today??
“I guess I’m the only one here who a) don’t see “what kind of blog this is”
LikeLike
Does that mean I do not have to answer your question, with regard to your comments today??
I guess you don’t. I realized I’m the only one who thinks this way.
LikeLike
Without stating the obvious off course Abagond is right as a rule that persecuted minorities can ‘hide’.
Being a POC there is no hiding place. The phenotype even before a word or action has been undertaken.
With regard to the Nazis, i am not sure of this example. Since the Nazi’s made teh Jews wear the Star of Davi (??) on their back so they could be easily identified.
I think we now can add Thad to Uncle Milton, CoL to your list
LikeLike
Mira,
As for Stormfront, personally I ‘like’ that site. However, I would not participate in that blog, to correct something which I perceive as wrong, and/or strongly feel about.
As I stated previously, I understand the nature of the blog, so I just allow those interested in those various ‘race’ topics to discuss accordingly.
It is not my job to be ‘correcting’ their respective positions.
LikeLike
I don’t like Stormfront (I thought it was obvious…), and I wouldn’t like this one if it was “black Stormfront”. I did read some sick sh.t out there, the type I never read here by Abagond (by some posters, yes, but not the blog owner). I think opinions expressed on Stormfront are WRONG, no matter which side says them. A sick idea is still sick if it favors your group.
This blog has more topics than just race, but I guess it’s the most popular topic, which is ok.
LikeLike
Abagond,
I thought it was Mira who wanted a post on Black men/White women.
I wanted something rather different that can be applied to all people across a variety of IRR.
It is the ‘dynamics’ behind choosing a partner and also the dynamics that help keep the relationship together in spite of ‘self-hate’, ‘racism’ and ‘culture insecurities’ etc.
I hope this makes some sort of sense now
LikeLike
Mira,
With regard to this blog, I think you are correct that is a blog about race, but I would add that is also about ‘race from a Black perspective’ as opposed to a ‘eurocentric perspective’.
If this is the case this blog would be akin to one of the commentators here who suggests Black male commit rape, are impulsive, less intelligent etc.
As for Stormfront, I guess its growing up Black taht you get use to this type of ‘rhetoric’. One thing, generally speaking, White people do not have to face this type of reality in their daily existence.
So when Whites like the Stormfront types speak this language they are ‘repulsed’ but they are even more ‘repulsed’ when Blacks start ‘exposing’ the racism (as I allude to in my discussion with Uncle Milton).
LikeLike
I thought it was Mira who wanted a post on Black men/White women.
Correct. And I can’t believe I’m the only one here. Don’t tell me I’m the only one interested in reading and discussing that here.
Also, I don’t understand why you’re avoiding the subject, Abagond. Could you explain?
With regard to this blog, I think you are correct that is a blog about race, but I would add that is also about ‘race from a Black perspective’ as opposed to a ‘eurocentric perspective’.
But thanks God, that doesn’t make it an equivalent of Stormfront. Abagond never wrote any sick crap those people write, and there were only a few (black) posters who wrote anything even remotely similar to that here.
LikeLike
Mira, I think most people know about the dynamics of that relationship (or think they know) and it’s discussed frequently outside of this blog, so it isn’t as interesting as the opposite pairing.
LikeLike
Oh… That makes sense. But I’m 100% new to all of this and to be honest, I didn’t have a chance to read much about it. Honestly, most of the IR couple dynamics I know of is black women/white men one. I know it’s not the most popular in reality, but I guess it all depends on the Internet corners you visit. I never read any blogs or forums or even serious articles about black men/white women pairings. For example, I only recently learned about the fake rape accusations.
LikeLike
If you do a Google search, there are lots of blog posts and forum threads about it. But a lot of them tend to focus on the negative reactions/hardships that the pairing has to go through.
LikeLike
To be honest, I did a research a while ago and all I found were specialized dating sites or fetishizing blogs or anti black women blogs that I’m not interested in.
LikeLike
Lol. I will find some for you and post it on your blog. But you’re right, they do tend to focus too much on the “idea” of the relationship and on the reactions of black women. Makes you think…
But back to the discussion: You all were being too hard on Uncle Milton (and others). He is hardly a no_slappz type character. I don’t see what warranted this comment:
I think he might have been being a little defensive, but everyone is when they think that their “group” is being unjustly treated.
LikeLike
Mira,
“C’mon, people! We all know what is the hardest thing to hide: your gender. Men will NEVER understand what is like to be a woman…”
Amen!
“On a more serious note, I guess I’m the only one here who a) don’t see “what kind of blog this is” and b) don’t see anything weird about participating even if you’re not black or a Stormfront type of troll.”
You’re not the only one.
I’m not going to take the comments of some commenters here seriously when it comes to racism because there is a lot of hypocrisy on confronting the issue when it comes to white men vs. white women.
LikeLike
^Huh, that comment showed up (my comments in this thread haven’t been coming up for some reason)
Also, I will try to find some posts and threads for you on the pairing, Mira, and post it on your blog.
LikeLike
Thanks, Natasha! What I find sad, however, is to hear that black men/white women pairings often turn into black women bashing (which makes me think why would any woman want to be with a man who talks bad about women who are like his mother or a sister).
LikeLike
I admit I was harsh to Uncle Milton, but I still see his tremor comment as embarrassing (for him). There was no style in it. I didn’t have any problems talking with him before this.
LikeLike
Personally No_Slappz was one of the more ‘sincere’ posters here. I said it whilst he was here, and I will say so again in his absence
LikeLike
Yes, but, like I said: where is this outrage when white women post similar comments? It’s not like there have never been bigoted comments by white women on this blog.
LikeLike
Personally, I think No_Slappz was one of the more ‘honest’ of posters here, I said it when he was here and I will stand by it now.
As for Uncle Milton, I still stand by what I say.
LikeLike
Natasha W
Forgive me here,
Uncle Milto
LikeLike
Pt 2.
Natasha W.
You can’t have ‘your cake and eat it too’.
Uncle Milton said something offensive and perhaps un-neccesary to a Black female here.
I remember on the Toure post you wanted to know where were the Black male posters defending the Black woman.
Now you have Black males (Abagond I presume and I) as well as Mira referring to Uncle Milton, whose comments, this time round you do not see as ‘offensive’.
Then you proceed to move the argument to what about White women saying offensive, as if that excuse Uncle Milton’s behaviour??.
I do not understand the logic – well I do really but that is going to take us into our former debate
LikeLike
What did Uncle Milton say that was offensive? The “tremor” comment? I didn’t think that was offensive; I’m a fan of well-timed crass humor.
LikeLike
Mira:
If I posted on black men/white women relationships I am afraid it would quickly become a long and ugly fight between black male and female commenters. We saw a preview of that on the “white women’s tears” post.
LikeLike
Yes, but, like I said: where is this outrage when white women post similar comments? It’s not like there have never been bigoted comments by white women on this blog.
I do think they are attacked, no?
For the record, I disliked the sexual analogy (it was a sexual analogy, riiiight? :D), not the fact he didn’t agree with what Ankhesen said.
But in a way, I agree: people often see more open to call white men racists and to point their bullsh.t than they do to white women comments that can the basically the same. But I am not sure if commenters want to completely give a pass to white women but attack white men.
On the other hand, I think I’m the only white woman posting here at the moment. People do object to what I write sometimes but it’s true, I was never openly attacked. Is this some sort of white women privilege going on?
What I did notice, however, is that whenever somebody come here and say crap about black women, other black women run in and argue (as they should), but black men are often silent.
LikeLike
Natasha W.
The commentator was essentially how White people quake in their boot with regard to racism being exposed.
What is a male poster referring to erections in his pants for, notwithstanding any issues of sexual fetishism surrounding female POC??
Not only is it ‘racist’, its ‘sexist’ too.
And just un-necessary, with regard to a straightforward point.
If he disagreed with it, he could have found a valid reason, and argue his position out logically.
This is how I see it, and I just do not have time for this type of talk, unless the other commentator was speaking in a similar way to Uncle Milton.
LikeLike
Mira,
“I do think they are attacked, no?”
No.
In fact, I remember a comment on a post about a famous white man where a white woman (presumably) was saying that black men were ugly and I and a couple of other black female commenters were the only ones that responded to her.
“For the record, I disliked the sexual analogy (it was a sexual analogy, riiiight? ), not the fact he didn’t agree with what Ankhesen said.”
I guess I was the only one that wasn’t offended by that comment. I have male friends that make jokes like that, so I didn’t see the big deal.
“On the other hand, I think I’m the only white woman posting here at the moment. People do object to what I write sometimes but it’s true, I was never openly attacked. Is this some sort of white women privilege going on?”
No, I think it’s because most people here agree with your comments.
LikeLike
What did Uncle Milton say that was offensive? The “tremor” comment? I didn’t think that was offensive; I’m a fan of well-timed crass humor.
Well, I am not against sexual humour but in my opinion it wasn’t time nor place. I don’t know, the discussion seemed too serious for a comment like that. And maybe I was just in a crappy mood. 😉
Abagond,
If I posted on black men/white women relationships I am afraid it would quickly become a long and ugly fight between black male and female commenters. We saw a preview of that on the “white women’s tears” post.
True, I remember that. It was ugly. I would not want to see that again. Still, it is an important subject so I guess I thought it deserved a post. But it is your blog so if you’re not into writing about this I understand.
LikeLike
J, I recall that he did respond seriously to the comment, at first.
And there are many, many more sexist comments to be offended by on this blog.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“What I did notice, however, is that whenever somebody come here and say crap about black women, other black women run in and argue (as they should), but black men are often silent”.
Sometimes I will speak and defend the Black females – but it depends who it is also that is under ‘attack’?
My own honest opinion on this blog is that many of the females lack ‘race consciousness’ and are keen to defend some aspect of their lives, whether it is a White partner, or their partners’ social groups, even up andover the Black race and/or Black males.
I can ‘forgive’ the females having enough of the males, but what I cannot do is forgive them forgetting their ‘race’.
And please this is not the time for tehre is no such thing as ‘race’.
It is in this instance, and I am speaking for myself here, I have to pick and choose when I enter a debate about ‘Black women’ generally.
LikeLike
In fact, I remember a comment on a post about a famous white man where a white woman (presumably) was saying that black men were ugly and I and a couple of other black female commenters were the only ones that responded to her.
I guess that was before my time or I missed that one. I am not silent to crap like that!
I do remember one white poster who called me a self-hater for saying black men weren’t ugly and (s)he even spammed my blog after that so I don’t know if it’s the same person.
I guess I was the only one that wasn’t offended by that comment. I have male friends that make jokes like that, so I didn’t see the big deal.
Oh no, I wasn’t offended! I like sexual jokes or all the usual “male” jokes. I just thought this was lame and in a inappropriate moment.
LikeLike
Sometimes I will speak and defend the Black females – but it depends who it is also that is under ‘attack’?
So, if it’s not somebody you like or consider race conscious, you won’t bother commenting… ?
LikeLike
Forgive me, we are discussing how he responded second time round and not the first time.
“J, I recall that he did respond seriously to the comment, at first.”
LikeLike
For Leigh and others who missed it, Uncle Milton made an inappropriate comment about his “tremors” to some of the female commenters here. I deleted it.
LikeLike
J, I can only speak for myself, but I do not lack race consciousness. But, yes, I do care way more about my SO than I do about some random black male. And I’m sure they feel the same way when it comes to black females.
LikeLike
Forgive me Natasha W,
I think you do.
This is how I would place your rankings by your comments here. remember that is all I have to work with after all.
1 represents like the most, 5 the least.
1. White individual
2. White male group
3. Africans – on the continent
4. Black males -African-Americans
5. White females
LikeLike
Lol, I definitely don’t like whites over others. Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
LikeLike
It’s still wrong.
LikeLike
With regard to:
“So, if it’s not somebody you like or consider race conscious, you won’t bother commenting… ?”
Its not that simple.
Its not a case of ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’ anyone here – which I do not. All I have before me are just words on a computer screen.
For me it is essentially about where ‘ideas’ meet. Though obviously I cannot comment on every single point that I have an ‘issue’ with
For instance, many times I have also allowed many ‘racist’ comments to go unchallenged, by not saying anything.
You raised a point specifically about an issue and I gave you my own personal reasons to the complexities therewith.
Even though I think this issue which you responded to is perhaps a ‘red herring’ to the initial point we were discussing here viz. a commentator’s remark.
LikeLike
Wow – not quite sure how the derail got so derailed! ! ! lol
I tried to share an idea that perhaps bridges are sometimes destroyed before they are built on the premise of equating ‘intentions’ with one’s skin color. Such as: He’s White, he is derailing. Blow up the *^^^ bridge!!!
I’m talking about the idea of individuals being able to relate to another individual that may superficially appear different, yet fundamentally have the same experiences. It seems as though a physical barrier such as skin color is being used, (almost uequivocally) as a limiting factor in the ability for human beings to have shared emotional experiences based on racial hate, gender hate, ethnic hate, etc…
@ Abagond, you yourself said that you have even seen what may (at first glance) be apparent attempts used as distractionary or derailing tactics used as positive attempts to build bridges The fact that I’ve been “lynched” for even mentioning the subject in a constructive manner seems counter intuitive to the “derailing for dummies” idea. In essence, the topic of being able to build positive bridges across the color line was lost because an angry mob felt I didn’t talk about “White Privilege” enough.
I was trying to address the idea of giving someone a chance to talk, a chance to build that bridge even though at first ‘thought’, one may make the erroneous assumption that this person (based on skin color for example) would never be able to ‘relate’. Those prejudicial judgements are what I was trying to address based on the idea of building bridges.
Lets define derailment, then use derailing tactics (oh but don’t forget White Privilege! —- which I didn’t by the way. But that is another derail conversation topic for another derailed thread at a derailed time) to derail an attempt at building dialogue based on shared personal experiences. Now that is some serious derailing.
LikeLike
CoL,
It seems like at least some of the comments here have indicated that POC (the people who you are so eager to build bridges with) don’t want you to build bridges. So if you are trying to better race relations (actually, I’m not sure what you are trying to do), why are you so insistent on doing something people have told you to stop doing? Your White privilege is showing bad, man.
LikeLike
Natasha,
Like J, I stand by what I said to (and about UM). I don’t recall anyone calling him a troll–maybe I missed it(?)–but I don’t think you need to be a troll to get called out when you say something stupid. Exhibit A: CoL. If UM reminds you of people you are friends with, maybe you subconsciously react differently than you would if it were, say, Bay Area Guy saying the same thing.
LikeLike
Jasmin, I guess I try to gauge the overall gist of the person’s comments and point of view. And I think Uncle Milton is a fair commenter and he was being fair in these comments, even if he was being overly defensive; he acknowledged the fact that white privilege exists but that it is sometimes exaggerated (in his opinion).
LikeLike
“And please this is not the time for tehre is no such thing as ‘race’.”
I hear you, man! 😀
LikeLike
Natasha,
I’m not sure what you mean by “fair”–can you elaborate?
I read defensiveness as, “Yea there’s White privilege, but [insert “me, me, me!” whining here].” I don’t see much difference between people who say White privilege doesn’t exist and people who say the aforementioned statement, since both groups are looking for a loophole in order to avoid doing something about it (White privilege). Plus, it’s funny (in an ironic kind of way), when people demonstrate the topic of the post in their comments on the post.
LikeLike
Jasmin, by fair I mean reasonable and evenhanded (as much as is possible).
LikeLike
Natasha,
Then I guess I’d disagree. I wouldn’t call personal anecdotes (as proof of some phenomenon) unreasonable, but I certainly wouldn’t call them “evenhanded”. I don’t think one has to have read every Census report/psych journal/newspaper article out there in order to participate in a conversation, but once you use your personal experiences as evidence (or more accurately, statistically significant evidence), it’s all downhill from there.
LikeLike
@Abagond ” am thinking of doing one on West Indian immigrants as compared to American blacks. And stereotype formation too!”
Oh, Abagond, I can’t wait to see how you deal with this one …just keep in mind that we (WI immigrants come from “majority” black ruled countries that were European colonies…this is why our mentally is skewed the way it is…money is an immigrants primary motivating factor…
LikeLike
@ Jas- not really. But we can disagree all you want. I still think my topic was taken out of context.
As I originally commented: I used Abagond’s “building bridges” comment to “build” on the idea of having “shared experiences” across – RACIAL, ethnic, gender, etc… discrimination…… (not only POC) —– when that thought was “derailed” with the topic of “White Privilege” (which I’ve talked about a lot in many other threads) Before you know it, rather than talking about the possibility of building bridges with what at first may appear to be individuals of opposite positions: i.e. skin color, men vs. women, ethnic background (serb/bosnia anyone), homosexual vs. heterosexual ——- it gets turned into the a “derailmente argument of White Privilege because I mentioned ‘skin color’ as the primary subject of the sentence. Had I used an example of heterosexualtiy vs homosexuality, I guess your derailment of “White privilege” would have been more appparent.
You said, “So if you are trying to better race relations (actually, I’m not sure what you are trying to do),” So, if you look at my previous statement regarding building bridges across racial, ethnic, gender (insert sexual orientation) here: My main objective was to foster postive and constructive dialogue about the barriers confronting people at seemingly opposite ends fo the spectrum from building bridges. As in Abagond’s example, “He seen this positively done, though not frequently.” So, to answer your question as to “what I am or was trying to do”; It was to further discussion between all these stereotypically oppossed groups and attract more input on that topic.
By the way, you also said much earlier in the thread, “You are still missing the point. Snap judgments made about Whites (as a group) by non-Whites don’t have the same amount of the power as the reverse situation. “ And this is where part of the Derailment began… I never said that I didn’t ackknowledge this.
LikeLike
If I posted on black men/white women relationships I am afraid it would quickly become a long and ugly fight between black male and female commenters.
Hurry up! I love a good fight!
LikeLike
If I posted on black men/white women relationships I am afraid it would quickly become a long and ugly fight between black male and female commenters.
I’d like to read it anyway.
LikeLike
Much of the “true difference” between white and black experience you speak of is that blacks are raised from little tiny children to see racism everywhere, wheather it exists or not. This is not to say that racism does not exist. Of course it does. But not to the extent that you, and all of us, really, have been raised to believe.
LikeLike
essbro:
Except that in my case I was not raised that way:
LikeLike
I also would like to read the bm/ww relationship post.
LikeLike
Wow, that makes three votes (= 300 votes if you multiply by the lurker factor).
LikeLike
If people want the BM/WW post, I think you should write it, Abagond. (Maybe lay some ground rules for comments at the end?) I’m indifferent, since I actually don’t know any BM/WW couples personally–they aren’t very common where I’m at.
LikeLike
Much of the “true difference” between white and black experience you speak of is that blacks are raised from little tiny children to see racism everywhere, wheather it exists or not.
I was called a ni$$ger for the first time at three years old while trick or treating with my mother. I thought the woman called me an ‘eagle’. I was baffled because my mother was angry at the woman. When we got home, I ran and told my dad that some woman had called me an ‘eagle’, and my mom got mad. You see, ‘we’ don’t have to be taught about racism as racism is imposed on us in various forms. Blatant situations such as this teaches us about the more overt forms of racism. Parents elders etc., just clarify situations for us. They also teach us the more insidious forms of it also. Nah, racism isn’t that bad. By the way, it went down hill from there. I know, I know, ‘It happened to me too”!
LikeLike
For ANYONE who wants to continue to DERAIL/DISMISS/DENY that ANTI-BLACK RACISM is REAL, explain why there is such VISCERAL RACISM/HATRED directed at our First Lady, Michelle Obama. I have been a long time political observer (and don’t share the Obama’s political views) but have NEVER in my life witnessed such DISRESPECT/RACISM/HATE directed at a First Lady.
My sister shared how SHOCKED/DISGUSTED she was when she read some of the MOST ANTI-BW RACIST/HATEFUL comments imaginable on a Yahoo post about how Michelle Obama has redecorated her White House office.
Commenters proceeded to ATTACK Michelle PERSONALLY by referring to her (and Barack) as “monkeys swinging from trees”, “ghetto”, and by CONSTANTLY DENIGRATING Michelle by calling her “ugly” and “fat”. I’ve NEVER heard of ANY OTHER First Lady being SO OPENLY ATTACKED for their looks (even those First Ladies who could ACTUALLY be considered UGLY).
It was clear from the BLATANT RACISM/HATE being displayed on this Yahoo post (including the thumbs up given to the RACIST ANTI-BLACK commenters) that, REGARDLESS of the political views of these commenters, ANTI-BLACK RACISM/HATE is REAL.
LikeLike
@ abagond :
This was ugly, indeed.
This will probably surprise you, but reading the comments in this thread (“WW’s Tears”) was the more shocking experience I ever had on the net. In all honesty, I never suspected there existed such resentment and hatred between Black women and Black men.
The attitudes displayed on both sides made it clear to me that internalized racism and self-hatred play a bigger part than one is willing to admit in both the choices of people involved in IR relationships and the way they are perceived by other Blacks.
For this reason, I think you should tackle the topic of BM/WW relationships.
LikeLike
…Trying to figure out why my comments (and Mira’s) have been deleted. Abagond, they were hardly the only off-topic comments here and they certainly weren’t the only ones “attacking” someone else.
LikeLike
Mira and Natasha:
I deleted some of your comments. They were getting off topic and looked set to take over the thread. There is already a thread where J lays out his views on black women. Talk about it there:
LikeLike
So why haven’t you deleted the rest of these off-topic comments? The thread topic was already changed before I added my comments.
LikeLike
Most of the off topic comments, it turned out, proved the point of the post, particularly those by Uncle Milton and Color o’ Luv.
LikeLike
Too bad. Ok, I get it. I know off topic is not allowed.
In any case, I did reply to J’s comment Natasha linked in the appropriate thread.
LikeLike
Natasha:
Also your off-topic comments threatened to turn the thread into an ugly mud-slinging match between you and J.
LikeLike
I’m always up for an ugly mudslinging match between myself and anyone else, so fine by me.
But you didn’t delete the comment where J says that Uncle Milton and I might be more than “friends.”
LikeLike
Natasha:
It is perfectly fine for you to question J’s views on black women, but it would be much better if you did it on the thread where said questionable views were laid out.
LikeLike
Okay, I got that.
Why haven’t you deleted the comment?
LikeLike
Natasha:
Which comment is it – please give me the link or the date and time or quote what he said. I do not remember it off hand.
LikeLike
And some other recent comments on the “white women’s Tears” post.
LikeLike
Thanks you for your prompt attention to this matter. 😉
LikeLike
@ Abagond,
You said, “Most of the off topic comments, it turned out, proved the point of the post, particularly those by Uncle Milton and Color o’ Luv.”
You’ll notice I made fun of myself and pointed out “but that happens to me too” comments I made all the while laughing at myself. (after original comment) lol… I should get some kudos for helping you!;)
Hindsight is always 20/20. Having perfect vision looking back, I should not have allowed myself to be derailed by “alleged comments” that were never made by me, and instead, maintained focus on your comment – and how it relates to intersectionality and the possibility/barriers of shared experiences. Rather than “skin color”, I probably should have used: ethnic, gender, (insert sexual orientation) and then race. Unfortunately, the derailment and subsequent focus was shifted “AWAY” from Intersectionality (ethnic, genger -barriers & Bridges through commonalities/shared experienced) and was focused on “race” instead of the many of the categories comprising of discrimination.
I don’t think it helped that some of my comments may have also been perceived as a continuation of Uncle Milt’s or BAG’s separate thoughts.
Intersectionality:
a sociological theory suggesting that—and seeking to examine how—various socially and culturally constructed categories of discrimination interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Sociologists strive to apply it to all people and to many different intersections of group membership.
As I’ve said before and often discussed in other threads, I understand how White Privilege plays into this. However, my “purpose” was to pull comments from many categories of discrimination: Not only race, but also ethnic, gender and even sexual orientation. (Note that both gender & sexual orientation discrimination along with racial comparisons was touched on by previous posters. – For this reason, I added my comments. Admittedly, my articulation was flawed. Many times, comments are posted rather quickly and may or may not be clearly understood, misread, incorrectly attributed to someone else, etc…
I think most likely this and more would happen on a BM/WW post. (Do they make protective wear for verbal wores or battles? Abagond, you could open an online virtual Quick-Mart selling these supplies. There is a huge demand in the Abagond-verse!)
Cheers…
LikeLike
@J
With regard to the Nazis, i am not sure of this example. Since the Nazi’s made teh Jews wear the Star of Davi (??) on their back so they could be easily identified.
But it order to do that, J, they had to first know who they had to order, correct? How did they do that?
I’ve read quite a bit about the Holocaust and one thing that always struck me was how hard it was for Jews to hide. Even your “Star of David” theory has an obvious hole in it, J: if it was just wearing that star that allowed one to identify a Jew, then logically simply TAKING IT OFF would have allowed one to hide.
And yet that apparently didn’t happen.
So we’re back to step one: if it’s easy to hide as a Jew, how come more didn’t?
I think we now can add Thad to Uncle Milton, CoL to your list.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s how the Nazi’s did it. Any authoritarian regime will have a long list of collaborators, spies and voluntary whistle blowers that it can count on and J, you’re just the kind of guy those kinds of governments love. You’re the kind of guy who enjoys making up lists of “good people” and “bad people” and, if you lived in an authoritarian regime, I’m pretty sure you’d be down at the Secret Cop Shop every morning, bright and early, with your latest list of people whom you think need to be rounded up for the common good.
I’m sure someone like you has absolutely no trouble at all in telling who’s a Jew, who’s gay and who’s not, J.
Count me in as another vote on the BM/WW topic by the way.
LikeLike
Jasmin & Dahoman X:
I deleted some of your comments as off-topic. This post is not about why someone might date outside their race. Not even close.
LikeLike
Thad,
This is probably going to get deleted for being off-topic *eyes Abagond*, but many Jews voluntarily identified themselves and/or their neighborhoods. I have no idea why, but at least some books I’ve read (individual accounts, not studies or anything) say that some just went along because they never thought something bad might happen. (Have you ever read Night? That happens at the beginning–the man who returns to town having survived extermination is laughed at.)
LikeLike
With regard to:
“But it order to do that, J, they had to first know who they had to order, correct? How did they do that?”
Your reasoning is ‘faulty’.
The question you need to ask is why once they had been captured, did they need to be ‘re-identified’ with the ‘Star of David’ on their back??
As for the rest of the usual nonsense (here read a reflection of your own White racism) that you spew about me…. This time I will choose not to respond
LikeLike
Well, perhaps some in Germany in the beginning, Jasmin, but I have an awfully hard time believing that this was the case in Poland, Russia, Italy, France… I mean, by the time the Germans got going, everyone in the world knew that they were bad news for Jews.
So something else had to be at work there, dome other factor.
What I’m trying to say here is that it is MUCH more easy to identify a minority group than one would think. I know for a fact that my gay friends don’t feel that they can just “blend in”, as Abagond would have it. And I doubt the Tutsis in Rwanda had much success in “blending in” in 1994.
What I’m saying, Jasmin, is that this is another oft-repeated bit of dogma (“black oppression is a special case because, unlike other groups, blacks can’t blend in”) that doesn’t quite seem to stack up empirically.
And that, in fact, brings up one of the recurrent problems on this site: the idea that, as an oppressed minority, everything black people say should be taken on faith. Meanwhile, everything OTHER oppressed groups say… Well, hell, that’s open to question, right?
The other night I was mulling this over. I mean, the dogma according to black activists is that black men never raped white women, that this was all made up by racists or by lying white women.
OK. Fair go.
But women’s activists at the same time are equally adamant that women NEVER lie about rape.
I mean, what’s a well meaning white guy like myself supposed to do, faced with this dilema?
If I say that black guys got strung up because of lying white women, the women are going to pillory me for appologizing for rape. Meanwhile, if I follow the women on this issue, blacks are going to say I’m feeding the racist myth of black rape.
And, of course, if I try to figure this stuff out myself and encounter some sort of middle road or synthesis, why then I’m a wishy-washy white liberal of the type who derails by saying “But that just doesn’t happen to [blacks/women] alone!”
Any suggestions as to how to synthesize these sort of one-note piano political positions…?
Anyone?
LikeLike
@J
The question you need to ask is why once they had been captured, did they need to be ‘re-identified’ with the ‘Star of David’ on their back??
They were wearing the star before they were captured, J, and they also wore it in camps.
My question is, given the fact that jews are supposedly “white”, like the other Europeans around them, how were they identified in the first place?
In Germany, as Jasmin points out, some voluntarily put the star on because they believed things couldn’t get worse. In MOST of the Nazi empire, though, that wasn’t the case.
How were they identified then, J? Their good neighbors dropped a dime on them, mostly.
Moral of the story: one doesn’t need phenotypical markers to segregate, discriminate, or even, ultimately, to kill.
LikeLike
Thad
I understand your point – and the moral of the story but the reasoning is not correct.
Abagond had suggested that Jews and Gays can ‘hide’ within a White society whereas Blacks cannot
As you pointed out the Jews were already wearing the Star of David on their back before they were in the concentration camp.
As I understand the historical records it was a process to identify and separate them from the German population.
We already know that the Jews looked liked ordinary Germans since they had been in Germany for a number of years integrating and being accepted into German society.
So your attempt to bring up Jews in Nazi Germany is not the best of example, and contradictorily shows that there was a problem with ‘identification’, which in essence supports Abagond’s contention.
LikeLike
To NatashaW, J, and Abagond:
But you didn’t delete the comment where J says that Uncle Milton and I might be more than “friends.”
For the record NatashaW seems like a bright and interesting woman but I have never met her in person nor did I encounter her before I came to this blog. Abagond can probably affirm this through ip addresses that we are not in same city and as I remember probably not in the same state.
LikeLike
Abagond had suggested that Jews and Gays can ‘hide’ within a White society whereas Blacks cannot
Right. And I said I very much doubted that, given what my gay friends have told me and given what happened to Jews in WWII, where they were quickly seperated in spite of living in a “white” society.
As you pointed out the Jews were already wearing the Star of David on their back before they were in the concentration camp.
Yes, but the question is, how were they identified in the first place in order to get them to wear that star?
Jews don’t come out of their mothers’ wombs wearing little stars of David, J, despite what your friend “Iceman” Bradley might have told you.
As I understand the historical records it was a process to identify and separate them from the German population.
And how was this identification done, given that they could “just blend in”, as Abagond states? Moreover, how was it done in, say, Poland where the German race laws had to be enforced at bayonet point?
We already know that the Jews looked liked ordinary Germans since they had been in Germany for a number of years integrating and being accepted into German society.
So your attempt to bring up Jews in Nazi Germany is not the best of example, and contradictorily shows that there was a problem with ‘identification’, which in essence supports Abagond’s contention.
So if Jews LOOKED like Germans as you admit, and the Germans were still able to sort them out with no problems, as you admit, then what was this problem with identification, exactly, J?
LikeLike
To Abagond:
In my opinion, Jews in the Anglo sphere in the last 200 years have been treated decidedly better than Black Americans. Disraeli, born a Jew, and converted to Anglican church was the prime minister of Britain in 1868 and 1874 – 1880.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli
The first Jewish Secretary of State in North America wasn’t Henry Kissinger but Judah Benjamin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin
of the Confederacy..! (And he was not a convert..)
Idaho had a Jewish governor in 1915 – 1919:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Alexander
California had a Jewish governor in 1883 – 1887:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Bartlett
to name a few.
My point being that these men achieved high levels of power and trust many decades ago whereas Black Americans did not.
As a family friend described it, there was anti-Jewish sentiment in decades past but it was more hidden. More like you wouldn’t be invited to parties, clubs, and some people wouldn’t do business with you. ( I also have heard about violence in schools at the hands of gentiles..) Harvard for a few decades had a policy of limiting the number of “New Yorkers” which was actually a way of limiting Jewish enrollment.
LikeLike
To Jasmin:
but many Jews voluntarily identified themselves and/or their neighborhoods.
You are talking presumably about Europe and not the United States where Jews enjoyed substantially more freedoms than Central and Eastern Europe. Likely they had to identify themselves to authorities as a condition for residency. (It depends upon the era and country…) The term ghetto, by the way, originally comes from Venice, it described a section of town that Jews were restricted to.
A common way that the German National Socialists would identify Jewish men would be to pull down their trousers since Jewish boys would be circumcised and gentiles (in Europe at that time..) would not. That was a how a friend of my family was identified when he was 10.
LikeLike
Abagond had suggested that Jews and Gays can ‘hide’ within a White society whereas Blacks cannot.
I can see the point, but I must admit I don’t really buy this- I don’t really see “the ability to hide” as a key point here. First of all, it makes it look that there is some absolute scale of oppression where we can scientifically measure which groups is the most, and which is the least oppressed (good for playing oppression Olympics). Following this way of thinking (that it’s worse for those who can’t hide who they are), one would say that WOMEN are those who are in the worst position because your gender is the most difficult thing to hide. (As I joked earlier in this thread).
Now, I don’t think this is how it is. I don’t think women are the most oppressed, but if you start following the “difficult to hide” argument, anybody can use it to say to any black man: “oh yes, you are oppressed, but think about the women… It’s more difficult to hide your gender than your race.”
Logic fail. So I think it can be safely assumed that what you can or can’t hide is not the most important thing here. If “your group” is seen as threat and if the oppressors don’t like it, don’t worry, they’ll find the way to mark and oppress you all.
As for the treatment of Jews, don’t you think that following the logic “you’re not X, so you don’t know what is like”, we should ask Jews how they feel about this? A black Jew would be the best.*
*Now this is another thing I don’t really want to do because I’m not a fan of the oppression Olympics.
PS-They wore the star of David around their arms.
LikeLike
Cheers UM,
Personally, I did not think you had met the other commentator before, but what interested me is the ‘similarity’ of ideas with regard to what I perceived as your ‘racist’ comment, and the need to defend it, especially as I aver that the commentator is the typical BSWM as characterised by Fanon.
LikeLike
@Mira
I don’t really see “the ability to hide” as a key point here.
Very much agreed. Somehow, people are always able to identify the despised Other, no matter how phenotypically similar they are.
One would say that WOMEN are those who are in the worst position because your gender is the most difficult thing to hide./em>
Again, I agree.
I don’t think women are the most oppressed…
Not to start up the Oppression Olympics, but women have just as much a right to be pissed off about their history as blacks do, in my view.
“you’re not X, so you don’t know what is like”, we should ask Jews how they feel about this?
Of course not, Mira! That would imply that there are other forms of oppression which should be taken seriously on this planet and that would be derailing.
But again, I wish someone would take my question seriously:
I, as a white, should take everything black people say about race at face value or I am a racist, correct?
And as a man, I should also believe everything women say about gender, unquestioningly, or be condemned as a sexist, right?
So, black activists say black on white rape was a myth caused by lying white women.
Womens activists, in the meantime, claim that women never lie about rape.
Now personally, I believe that both groups are mostly right, most of the time. I believe that SOME lynching was caused by lying white women and even more was caused by white men making things up, no women witnesses needed, thanks. And I think that most women don’t lie about rape, but that under the circumstances of violent racism, some might feel pressured to do so if their extra-racial love affairs were found out.
Of course, J would call this The typical temporizing of a white liberal”.” And rabid conservative feminists like Andrea Dworkin would make a similar claim. Absolutists, after all, will not be satisfied with anything less than an absolute position.
So anyone want to help me out with this conundrum here?
LikeLike
J, I’m beginning to think that Fanon is the only classical black author you’ve ever read regarding racism and sex. You’re beginning to use him to wash the dishes with, man. 😀
LikeLike
Well at least it should make me more familiar with his work than you!!
LikeLike
Thad,
As far as I understand “blending in” (as Abagond used it in the post), it’s not about “how long can you go without people finding out”, but rather during a “spot check” (e.g., passing someone on the street, the first moments as you walk into a room full of strangers, etc.). That’s why I don’t think using “hide” makes much sense, because a gay man walking down the street by himself isn’t “hiding” anything. He just happens to not be engaging in behaviors that others would use to identify him as gay. When you look at those behaviors (dressing a certain way, holding hands with another man, talking a certain way, etc.) or the behaviors that “give away” White Jews (the dress of being a Hasidic Jew, talking about Jewish holidays, etc.), it stands to reason that they can be contextualized (i.e., the assumed markers of homosexuality vary by person, age, location) in a way that Black skin or features can’t. Doesn’t mean one should engage in Oppression Olympics, but I think it is fair to say that racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia operate through different mechanisms.
LikeLike
I’ll agree as to their operating through different mechanisms, but I still have my doubts about this “spot check” stuff. Not that I think it’s necessarily wrong, mind you, but I’ve heard too much of “I know ’em when I see ’em” to presume that blacks are the only folks who get this sort of crap.
LikeLike
Not to start up the Oppression Olympics, but women have just as much a right to be pissed off about their history as blacks do, in my view.
Of course they do, but I guess being a woman myself I tend to see things differently in a way I’m more critical of “my” group than other groups. I can sense when a woman whine about being oppressed and when a real discrimination is going on. But I can’t do that for other groups.
The above is just my problem and prejudice if you like. However, it doesn’t change the fact women are not universally and absolutely more oppressed everywhere they go, whatever they do, just because your gender is the most difficult thing to hide.
As for you other questions, what can I say, Thad? You’re a white male! 😉
Now seriously, about the dilemma, you know I do believe rape happens all the time. But I do believe women sometimes lie about it, in order to escape a punishment (an affair with a black man example). I also believe there are cases of black on white rape (but of course, I don’t see that as an excuse to lynch a man). But I am not sure that anybody, black or female, ever denied any of this (that women do lie about rape sometimes and that black men sometimes do rape white women). Nobody ever said that things like that never happen.
@Jasmin
Doesn’t mean one should engage in Oppression Olympics, but I think it is fair to say that racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia operate through different mechanisms.
I do agree: the mechanism is not the same. I’m just saying I’m not quite sure if the spot check/ability to hide (or whatever it’s called) is the crucial aspect of every discrimination. Like I said, it would mean that women will get the absolute worst because your gender is the hardest thing to hide.
That’s why I do think it IS all about different mechanisms- when it comes to racism, the fact blacks can’t hide their blackness is an important thing to keep in mind, because that’s what leads to all of the sorts of unpleasant situations, such as being followed in shops, being questioned by police, etc. But since different forms of discrimination have different mechanisms, it doesn’t mean those who are more “difficult” to spot are getting a better time.
(Not to mention what makes “black” is also cultural. I understand in the US is more or less “clear” who is black and who isn’t, but to me many people here labelled as POC looked white… So it doesn’t have a practical meaning, if it’s easy for people in the US to tell who is black, but it’s another thing to keep in mind).
LikeLike
[…] too often white people attempt to invalidate the claims of POC by employing the “But That Happens to Me Too!” tactic documented in more detail by fellow blogger Abagond. This tactic has also been used […]
LikeLike
Mira,
Who said that the spot check is the crucial aspect of discrimination? Nowhere in the post did Abagond (or I, or Thad–the other people who appear to have referenced the spot check) say that “spot check” –> “Black people have it worse than X”.
To elaborate on my last comment (to Thad), the ability to be “spot-checked” (or not) works in different ways through the different mechanisms of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia (take your pick), which is why it doesn’t make sense to say the spot check is the end-all-be-all of discrimination (which no one involved in this conversation said, as I mentioned above). As someone who can be “spot-checked”, I wouldn’t trade with someone who couldn’t be, because being “obviously” Black means I don’t have to worry that people are treating me in X manner only because they don’t know I’m [Jewish, gay, actually a minority but I “look” White]. I know that if someone says something negative about Black people in front of me, they deliberately meant to offend me, because they know I’m Black. On the other hand, if someone says something bad about Jews in front of my boyfriend, then he has to sort out whether it’s one of those “you aren’t like the others” situations and possibly deal with the person trying to turn it into a “oops, I didn’t mean to say that (in front of you)” moment.
From what I’ve heard (from Black people who get mistaken for White, my boyfriend, and gay people who aren’t “out”), it sucks to have to hold your breath wondering if your friends/associates wouldn’t like you if they knew who you “really” were. For that reason, I notice my boyfriend makes it a point to mention being Jewish in front of new people, even if it’s entirely irrelevant to the conversation, to see how they respond once he “outs” himself. It would seem inappropriate (and impossible) to me to sit around determining whether that experience is “worse” than mine as a Black person.
LikeLike
Jasmin,
True, I made it look like somebody said it was crucial. Nobody mentioned it in that context. But I did hear the argument in a form of “being black is harder to hide than being Jewish” which is a fair point and does make sense. I’m just not sure if that point is really important when somebody uses “that happens to me too!” argument. Like you said, other forms of oppression have different mechanisms, so being able to hide your homosexuality or religion might not be the reason for a different experience than those experiencing racism. Even if homosexuality or religion weren’t easy to hide (a man kissing his boyfriend on the street, a Muslim woman wearing Burqa), it still wouldn’t be fair for any of them to say “but it happens to me too!”, because at the end of the day, it’s not the same.
Not because something similar never happened, but because it usually derails an argument making it all about “me, me, me”, sets a great path for the oppression Olympics and, the most harmful, prevents any discussion about racism and its mechanisms that are different than other forms of oppression. Usually an oppressed person will have some sort of privilege (white gays are still white), which usually prevents people from understanding they are privileged. That’s why “it happens to me too” argument doesn’t make much sense. Of course, same applies to those discriminated based on race- they can still be homophobes, sexists, anti-Semites, etc. and those issues deserve a honest discussion like any other.
On the other hand, I do believe that being discriminated, regardless of a reason or its mechanism, should make a person understand “what is like to be discriminated” more easily than somebody who never experienced anything similar. But in reality, it doesn’t work that way, because many members of the oppressed group are blind to their own privilege and want to keep it, while talking only about the issues that concern them and their group. (In fact, some feel like their cause will be forgotten if people talk about other forms of discrimination. Think about feminists who dislike to talk about racism).
LikeLike
From what I’ve heard (from Black people who get mistaken for White, my boyfriend, and gay people who aren’t “out”), it sucks to have to hold your breath wondering if your friends/associates wouldn’t like you if they knew who you “really” were. For that reason, I notice my boyfriend makes it a point to mention being Jewish in front of new people, even if it’s entirely irrelevant to the conversation, to see how they respond once he “outs” himself.
Yes, it makes sense. You just need to know. There’s no point in associating with people without knowing their reactions, so it’s definitely an understandable “strategy” (even if an information on being Jewish, for example, comes in completely random moment of a conversation). I remember my husband made a point about his grandfather’s ethnicity soon after we met- and it was completely random and irrelevant for the conversation. But he just needed to know my reaction. So it is understandable.
LikeLike
Some Jews use their own marginalization to help them to understand racism. That is the way it should be used. But other Jews use it to DISCOUNT what blacks go through, forgetting that in many cases Jews can pass for white where blacks cannot. That is a case of “But That Happens To Me Too!”.
LikeLike
@ Thad
If I say that black guys got strung up because of lying white women, the women are going to pillory me for appologizing for rape. Meanwhile, if I follow the women on this issue, blacks are going to say I’m feeding the racist myth of black rape.
And, of course, if I try to figure this stuff out myself and encounter some sort of middle road or synthesis, why then I’m a wishy-washy white liberal of the type who derails by saying “But that just doesn’t happen to [blacks/women] alone!”
Any suggestions as to how to synthesize these sort of one-note piano political positions…?
Anyone?
Wow… Good luck with that answer. In the meantime, I’ll exercise my mind on chaos theory, determinism, fate vs free will, etc… LOL
Seriously, I think you make a great point. Any suggestions as to how to synthesize these sort of one-note piano political positions…? Unfortunately, I don’t have any ‘definitive’ answer. Maybe somebody else does….???
LikeLike
There’s no such thing as a definitive answer. Humans are not all the same, so there can’t exist an absolute, objective and 100% right answer to anything concerning them.
In Thad’s example, the fact that a woman lied about the rape doesn’t change the fact rape happens all the time, even to women who don’t look like “typical rape victims”, even to those who otherwise like to have casual sex with random men, even to those who were drunk or high, even to prostitutes. The fact that a woman lied in a specific case says nothing about rape as a serious issue. It doesn’t suddenly make rape a myth or just a female imagination. It doesn’t suddenly prove it’s ok to take a woman’s “no” as a “yes”.
Similarly, the fact a black man raped a white woman doesn’t make racism non-existent. It doesn’t make false rape accusations a myth. It doesn’t make black men, as a whole, rapists and violent beasts. It doesn’t make it ok for others (read: whites) to discriminate, dehumanize or hurt black men, or to see them as some sort of a threat.
LikeLike
Why is it ok for a “grown black woman” to say “white people are always touching my hair without permission”
and you say the white person is wrong because they say “my daughter has beautiful blond hair and people are always touching it”
The person who started their conversation with a color was the black woman, the white person did not bring color into the conversation, nor did they mention it. It is not an attempt to “defuse” racism. Racism exist because people insist on putting it into their conversations.
I hear African-Americans bringing up race more than any other race. But “Its OK” to mention race if you are a statistical minority, you just can’t mention color when your white. It’s an annoying double standard which unless you are Caucasian you never see. I know Asian families and Indian families who are very strict about who their kids are permitted to hang around with and date. They HAVE to be the same race. If a white father told his daughter she was forbidden to date anyone but a white male, he would be called a raciest and yet no one says anything about it when it’s the other way around. The excuse is always, “That’s their culture” which is the most annoying excuse in the book. White people have a culture too but it appears that if you are a white, straight, male… you are pretty much screwed, blued and tattooed.
Racism exist because people of race insist upon it as an excuse for every negative thing that happens in their lives.
You will be sure to call me a raciest because of my comment here, but I expect this because a white person can not make a debated comment without being labeled raciest even if the comment is less raciest than all of the other comments. I on the other hand know I am not raciest. I openly welcome all races into my life without judgment, I see it no differently than I do hair color or eye color, it is just another distinguishing feature of human beings. BUT in the same way I would judge my white friends making idiotic statements, I will also defend against what I call backward racism. (The racism that occurs when someone of race tries to turn everything a white person does into something about race.)
LikeLike
@ Jimmy Grey
The example sites the differences between patting, or otherwise touching, a White child’s head, and patting or touching, the head of a full-grown Black woman.
Most people, after some reflection, wouldn’t consider those to be the same thing.
LikeLike
The person who started their conversation with a color was the black woman, the white person did not bring color into the conversation, nor did they mention it.
So, it’s impossible to discriminate or be racist if colour is never mentioned? And why wouldn’t anybody have a full right to mention any issue first. Sure said black woman doesn’t need anybody’s permission to bring any subject she wants in a conversation.
It is not an attempt to “defuse” racism. Racism exist because people insist on putting it into their conversations.
So, let’s stop talking about racism and it will go away on its own?
But “Its OK” to mention race if you are a statistical minority, you just can’t mention color when your white. It’s an annoying double standard which unless you are Caucasian you never see.
You can mention colour. I am white and I mention colour all the time. Nothing happened to me.
If a white father told his daughter she was forbidden to date anyone but a white male, he would be called a raciest and yet no one says anything about it when it’s the other way around.
So, are you saying majority of white fathers are open about their daughter dating men of any races?
White people have a culture too but it appears that if you are a white, straight, male… you are pretty much screwed, blued and tattooed.
Yeah, well, that’s one of the reasons white straight males should be interested in fighting racism.
PS-Am I the only one who thinks petting a child’s head is not an ok thing to do, especially if you’re a stranger?
LikeLike
“Mira
So, it’s impossible to discriminate or be racist if colour is never mentioned? And why wouldn’t anybody have a full right to mention any issue first. Sure said black woman doesn’t need anybody’s permission to bring any subject she wants in a conversation.”
I never said it was impossible if not mentioned, and I never said anything about her needing permission to bring a subject into a conversation. (Stop putting words in my mouth to try and make me sound racist)
“So, let’s stop talking about racism and it will go away on its own?”
Your assumptions are ridiculous, as per most anti-racist decryption of completely un-cryptic sentences. I never said if we stop talking about racism it would go away. I SAID racism exist because people insist on putting it in their conversations. Therefore people who are always looking for something to complain about will inevitably put race into a non-race geared conversation.
“You can mention colour. I am white and I mention colour all the time. Nothing happened to me.”
Tell that to any white comedian who has to listen to race driven comedy by ever ethnic comedian but be damned if they can make their shtick about race. (I already know you are going to go and search for a comedian to try and find one that can counter my comment, which is just like example 1 in derailing for dummies. You have to go and find a contradictory example to say “well no that ain’t true, so and so does it all the time” but true be told the majority of the time the point is true. Even your comment about “I mention color all the time…” is a “that happens to me” type comment but its in defense of a race topic which makes it perfectly OK, right? but if I say it to defend against it’s not.
“So, are you saying majority of white fathers are open about their daughter dating men of any races?”
NO, AGAIN.. I am not saying that all white fathers are open to their daughters dating other races. I said “If a white father told his daughter she was forbidden to date anyone but a white male, he would be called a raciest” which is completely true. NOTHING in that sentence said anything about all white fathers being open to their daughters dating other races. It is socially accepted for an Asian, Black or Indian parent to forbid their child from dating outside the race it is NOT socially accepted for a white parent to do so. You warp information to create arguments for your debate which is typical when talking about these things. No matter what I say, you will find or fabricate what you need to justify your argument.
“Yeah, well, that’s one of the reasons white straight males should be interested in fighting racism.”
As a white straight male, I am not permitted to “fight” for myself, it’s only acceptable if I argue for other races. I can’t fight for the fact that everywhere I go there are racial quotas that companies need to fill, which is wrong. For example: To be a cop, If I have better qualifications I still can’t be one because they need to put a minority in the position because there are enough white cops.
But there are more Asian doctors than there are whites so can I get a job as a doctor even if I don’t have the same qualifications because there should be more white doctors?
LikeLike
Jimmy Grey,
“But there are more Asian doctors than there are whites so can I get a job as a doctor even if I don’t have the same qualifications because there should be more white doctors?”
I don’t think so, buddy. There are more white physicians in the U.S. than every other ethnicity combined.
Ehtnicity of physicians by state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=453&cat=9
LikeLike
I’m not in the US…
LikeLike
My mistake. You made references to “African-Americans” and other minorities so I assumed you lived in the States.
Where are you? A country where most people are not white? Stats for physicians in the in Canada and the UK are similar to those of the U.S.
LikeLike
*in Canada
LikeLike
Jimmy Grey, as a white european heterosexual man I must confess: I have talked about race to black people. I know it sounds like a fantasy but it is true. I even did it the USA. I have even dared to talk about racism with black men. Darn if I haven’t joked about race with those same guys! I have! What a laugh that was…
Seriously. I can not think why a white comedian can not make jokes about anything and actually it happens all the time. At the same time I can not think why black comedian could not do the same. Actually, they do. And it is a right way.
In comedy there can not be limitations and there are none. I’m not talking about racist “humor”, I’m talking about true comedy which exposes racism and our pre-conceptions and stiff mind sets. Like many black comedians have said, it is not about the N word, it is about what it means and how it is said. It is like a german joking about the holocaust as a hilarious thing. That would be a bit questionable. When a white man starts to tell jokes which describe a black person as inferior, stupid or such, that is not humor, that is racism. But if a white man exposes white suspicions and beliefs toward black trough a comedy, that is comedy. Get it? It is just like the black comedians expose black beliefs and stereotypes to their audiences in a comic light.
I don’t know where you get this idea that as a white man you are not allowed to fight for yourself. Of course you are. Fight. If you feel you have been wronged, fight for your rights. That is what black americans have done for tha past couple hundred years. You know, equal rights and such? But don’t tell me that you have been discriminated because of the blacks. That is a joke.
If you want to get an idea how does it feel to be a white minority, go to Africa and outside the tourist areas. When you are sitting in a dimly lit bar full of very drunken guys who are blacker than black and who don’t speak a cent of english, you get the idea. No matter what kind of a tan you have, you will shine like a freakin light house in the dark winter night. Now get comfortable there and be buddies with these guys around you. Ignore your color. Can you do it? Could you do it? I have, and I can tell, it takes an effort.
The trick to survive in that situation is to realize that they are not just black. They are all men, just like you. Ok, they are very very dark skinned men, but never the less, they are just men. This guy is Sese, this is Joel, this is Marc and so on. Ok, they speak french and you english. WTF? Just talk and use sings and what ever. They see that you try to say something, they try to tell you something. After a while you start to make sense of each other. After a very long night, you may be even buddies. Why? Because some anti-racist politics? Because I turned black over night? No, but because I was just a guy there. I was not a White Man. I was just a man. Me.
Granted, this is hippie shit but it usually works. Actually I have been able to get along almost anywhere I have been. Egypt, France, USA, Kenia, Hungary, Sweden or Russia. What you have to keep in mind is this: you are a guest. Also this: you are just you, nothing more and nothing less.
What I have learned during my traveling years around this Globe is that people are really just people. Treat them right and they treat you right. Respect and you get respect. I have met all kinds of people. Once you get to know them, it’s going to be ok. Once they get to know you, you gonna be ok. In this context racism appears as really stupid and ultra juvenile idea. You can’t twist your head around to it. What it is all about? Why would anybody want be a racist? I do not.
As a white man I have to be aware of racism. I have to understand the history of the black americans as far as I can. I can’t pretend that I understand how it feels to be black in US. That is bullshit. But I can try to find out about the history, listen what they say, how they see things, how they feel, and try to understand it as much as I can. Then I can see things in perspective. I see what this blog is all about. And I can learn more here. And then I can learn even more. Why would I do it? Because I learn abput us all, about humanity. All men and women. And this way we can flish down this dirty toilet paper called racism one day.
It is not easy. It is not fun. It really takes an effort. But it is worth it. It makes me more human. Not a White Man, but a humanbeing.
Peace!
LikeLike
Like I had said in my first comment, I am not racist, I am actually very much the antithesis thereof. I believe in equal rights being equal, not equal rights being a swinging pendulum. I have a mixed race family where two of my step children are Portuguese, I surround myself with that culture and I see a surprising amount of racism geared toward me for being a white person in a European mix family. I have a friend from Kenya who is almost purple he’s so dark and we joke back and forth about different aspects of each others physical and personal aspects, no different than one guy calling his other friend 4 eyes for having glasses, the color of the skin is just another distinguishing factor, like freckles or red hair.
The problem I see in our society coming from a straight Caucasian male’s point of view is that there are only two types of people. Those who see their race and feel it’s the reason for everything negative in their life or as a way of getting what they want when they want it and those who don’t. I worked at a University once and there were desks setup for Post Grad PhD Students to use. Many of these desks were allocated as permanent work area’s for each student, then there were a handful of area setup for drop-in non-permanent student desks. This one female PhD student wanted to utilize one of the non-perm desks as her permanent desk and was told she couldn’t because they were allocated for non-permanent use. There were many unused perm. work stations available but this student wanted this desk so she pulled both the race and the gender card and called foul because she was being denied the desk. The school had to conform the to demands to keep the student from bringing all out race/gender war upon the school. I knew this student fairly well and never expected them to use the race and gender card to get what they wanted and shocked me to see them do so. It’s these types of people who create racism and people who see someone of the same race or gender should be angry at these people for making it bad for the rest of them, not mad at the on lookers for resenting the use of minority to benefit one’s own wants. The same goes for people who live up to a stereotype, they should be linched by their own race for making the stereotype more valid. I have gotten into some heated arguments with ignorant white males for making inappropriate comments about other races. If I were a youth that “stereotypically” had people expecting me to be a criminal, the LAST thing I would do would be to live up to that stereotype, I would want to do everything in my power to do the opposite but I see all these kids who strive to be “gangstas” living up to stereotypes everyday making it easier for people to generalize the masses and put people into categories.
Lets paint everyone Grey… it’s not red, black, white, brown, yellow or mocha. One color means one race… The Human Race.
Peace
LikeLike
Jimmy, I think you missed my question.
LikeLike
I am in Canada… But in reference to my comment about doctors it was meant to be hypothetical, meaning if I was an under educated doctor than someone else who had more qualifications but I fit into a quota, should I get the job because I fill a quota? Would you want someone working on you who isn’t as qualified but has their job because they help the companies diversity requirements?
LikeLike
And you think that Asians, or anyone, are getting into medical schools underqualified? Surely you jest.
As one who works in one of the largest hospitals in the U.S., I assure you that is not the case.
LikeLike
Also, people who enter medical schools with lower stats are quickly brought up to speed or they flunk out. Not that anyone enters who doesn’t have the qualifications; all deserve to be there. Medical schools are highly self-selected. Before you reach medical school you’ve already gone through a series of weed-outs.
If ever you meet a lousy physician, blame it on them getting lazy or feeling overworked, not because the hospital chose a dunce.
LikeLike
meaning if I was an under educated doctor than someone else who had more qualifications but I fit into a quota, should I get the job because I fill a quota? Would you want someone working on you who isn’t as qualified but has their job because they help the companies diversity requirements?
That’s not how equity programs are supposed work. If all applicants have the same qualifications, than a ‘minority’ will get extra points towards the job. If this person doesn’t have the qualifications, then they don’t get the job. If the company in question is not applying the program properly, and hiring under qualified people, whose fault is it? The company or the poor dupe who will be ultimately be the brunt of comments such as yours?
I have a mixed race family where two of my step children are Portuguese, I surround myself with that culture and I see a surprising amount of racism geared toward me for being a white person in a European mix family.
I didn’t realize that Portuguese were identified as anything but white, at least where I’m from, Toronto, Canada, which has a large Portuguese population. I am not talking about Brazilian Canadians either.
It’s these types of people who create racism and people who see someone of the same race or gender should be angry at these people for making it bad for the rest of them, not mad at the on lookers for resenting the use of minority to benefit one’s own wants.
And you are not racist? ‘Minorities’ aren’t monoliths, so stating that others will make it bad for others of that group, will simply use incidences such as this to justify their own racism. Racism is not ‘created’ by someone doing something you or others may or may not like, it was already there!
but I see all these kids who strive to be “gangstas” living up to stereotypes everyday making it easier for people to generalize the masses and put people into categories.
They already ‘generalize’ the masses. You have to be conversant with such ‘stereotypes’ in the first place in order to do so.
Lets paint everyone Grey… it’s not red, black, white, brown, yellow or mocha. One color means one race… The Human Race.
Yes, lets. Typical kumbaya racist outlook. Lets just ignore the societal and historical factors which went into making up these stereotypes and playing the ‘race’ card.
LikeLike
Natasha W,
While I agree with you that most U.S. medical schools have rigorous selection processes, I have to disagree with your assertion that bad doctors are automatically weeded out. Medical students with low standardized test scores and/or bad grades don’t necessarily flunk out. Such students can be passed along for political reasons, like race. When they apply to hospitals for their internships, the best students usually go to the best hospitals, while the worst students go to the worst hospitals. The worst hospitals are often in minority neighborhoods, where the demand for doctors is great and admission standards are lowest. So, doctors can be very bad without being lazy or overworked, just in over their heads intellectually. And note that doctors can treat many patients before they are required to pass their licensing exams. Many bad doctors are weeded out by licensing exams, but by that time, lots of patients could have been injured by people who never should have been allowed to become doctors in the first place.
LikeLike
RR,
“Medical students with low standardized test scores and/or bad grades don’t necessarily flunk out.”
I said they are brought up to speed quickly (more common) or flunk out (less common). It’s definitely not in the best interest of medical schools to have physicians coming out of their schools that are incompetent. So they make a concerted effort to get these students all the help they need.
Morehouse Medical School had a bad reputation among some for bringing out doctors who weren’t as prepared. And these students were having a very hard time getting residency (if they were getting them at all it was usually the top students) i.e. they weren’t getting opportunities to become specialized, iow risk causing real damage.
LikeLike
Herneith wrote:
That’s not how equity programs are supposed work.
But that IS how they work in the US. The EEOC applies the 4/5ths rule, that is, if a particular group is hired at a rate below 80% the rate of the largest employed group, then the company in question is engaging in adverse impact and can be sued:
http://www.adverseimpact.org/CalculatingAdverseImpact/Four-FifthsRule.htm
LikeLike
Natasha W,
It is debatable whether it is in the best interest of medical schools to graduate incompetent doctors. It might be in the best interest of an institution to graduate a small number of incompetent doctors for political reasons. This practice is clearly not in the best interest of the public, but the interests of the public and that of medical schools don’t have to be aligned.
You also have to look at the number of doctors who earn their degrees abroad. The standards at some foreign medical schools that Americans attend are quite low.
You wrote:
I said they are brought up to speed quickly (more common) or flunk out (less common).
I do not doubt this, but at the same time, some students do very badly but aren’t flunked out. They graduate and end up treating patients.
LikeLike
In Thad’s example, the fact that a woman lied about the rape doesn’t change the fact rape happens all the time, even to women who don’t look like “typical rape victims”, even to those who otherwise like to have casual sex with random men, even to those who were drunk or high, even to prostitutes. The fact that a woman lied in a specific case says nothing about rape as a serious issue. It doesn’t suddenly make rape a myth or just a female imagination. It doesn’t suddenly prove it’s ok to take a woman’s “no” as a “yes”.
Similarly, the fact a black man raped a white woman doesn’t make racism non-existent. It doesn’t make false rape accusations a myth. It doesn’t make black men, as a whole, rapists and violent beasts. It doesn’t make it ok for others (read: whites) to discriminate, dehumanize or hurt black men, or to see them as some sort of a threat.
Mira, I get all that and I agree.
But none of that changes the fact that if I, a “white male”, talk about a black guy raping a white woman, it will imediately be seen as reinforcing the black rapist myth. And if I talk about a white woman lying about a black rapist, it will imediately be seen as reinforcing the “women lie about rape” myth.
Now I’d say this would be true for 80% of the black/women I talk to.
So when something happens in my community where a black man is accused of violating a white woman, what should a white guy do other than keep his mouth shut?
Of course, if one were to do that, one would be accused of avoiding the issue. And that would be true. But the white guy might not be avoiding the discussion because he “doesn’t want to deal with the issues”: he might be avoiding it because he’s smart enough to realize that ANYTHING he says can and will be used against him.
This is why I think alot of the “white people don’t want to deal with race” dogma here misses the point. Yeah, most white people probably don’t want to deal with race because it isn’t an issue with them. But the ones who DO want to deal with race… Well, what can they do other nthan parrot eeach and every black person they talk to? That`s pretty much what they`ll have to do if they want to avoid being called a racist. 9 months on this blog have convinced me that being white and disagreeing with a black person is enough of a cause for most black people to call you racist.
Swap “white” for “man” and “black” for “woman” and you have pretty much the same dynamic.
So the oppressed of the world want the all-powerful white male to recognize their position and thake them seriously. But there is no way to reasonably do this without eventually being called a racist sexist pig by someone.
Moral of the story; if you are white and want to deal with race or male and want to deal with gender, you better develop a pretty thick skin and yet still be able to critique yourself.
That’s a hard combination to ask the majority of people to pull off.
LikeLike
Thaddeus wrote:
I mean, what’s a well meaning white guy like myself supposed to do, faced with this dilema?
How about this: grow a pair! You are so concerned about being hoisted by your own petard that you have become a coward. Sometimes, one has to call a spade a spade and let the chips fall where they may. I know that spinning reality to please one group or another is what people of your ilk do, but I am surprised that this bothers you. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
that being white and disagreeing with a black person is enough of a cause for most black people to call you racist.
Well, well, well. Isn’t this sauce for the goose. The white man is concerned about being called racist. Maybe we should change your diaper and give you our collective tit. Stop your bitching! If you have something to say, then just say it. Don’t worry about being called racist! Only worry about being wrong, which you are most of the time, but you do have your moments.
LikeLike
RR sez:
How about this: grow a pair!
Would that be man-boobs then? Because coming from Steve Sailor…. 😀
RR, you’re proof that Republicans have difficulty understanding anything but the obvious. Only you would believe that a complaint about spinning reality to meet people’s dogmas was a inquiry as to how to do it.
Conservatives have become more humorless than the liberals they attempt to poke fun at.
The white man is concerned about being called racist…. Don’t worry about being called racist!
The last two sentences of my post flew over your head. Either that or the words “yet still be able to critique yourself” is code for “worry” in Sailor-English.
LikeLike
Would that be man-boobs then?
Grow some man titays, Thad:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:WxEhLVdPP4cT9M:http://www.nosumo.com/pics/muscleMan.jpg&t=1
Thad’s petard:
The last time someone went b*tch*ng, this is what happened:
LikeLike
Well, Thad, I don’t know where you live, but when I was living in the States there was one serial rapist in our neighborhood who was black. None of my black friends called me a racist when I was talkin about this crook with them. And none of them called this creep other than a rapist. The fact that the rapist happened to be black was not the issue. The issue was that he was a rapist. He could have been green for all we cared. His skin was not the point. His crimes were.
Some of us, black and white guys, formed unofficial watch when this guy attacked a white woman in our building. And guess who saved this white womans life? Yep, a black guy from our building. He happened to hear the screams and ran for it and was first in the scene because it was on his side of the building. I came second and the janitor, who was white, was third. Rapist took off at once.
I think the whole “black rapist” problem is in ones head. If you make it an issue Thad, it will be come one. Rapist is a rapist no matter what color. I have never met a black person who defends a rapist because he happens to be a black.
To think that somehow some subjects are excluded from conversation because they might be considered as racist is racist in it self. The idea that one has to censor oneself because of the political correctness is racist namely because it is based on the whole idea of races. “Me a White man can not say these things to Him a Black man because Me a White man know that He a Black man might be offended because Me a White man” etc. See? Everything is filtered trough the concept of the race. Race is the defenition of everything in that.
As a fairly educated man I have noticed that many academics or higly educated people do not know their own racism. Because they are against KKK and nazis, they do not see how they apply the race card in their lives. They want to help the hungry of Africa and instead of getting food down there, they have seminar where they debate about the western goverments politics etc. After the seminar they feel fine because in their heads they did something for Africa. And the kids in the bush keep on dying.
I remember one party at the local university. There were professors and teatchers and students and everybody was having a good time. We had asians, africans, black americans and such and everybody was havin jolly good time and being so open minded. Ecxept some of us took off to the nearest bar to watch a game on tv. The result? The white hosts, very higly educated, were very angry that their black guests, and some of us white, preferred NBA to intellectual wine sipping and small talk. The hosts were particulary dissapointed for their black guests who did not behave like they had assumed, meaning showing that blacks preferred academia over a good basketball game.
If you take a stand as a White man in conversations, then everything comes about the race etc. and you will be the White man in that conversation. Now a black person born and raised in the States can not exclude his race. Reason? The history of that country and the realities there. But you as a white man can. When they talk about a white man doing so and so, the whole baggage, they don’t always mean you. But if you choose to take it that way, then they are talking about you.
LikeLike
Thad,
But none of that changes the fact that if I, a “white male”, talk about a black guy raping a white woman, it will imediately be seen as reinforcing the black rapist myth. And if I talk about a white woman lying about a black rapist, it will imediately be seen as reinforcing the “women lie about rape” myth.
Well, I guess that’s one of the reasons everybody (including white males) should fight against racism and sexism, because once they’re over, white males will not be seen as an universal oppressor.
But I get what you’re saying. I don’t think there are subjects that one is forbidden to discuss just because he or she doesn’t belong to a group mostly affected by said issue. I don’t think you’re forbidden to criticize a member of a group you don’t belong to.
Still, criticizing and defending your own group are two different things. And yes, some people will discard your opinion just because you’re white, or male, or straight or whatever.
That doesn’t mean you should stop discussing said issue. But if you’re not ready to accept others have different views (individual or collective), and if you are not ready to be criticized (and even called names), you should not participate in discussions.
Sam,
Well, Thad, I don’t know where you live, but when I was living in the States there was one serial rapist in our neighborhood who was black. None of my black friends called me a racist when I was talkin about this crook with them.
I believe the crucial difference is talking about an individual who did bad things (raped, lied about being raped, etc), instead of seeing these crimes as something that all members of his/her group do (“Black men are rapists”, “women always lie about rape”, etc.) If you make clear that you believe said individual did a bad thing BECAUSE he’s black/she’s female, then you deserve all the criticism.
LikeLike
Thad,
You are an example of a Liberal who is incapable of seeing the obvious. Your fear of being called racist makes you oblivious to the obvious, thus you cling to pious phraseology such as “Race is a social construct” as if redefining race will magically eliminate racism. Your cowardice keeps you from asserting yourself and stating the obvious. You can’t honestly critique yourself if you have trouble seeing what is in front of your nose.
LikeLike
Mira wrote:
Well, I guess that’s one of the reasons everybody (including white males) should fight against racism and sexism, because once they’re over, white males will not be seen as an universal oppressor.
There is one small problem with this notion: racism and sexism will never be “over” because they are inherent to the human animal. We can do our best to minimize the more negative aspects of our innate bigotries, but the nature of the beast can never be changed. What you are saying essentially is that white men will forever be on the hook for bigotry so long as he continues to win the status competition among the races/sexes. Thad actually makes a good point. Thad being hoisted by his own petard is an excellent example of the dilemma that many “well intentioned” liberals find themselves in. If they criticize blacks/Asians/Jews/women etc, they risk being called bigots. If they don’t criticize blacks/Asians/Jews/women etc, they are seen as cowardly and as sam pointed out, still viewed as bigots. The obvious answer to the white Liberal’s dilemma is to be forcefully assertive with whatever version of the truth he has come to accept AND NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE CALL HIM!
and if you are not ready to be criticized (and even called names), you should not participate in discussions.
Exactly! Grow a pair! Stop bitching!
If you make clear that you believe said individual did a bad thing BECAUSE he’s black/she’s female, then you deserve all the criticism.
Sometimes, racial/sexual hatred is a factor in crime. Sometimes race motivates criminals to commit crimes, as we have seen most recently in the racially motivated shooting spree by a black killer in Hartford, Connecticut:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBNP73m9cp2g6qFtWxCbJH6IAD3gD9HE7L8O0
This fellow killed white men because he felt put upon as a black man. Does our current climate of race denial encourage this sort of behavior? Does it excuse it?
LikeLike
sam wrote:
I think the whole “black rapist” problem is in ones head. If you make it an issue Thad, it will be come one. Rapist is a rapist no matter what color. I have never met a black person who defends a rapist because he happens to be a black.
I understand what you are saying. We should all be judged as individuals and most people are capable of treating others as individuals. Nonetheless, certain racial trends, especially with regard to crime, are discernable. Here in the US, blacks rape with more frequency than other groups do, on a percentage basis. Sometimes black do defend criminals. Recall the case of the Jena 6 a few years back:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html
Blacks complain loudly about the percentage of black men in prison. We assume, wrongly, that most black men in prison are there due to drug offenses, which we view as non-crimes. Whenever blacks complain about the incarceration rate of black men, blacks are basically defending crime. For whatever reason, we blacks believe that the disproportionate number of blacks in prison is due to an unfair justice system instead of coming to grips with the reality that we produce a disproportionately large number of hard core criminals.
LikeLike
As a fairly educated man I have noticed that many academics or higly educated people do not know their own racism. Because they are against KKK and nazis, they do not see how they apply the race card in their lives. They want to help the hungry of Africa and instead of getting food down there, they have seminar where they debate about the western goverments politics etc. After the seminar they feel fine because in their heads they did something for Africa. And the kids in the bush keep on dying.
Erm… Sam, I`m not particularly interested in helping the hungry of Africa. At this point in my life, my political ambitions have more to do with working to get prostitutes labor and human rights. And because I`m in the street visiting brothels as much as going to seminars, I`d be willing to lay dollars to donuts that I have a more realistic view of what`s going on tthan most folkd.
I remember one party at the local university. There were professors and teatchers and students and everybody was having a good time. We had asians, africans, black americans and such and everybody was havin jolly good time and being so open minded. Ecxept some of us took off to the nearest bar to watch a game on tv. The result? The white hosts, very higly educated, were very angry that their black guests, and some of us white, preferred NBA to intellectual wine sipping and small talk. The hosts were particulary dissapointed for their black guests who did not behave like they had assumed, meaning showing that blacks preferred academia over a good basketball game.
Y`know, I always find these stories of “academia” interesting – not the least because it seems that academics and academia are ond of the few groups left that people feel free to stereotype about. I was at a conference in Belem on Wednesday and half the academics there were in the bar watching the big football game. Also, at this conference, no wine was served – or any other beverage – unless you paid for it. That’s usually the deal at conferences these days,
So I wonder, man. I mean, I go to 5 conferences a year, on average, and have been doing so for the better part of a decade, and yet I never seem to run into these callow eggheads that anonymous posters on the internet are always talking about. Most folks I meet are basically lower middle class and like a good ball game as much as the next guy.
If you take a stand as a White man in conversations, then everything comes about the race etc. and you will be the White man in that conversation.
No doubt. The problem is, however, that I don`t take a stand as ANY kind of person in conversations. Such positions are attributed by others.
Now a black person born and raised in the States can not exclude his race. Reason? The history of that country and the realities there. But you as a white man can. When they talk about a white man doing so and so, the whole baggage, they don’t always mean you. But if you choose to take it that way, then they are talking about you.
Give me some credit, please. I realize that. The problem isn`t “taking things that way”. The problem I’m talking about, as I described it above, is that there is literally nothing one could say in such a situation which isn’t going to come back around and bite you on your ass.
The constant complaint here is why do white people not discuss race? The point I`m trying too bring up is – presuming a good faith effort and a reasonable education regarding race, CAN THEY? Can a white person disagree with a black person about a race-based issue and not be called a racist? I doubt it.
So, if you are white and want to talk about these issues, you need to either a) repeat everything your black interlocutors say and presume that your life experience means squat, or b) develop a thick skin while maintaing some capacity for self-critique.
Because in my experience, Sam, if you are adjudged white (not taking a position as a white person, simply seen by others as white) and you disagree with some person`s opinion and that person is black, you will be called a racist.
LikeLike
RR sez:
You are an example of a Liberal who is incapable of seeing the obvious.
Ooh! The “L” word. Y’know RR, when I look up “liberal” in my dictionary, I don’t see anything to be ashamed of. “Liberal” means someone who’s in favor of individual rights and private property.
I take it then that you don’t like these things? You’d rather we have a king and royalty, then? You`d rather people be judged by the circumstances of their birth rather than their own worth? Because that`s what anti-liberalism traditionally is, RR.
And frankly, it`s hard to listen to a claim that I “can’t see the obvious” when it comes from a guy who tries to insult me with a word (“liberal”) whose definition he doesn’t even know. 😀
Your fear of being called racist…
RR, are you naturally clueless, or do you just force the world into a preconcceived framewrok, no matter how absurd that might be?
If I were afraid of being called a racist, as you claim, do you think I`d be posting under my own name on this board?
Want to talk about fear, son? Why don`t you come out and tell everyone here your real life identity, hmmm?
Afraid of being called a racist? Or just afraid that people will see your sock-puppet for what it is? 😀
thus you cling to pious phraseology such as “Race is a social construct” as if redefining race will magically eliminate racism.
You reactionary Americans fascinate the hell out of me, RR. You really seem to believe that you can get away with Big Lie tactics: call a cat a dog long enough and loud enough, and you seem to think the cat will magically start to bark.
The “race is a social concept” position is hardly a “redefinition”: it’s been the established paradigm in both biology and the social sciences for close to 3/4ths of a century now. The “redefinition” of race is properly the view that clinactic patterns of human biopatterning are really “races” or that small breeding groups are somehow “races”. In other words, the man who’s trying to redefine race here is YOU, Sunny Jim. You’re the dude who’s trying to pour new wine into old bottles.
I’ve been reading Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s new book Genes, Peoples and Languages on the bus last week. Surely you`ve heard of the guy, right? THE most important specialist in human genetics on Earth? The man who’s written the standard references books on human genetic variation…?
Here`s a quote by him:
The classification of the human species into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.
C-S is hardly a raging leftist, either: he’s routinely accused of being an imperialistic bastard.
C-S has a nice little dissertation regarding your theory that race is basically family. In so many words, he leaves you high and dry.
I`m hopefully going to be doing a piece on C-S for my blog in the near future and maybe Abagond will be so kind as to repost it here. But in the meantime, I`d like to ask you how Stevie Sailor somehow has avoided mentioning this man`s work in his new definition of race?
LikeLike
Thad:
I will repost 500 words of any post you do on Cavalli-Sforza. Just email it to me.
LikeLike
I find that calling someone a ‘liberal’ is akin to calling them an obscene name when debating some topic. The topic may or may not even even have to do with politics! It is bizarre. That seems to be the clarion call of the so-called conservatives. If in doubt, holler, “You’re a Liberal”!
LikeLike
It might be a month or so, Abagond, because I’m currently in the middle of Conference Hell.
In a nutshell, C-S says that if we were to take Steve Sailor’s views on race seriously (i.e. race represents genetically congruent breeding groups), there are some 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 human “races” on the planet.
Now if that is going to be the new biology’s definition of “race”, OK. But C-S points out that such a definition makes complete hash of the concept of sub-species as it’s been historically used.
It CERTAINLY makes hash out of RR/Steve Sailor’s practical use of race.
Why?
Because if we are seriously going to define genetically congruent breeding groups as “races” (all several million of them) the notion that there’s a “black” or “white” or “asian” anything is so much horse hockey. This sinks RR/Sailor’s little “blacks have a gentically lower IQ” boat.
So in other words, even if we do squint, hold our noses and claim that human biopatterning, as revealed by modern genetics, is in fact race… even if we do that, RR/Sailor’s beliefs on “black” genetic inferiority don’t have a scientific leg to stand on.
In fact, RR/Sailor is giving guys like me an EXCELLENT example of why human biopatterning SHOULD NOT be understood as race.
If Sailor knows as much about biology as he claims, then he has to know that a definition like “black” or “white” makes no sense outside of a given socio-historical context. Placed against the 10,000,000 or so actual breeding groups of humans, it certainly doesn’t. ESPECIALLY when we consider that, if intelligence does indeed have a genetic component, it is certainly made up of a huge number of variables which would have a hard time descending, intact, even within a small breeding group, let alone across a genetic span labeled “white”.
So there really can only be one reason for Sailor’s intentional confusion of the modern notion of human biopatterning with the victorian notion of human race: he wants to save the POLITICAL content of race.
There is no scientific reason for him to be doing what he’s doing otherwise.
This is actually good news. Many biologists are completely unaware of the race discussion or ignore it as it’s supposedly not their field. Many of these guys say “Oh, come on. People aren’t actually that stupid that they’ll try to use our current understanding of so-called ‘race’ to reactivate racism”.
Sailor proves that they are wrong.
LikeLike
Yeah, Herneith. “Liberal” has become the ad hominem of the 21st century. Most folks, like RR, don’t even know why they’re using it. If they were to stop and look at the word’s meaning, they’d quickly see it makes no sense as an insult. They only use it because people like Rush have convinced them that it stands against everything they hold dear in life.
LikeLike
Thaddeus,
Your definitions of political terms are as antiquated as your notion of race. I called you “Liberal” not liberal. Obviously, I am not referring to you in any Lockean sense of the word. Your views are anything but Enlightened. I am referring to the political meaning of the word, which you would know if you weren’t so oblivious to the obvious. Leftist and Liberal are essentially synonymous (and by Leftist, I am not referring to any left-handed bias on your part). Liberals believe in the infinite malleability of the human psyche. Liberals believe everything is a socially constructed and subject to change through social policy, which is no doubt, why social work attracts you. If a Liberal encounters an idea he doesn’t like, like race, he attempts to eliminate references to the idea, just like the Communists of old. No need to debate the validity of ideas, just slander anyone as racist foolish enough to disagree with a Liberal. That is why I find your predicament so interesting. You have been hoisted by the racist petard of your own making. It is must be difficult for someone who engages in racial name calling to be called racist himself. Having been called a racist by you and others on this blog many times, I can relate to what you must be experiencing. The difference between us, besides our political views, is that I believe in open debate despite the possible slings and arrows hurled my way, while you just cave. Your position is morally and intellectually cowardly.
Yes, I have heard of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, although I haven’t read any of his books. But Steve Sailer has! Let’s examine Sailer’s examination of “Genes, Peoples, and Languages”:
http://vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm
Sailer references Cavalli-Sforza’s famous colored map highlighting human genetic diversity. Sailer quotes Cavalli-Sforza:
“The color map of the world shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids … (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red). The map does not show well the strong Caucasoid component in northern Africa, but it does show the unity of the other Caucasoids from Europe, and in West, South, and much of Central Asia.”
Sailer goes on to say that the map pretty much looks like what one would expect from a racial perspective. Sailer also references another Cavalli-Sforza’s book “The History and Geography of Human Genes”. Sailer states:
Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danes, and the Japanese 59 times. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish. (The genetic distance between Japanese and Bantus is even greater.)
From these kind of tables, Cavalli-Sforza reached this general conclusion: “The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans …”
Cavalli-Sforza’s remark doesn’t sound like it came from a guy that didn’t believe in group differences, with the groups in question resembling races. Here is another Sailer essay on Cavalli-Sforza:
http://vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm
This is a particularly useful essay. Please read both essays.
You wrote:
In a nutshell, C-S says that if we were to take Steve Sailor’s views on race seriously (i.e. race represents genetically congruent breeding groups), there are some 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 human “races” on the planet.
I’m not sure whether you are just too lazy to read Sailer or whether you have some other comprehension problem, but Sailer has NEVER defined race as representing genetically congruent breeding groups (Note: The term “genetically congruent” doesn’t make sense in this context. We are not talking about genetic agreement here. I think you meant genetically similar breeding groups). Sailer’s definition of race is as follows:
A race is a large extended family that inbreeds to some extent.
Sailer has asserted that race is non-discrete and runs along a continuum. Race is relative. How black is black? How white is white? Nobody knows. But we do know that races differ relative to each other on a genetic level, which is what Cavalli-Sforza points out in “The History and Geography of Human Genes”. Is this concept really so hard for you to grasp?
LikeLike
Hey, RR’s back!
Lessee what lulz he brings to the table this time, shall we?
First of all, a redefinition of “liberal” to mean exactly what I said RR understands it as: “Liberal” means eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.
It’s nice to see that RR isn’t restricting his Newspeak activities to race: now he’s also telling us that liberals are basically communists.
Very nice.
If a Liberal encounters an idea he doesn’t like, like race, he attempts to eliminate references to the idea, just like the Communists of old.
See? 😀
That’s odd reasoning coming from a guy whose sum total contribution to this blog so far has been a refutation of the historical definition of race, laced with attempts to deny that such a definition ever existed.
But we’ll let that one pass.
Anything else to chuckle about here…?
Oh, interesting! A Stevie Sailor analysis of C-S which basically affirms that computer salesman Stevie understands C-S’ theories better than the world renowned geneticist himself.
So C-S goes out of his way to repeatedly demonstrate that race theory doesn’t hack it when it comes to human biodiversity. Ignore that, however! Stevie’s pulled up a chart from C-S’ book (what chart he doesn’t say) and has redefined it to suit himself, ignoring the geneticist’s own definition.
Now here’s the wonderfull part: what Stevie doesn’t bother to tell us is that the “109 times distance” between Africa and Europe amounts to only 16% or that, furthermore, this percentage is almost entirely made up of the fact that Europeans are relatively genetically LESS diverse than Africans. In other words, all (or almost all) the genes found in Europe are ALSO found in Africa, whereas Africa has several types of genes which are NOT found in Europe.
So Europeans are basically a subset of Africans, not a mutation off of them. The genetic distance is basically made up of genes that Europeans have LOST due to genetic drift.
Finally, we get one more instance of Big Lie tactics.
C-S OBVIOUSLY believes that human genetic groupings exist. What he does not believe and goes to some difficulty to explain, repeatedly, is that said genetic groupings represent subspecies or races.
So when RR quotes C-S as saying “The most important difference in the human gene pool is clearly that between Africans and non-Africans …” and then takes this to mean this proves that C-S believes in group differences, he’s correct. What he apparently can’t grasp is the fact that the most renowned geneticist in the world then says that these groups are nothing like sub-species or races.
Summing up:
For RR/Sailor Boy, if genetic patterns exist in human beings, these must mean races exist.
For Cavalli-Sforza, the man who literally WROTE THE BOOK on human ganetic variation, human genetic groupings are so fine, so varied and so contextually shifting that the concept of “race” is simply stupid when applied to them.
LikeLike
All theories aside, why do the staunch “race” perpetrators refuse to look at reality? Is it because everything that doesn’t fit their ideology is not supposed to exist? Are other countries strange anyway and not really human (especially the French)?
Repeating myself, my mother is 50% black 50% white and my father 100% white, according to the vulgar racist classifications. Anyway, just looking at a couple of my older brother’s superficial traits, some people are seriously tempted to assume that he’s 100% black although he’s obviously only 25% black. He looks like a Maxwell, maybe Ben Harper type of guy…
Looking at the same superficial traits, my baby sister goes through as 100% French; “Caucasian” according to the racists. Explain that and make that fit in the “race” theory, s.v.p.
LikeLike
Femi,
Why do staunch race deniers refuse to look at reality? Given the description you have provided of yourself, you are about 25% black (putting aside what type of black you actually mean for the moment) and 75% white (whatever that means). You are a hybrid of races. “Ah ha!” you say. I am a racial hybrid, so how can race exist if I am mixed? As I tried to explain to Thad race is not discrete. It is a continuum. Race is relative, not an absolute measure. The fact that you are not black and not white does not invalidate the relative measures of black and white (this despite the lack of objective definition of black and white). One doesn’t need a precise definition of black or white, just a relative genetic measure of the two. What Cavalli-Sforza and his team have determined is that genetic measures are relative and that Englishmen are more genetically similar to Danes than they are to Bantus. So, if you, say, needed a bone marrow transplant, you would be more likely to find a compatible donor who shares your degree of racial admixture. This is why transplant centers like Dana Farber use race as a criterion for categorizing prospective donors. You could eliminate from consideration those people like your father, who are close to 100% of some type of white and people who are close to 100% of some type of black. The degree and type of racial admixture would be of paramount importance if one needed a bone marrow transplant. This is why there is a major push by bone marrow registries to recruit people of mixed racial ancestry. Was that so hard? Do you understand the concept now? Please, register with your local bone marrow registry:
http://www.givemarrow.net/OtherCountriesRegistry.asp
LikeLike
Thad wrote:
C-S OBVIOUSLY believes that human genetic groupings exist.
Yes he does. And those human genetic groupings just happen to coincide with what laymen consider racial groupings. Whatdaya know! Genes actually effect the way people look. And people with specific genetic similarities have a tendency to look similar. And genetic traits are passed down through families. And some families are more genetically related to some families than other families. And families in specific regions of the world mated with each other over time and now have certain genetic similarities in common. These large families, who have interbred with each other, express genetic group biopatterns which are encompassed by the concept of race.
For RR/Sailor Boy, if genetic patterns exist in human beings, these must mean races exist.
There you go! That wasn’t hard. You are fully on the race funk train now! Dana Farber would be very happy with your realization. I hope you, your wife and daughter have registered yourselves as bone marrow donors. Seriously, this is important.
LikeLike
@RR
You keep invalidating your own statements by assuming that “race” is in fact a biologically valid classification. It is, once again, at best controversial. There is no globally accepted proof.
Your bone marrow example doesn’t hold water as you will have to make individual analyses of each donor and receiver regardless. Anything else would be irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Then you state deterministically “Englishmen are more genetically similar to Danes than they are to Bantus”. Which Englishmen, which Danes, which Bantus? You have to back your statements up with empirical figures if you claim any scientific basis.
There were also a higher number of similarities found between Norwegians and indigenous people from Papua New Guinea than between Norwegians and Italians.
The handful of coarse “race” classifications by US standards are pointless, especially in a global context, hence not scientifically valid.
LikeLike
[Nods at Femi]
I’ll save my continued savaging of RR’s whacko theories for my C-S post in September.
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that this man complains about “liberals” attempting to hide facts.
Think about it, folks: this is aguy who believes that a computer salesman knows more about human genetic variation than the man who’s written pretty much every textbook used in university courses on the topic.
Talk about balls… Talk about “Big Lie” tactics… RR/Sailor doesn’t have a logical or scientific leg to stand on, but believes that if he yells loud enough, long enough, the same crowd that believes evolution is a fraud will recover the concept of race and put those evil blacks in their place once and for all.
Stevie Sailor is the face of modern American fascism folks.
LikeLike
BTW
RR said
“75% white (whatever that means)”
You should be able to tell me what it means if you have, as you claim, a scientifically valid basis for “race”.
“putting aside what type of black you actually mean”
Why putting it aside? Isn’t “Black” enough according to your ideology?
LikeLike
Again, this is where Sailor falls on his face. We are supposed to believe that he defines race as breeding groups. Yet there are no breeding groups that can be classified as “black” or “white” and still make sense in genetic terms.
LikeLike
Femi,
You seem to be accusing me of begging the question with respect to race. I adhere to Steve Sailer’s definition of race which is as follows:
A race is a very large extended family that inbreeds to some extent.
I then asserted that this definition can be used as a means of classifying various groups expressing specific biopatterns. As I have explained previously, race is a nebulous concept. It is very fuzzy at the edges (hybridization). The inexactness of the concept of race does not render the concept scientifically useless. Much of quantum physics is also fuzzy and inexact, but yet we have fully operational nuclear power plants. It is similar with race. Despite the inexactness of race, the folks at transplant centers like Dana Farber use race as a selection criterion for bone marrow recipients and donors. You state correctly that each recipient/donor would have to be more rigorously assayed, genetically speaking, than simply matching up people of similar self-reported race. But self reporting of race still serves a useful purpose because it allows clinicians to cull from their bone marrow registries only those who are the most likely to provide a good genetic match for a perspective recipient. The idea is to find the most likely donor in the shortest amount of time. Every potential donor in a particular registry would obviously not be viable for a particular recipient. Using race as a criterion makes the search more efficient, because certain genetic markers occur more frequently in some racial groups than others:
https://www.dana-farber.org/how/donatebone/minority-donors.asp
Here is a choice snip:
Because tissue type is inherited, a patient’s best chance of finding a match is with a brother or sister. Unfortunately, 70 percent of patients do not have a suitably matched donor in their family. Because tissue traits are inherited, a patient’s next best chance of finding a match is with someone of the same race or ethnicity.
So, the people at Dana Farber believe in the scientific utility of race.
You wrote:
Which Englishmen, which Danes, which Bantus? You have to back your statements up with empirical figures if you claim any scientific basis.
No I don’t. I suggest you take that issue up with Cavalli-Sforza. The data is from his book “The History and Geography of Human Genes”.
“75% white (whatever that means)”
You should be able to tell me what it means if you have, as you claim, a scientifically valid basis for “race”.
No, I don’t. I assert that race is relative. I don’t have to have a precise definition of “white”, just a relative genetic measure of “white”. Can you define “tall”? How about “young”? Or “fat”? These terms, like race, are relativistic. If all humans on planet Earth were Kalenjin, there would be no need for terms like race or tribe, because there would be no stark genetic differences between Kalenjin. Similarly, if everyone on planet Earth were the same height, there would be no need to define words like tall or short.
LikeLike
Thad,
Sailer states that a race is a large extended family that inbreeds to some extent. The human race is one big breeding group. Some groups within the human race are more genetically similar to each other than they are to other groups precisely because they inbreed with each other more than they outbreed with other groups. Is this really so hard for you to understand? The major genetic dissimilarities break down along racial lines. That is what Cavalli-Sforza’s map shows. That is what he notes in his book.
Please focus on what Sailer actually writes rather than his background. Refute his arguments if you can. Please keep in mind Abagond’s excellent post on “The seven levels of disagreement”:
Concentrate on striving for level 6: Refuting the central point.
LikeLike
@RR
“Race” is what you said – “a nebulous concept”. It has therefore no foothold in natural science. In social sciences, most likely. In the heads of many people, very certainly. There have been many attempts in different parts of the world to find any sensible pattern in human diversity. The result is that in the USA you have about a handful of “races”, in the UK over 80 and in some other places, like in the Caribbean, the classification is yet different. You have about as many different versions as there were studies. Which is the correct one if there is a correct one to begin with? When you have a multitude of different, partly even contradictory, concepts you have exactly one situation: disputed and disputable claims.
The reason why a comparison to quantum physics and nuclear power plants makes no sense is that any observation and behaviour of their inherent properties will be consistently the same anywhere, at least everywhere on planet earth. Even the uncertainty factor is precisely the same every time an experiment is carried out. That’s the very nature of proven facts in natural science. They are reproducible anywhere anytime and they can be precisely described in mathematical terms. Theories that don’t (yet) fulfill those requirements are “work in progress”, perhaps proven one day, perhaps not, perhaps disproved. Not more, not less.
Btw QM is well understood and described in maths. The majority of the theories around QM have been repeatedly reproduced, in the LHC for instance and many other laboratories. The “fuzziness”, as you call it, is not least due to (by human standards) counterintuitive properties of certain particles. However that has nothing to do with the capabilities of power plants. E=mc2 is known for more than a century and repeatedly proven and reproduced around the world.
How many and how much people believe in the concept of “race” is irrelevant. Someone has to come up with empirical and universally applicable proof to claim any scientific validity. Political, geographic and ideologic borders have no relevance in natural science. Mathematics is the only language. It if can’t be described in maths, formulae or other unambiguous presentation methods, it is not natural science. It is, at best, social science and therefore debatable and vulnerable to subjectivity and ideology.
As for the bone marrow issue, the way you describe it makes it look even more cynical. Let me rephrase this – they select potential donors according to self reported “race” of people who know as much about human genetics as nearly 100% of the world population does? …. So that means that they won’t even make an effort to find a possible match between people from self reported different backgrounds? You tell me what the benefit is for the patient. The benefits for the medical and admin staff in those establishments are obvious.
If you sustain your “race” claim as scientific, what are your classifications in a worldwide context in concrete terms?
LikeLike
Femi,
Could you define for me, in mathematical terms, what matter is? How about mass? Can you define mass for me in scientific terms? Currently, there is no universally accepted definition of either matter or mass, but yet our cars move. Our planes fly. And our power plants generate energy. Nebulous relative concepts are also scientifically useful. Can you define tall for me? Does the concept of tall have scientific utility? I think it does, despite the fact that “tall” is relative and can’t be defined outside of a relative system of measurement. The situation is similar for the concept of race. Race is relative.
You wrote:
So that means that they won’t even make an effort to find a possible match between people from self reported different backgrounds?
The people at transplant registries make an attempt cull people with wildly differing racial/ethnic backgrounds from the list of possible donors for a give recipient. So, if someone like your father, who you report as being 100% white (whatever that means….I don’t know what mass is either), needed a bone marrow transplant, people of self reported mixed race ancestry would not be considered, which would narrow the search time required to find a compatible donor. People reporting to be 100% Negro ancestry would also be eliminated from the potential donor list for your father. Does this make sense?
If you sustain your “race” claim as scientific, what are your classifications in a worldwide context in concrete terms?
Sailer’s definition of race – a race is a very large extended family that inbreeds to some extent- has scientific merit. My classifications would look very similar to the cover of “Genes, Peoples, and Languages”. That is to say my racial grouping would pretty much conform to current popular racial classifications. They would not be hard and fixed though. Race is a continuum. Racial hybrids such as yourself would not neatly fit into a racial category. Nonetheless, your race would be represented within the human racial continuum.
LikeLike
Femi,
Racial matching is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for successful bone marrow transplantation.
LikeLike
Matter is everything that has measurable mass (M) with
M=c2/e
Many times reproduced and proven in the LHC.
“Tall” does obviously not have any scientific significance. 220cm does.
You haven’t provided a comprehensive breakdown of “racial categories” yet. Not even in relative terms.
Prove the necessity, not even able (or willing) to give an unambiguous breakdown of the classifications.
LikeLike
“Sailer states that a race is a large extended family that inbreeds to some extent.” = breeding groups.
LikeLike
And if you say “the human race is a breeding group”, correct. Lil’ Stevie’s definition can also cover the human race, which is, of course, a large extended family that inbreeds to some extent.
LikeLike
One of the marks of Sailor Lad’s “genius”, such as it is, is that he makes vague definitions sound as if they mean something. “Family”, “extended”, “inbreeding” and “to some extent” are all terms which are subject to radically different interpretations. So no matter WHICH interpretations you choose, Stevie can say “But that’s exactly what I said!”
As we shall see, real scientists make arguments which are based on more precise definitions than these.
LikeLike
Femi,
I think you mean M=e/c2….whatever. But what is energy? It is you who are begging the question now. Energy can’t be defined outside of mass and mass can’t be defined outside of energy. This is exactly what I am talking about. There are no universally accepted definitions of matter or mass, yet they are both very useful concepts. A similar case can be made for race, which is why the people at Dana Farber require prospective donors to give their race when they register.
“Tall” does obviously not have any scientific significance.
Bull! My children’s doctor tells me exactly how tall my children are every time I take them in for checkups. He also tells me how tall my children are projected to be when they grow up in relation to other children. Besides, isn’t the centimeter (cm) a unit of height, length and width? Don’t height, length and width have scientific utility? Can you define height for me? Isn’t it a relative measure? My kids’ doctor also tells me how much they weigh. So what is weight? Oops. Weight is related to that old mass thing, which has not been universally defined.
I have already provided you with one example of the necessity of racial breakdowns with the bone marrow example I gave you. Race is necessary in determining perspective donors because it accelerates the culling process. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
RR,
I don’t know much about this field but I think they’re using race as a proxy for geographic origins when identifying organ donors.
LikeLike
Thad!
Dude, you are almost there! Do you know that! Whew! We are almost home. Check it:
Sailer’s definition of race does comport with the structure of the human race. We know that any given individual within the human family is more related to his nuclear family than he is to his extended family. For a given individual, we have a radiating set of concentric circles demarking the levels of relatedness to the person in question. The degree of relatedness for a given person is higher for smaller circles than for larger circles. Ultimately if we traced the lineage of the person in question far enough, his circle of relatives would encompass every human being on Earth. This is exactly right. Note that the direction of reproduction is not uniform among humans. That is, due to geographic isolation of many human populations, a given population, by necessity, inbred within itself, resulting in very large extended families in specific regions of the world. These families constitute roughly the races we see today. This is what is shown on the map Cavalli-Sforza’s presents in his book “Genes, Peoples, and Languages”.
You wrote:
are all terms which are subject to radically different interpretations. So no matter WHICH interpretations you choose, Stevie can say “But that’s exactly what I said!”
You are quite wrong. What one can’t say about Sailer’s deifinition of race is that it comports with the notion of race being defined as a discrete set of physical characteristics. By his reasoning, race is relative and it is continuous (non-discrete).
LikeLike
For example, here is a Time article about the difficulty mixed people have finding bone marrow transplants. It begins with the sad story of a boy who can’t find a transplant apparently because he is part white and part Indian. But wait a second. Aren’t Indians supposed to be of the white or caucasian race?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1993074,00.html
LikeLike
FG wrote:
I don’t know much about this field but I think they’re using race as a proxy for geographic origins when identifying organ donors.
Ok, I’ll buy that, but geographic origin would mean the same thing as race. If a fellow of East Indian descent who currently lives in Kenya were to need a bone marrow transplant, the fact that he currently is a resident of Kenya would not aid in finding him a compatible donor. The fact that he is East Indian, of whatever flavor, would be very important though.
LikeLike
FG,
Yes, mixed race people have trouble finding compatible donors. It is a major problem, as I have pointed out previously. Have you registered with your local bone marrow registry, regardless of your race?
LikeLike
Sailer’s definition of race does comport with the structure of the human race. We know that any given individual within the human family is more related to his nuclear family than he is to his extended family. For a given individual, we have a radiating set of concentric circles demarking the levels of relatedness to the person in question. The degree of relatedness for a given person is higher for smaller circles than for larger circles. Ultimately if we traced the lineage of the person in question far enough, his circle of relatives would encompass every human being on Earth. This is exactly right. Note that the direction of reproduction is not uniform among humans. That is, due to geographic isolation of many human populations, a given population, by necessity, inbred within itself, resulting in very large extended families in specific regions of the world. These families constitute roughly the races we see today. This is what is shown on the map Cavalli-Sforza’s presents in his book “Genes, Peoples, and Languages”.
First of all, C-S presents dozens of maps in his book and NONE of them shows a division of peoples in this sense.
So strike one for Stevie.
Secondly, these populations are not congruent with the terms “black” and “white”, terms which Stevie uses all the time but which make no sense at all in the “race is breeding group” notion of race which he supposedly promotes.
Strike two for Stevie.
Finally, Stevie uses race to try to demarcate incredibly complex human behavior traits such as “intelligence”, which anyone can tell you doesn’t even pass along well within NUCLEAR families, let alone breeding groups, and certainly not idealized conglomerates of billions of people.
So strike three for Stevie. Off to Cali prison for life.
LikeLike
Thaddeus,
I am referring to this map:
This blogger noticed the same thing that Sailer noticed about the map:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cavalli_sforza_covermap_of_races.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/tag/race/&usg=__nOfm_wiSkuVrbrlbP-0nRAlLJfM=&h=290&w=480&sz=19&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=nqDJrJWPj1pM2M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcavalli-sforza%2Bmap%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1
Here is a snip from the blog:
“Top: Map of the Distribution of the Principal Modifications of Mankind” by Thomas H. Huxley, 1870.
Bottom: Computer-generated map of human genetic diversity by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, et al, 1994.
Despite being separated by over a century and being created with radically different visual methods and in very different ideological and scientific contexts, the two maps bear an uncanny similarity to each other
For someone who ‘doesn’t believe in race as a valid concept’, a lot of his work does seem to support it, and is often used by others to support it.
You wrote:
Secondly, these populations are not congruent with the terms “black” and “white”
Ok. Terms such as black and white are vague, but useful in a pinch. Could he use more granular terms, like “Negroes of West African descent” or “Caucasians of Northern European descent”? Yeah, I guess. Would it ultimately make a difference with respect to the point he is making? No.
Finally, Stevie uses race to try to demarcate incredibly complex human behavior traits such as “intelligence”, which anyone can tell you doesn’t even pass along well within NUCLEAR families
So, is it your contention that intelligence has no genetic component? If intelligence is partly genetic, doesn’t that also imply that intelligence is partly heritable?
LikeLike
Out of respect for Abagond’s initial post, this is my last comment containing physics.
Height, width, length must be described in mathematical units to make any scientific sense. The statement “this is tall” doesn’t say anything, not even intuitively, let alone scientifically. Which measuring unit you choose for a physical entity – cm, yards, AU etc – is irrelevant when its inherent properties allow it to be measured or quantified. The definition for 1 metre is the distance travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. (If you’re tempted to ask what a second is, feel free to look it up. There is plenty of documentation out there.)
Physical units can be described in mathematical terms of events occurring in nature. The fact that physical units are relative to each other does not invalidate the precise measurability of each parametre. The validity can be proven by reproducible results of experiments, observation, collection and unambiguous interpretation of empirical data and confirmation through peer review. Any theory which is not able to deliver the above can either not claim scientific value or must be considered disputed or work in progress.
Regarding bone marrow, the only thing of paramount importance in transplants is HLA (human leukocyte antigen) compatibility of donor and receiver. I had some interesting reading on organ and bone marrow transplants.
There are 6 genes defining HLA.
Gene Number of alleles
A 268
B 517
C 129
DR 333
DQ 53
DP 109
The combination possibilities of the alleles for each of the genes result in millions of HLA fingerprints. On a side note, estimates stipulate that 10-30% of all living humans have an HLA fingerprint that is 100% unique to them, thus incompatible to all other humans.
If we attempted to define “race” by HLA fingerprint we will end up with several millions of different “races”. If you wanted to consolidate groups into larger groups, where do you draw the line, even if it’s just a “fuzzy” one? And if it is a “continuum” where does each individual sit in the nebula of fuzziness? You will find native Africans who are as incompatible to other native Africans as they are to Europeans. You will also find native Europeans who are as incompatible to other native Europeans as they are to Africans. Then again, what is the benefit of coarse classifications for the receiver if individual HLA compatibility is the only ultimately relevant parametre? This is the 21st century. We have unprecedented computing power on a small budget. Finding a potential individual match by running comprehensive algorithms on the global donor data base is not a problem. Any preselection by “fuzzy” and not clearly defined parametres is superfluous and could even result in potentially lethal decisions.
I ask again, what are the parametres and measurable units for “race” if it claims scientific accuracy?
LikeLike
??
LikeLike
@Abagond,
for some reason every time I attempt to post on “Are black women ugly or is it racism that makes them seem so?” it doesn’t go through. Have I been barred from posting on there for some reason?
Menelik
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you’d bring that map up and classify it as a “race” map, RR, given that C-S does nothing of the sort. To him it’s a map of genetic clines. What’s the difference? He doesn’t presume that there are strict lines of division between those groupings: he’s aware that they bleed into each other. The blogger you copied it from also brings up the very salient point that East and West Africans are not very close, genetically speaking, and yet you consistently qualify them as the same race.
Ok. Terms such as black and white are vague, but useful in a pinch. Could he use more granular terms, like “Negroes of West African descent” or “Caucasians of Northern European descent”? Yeah, I guess. Would it ultimately make a difference with respect to the point he is making? No.
Yes, they are useful: politically so, to racists.
Stevie’s point is that BLACKS – from wherever – are somehow biologically inferior to whites. such a point makes no sense whatsoever when we use the modern understanding of biodiversity pioneered by C-S. The genetic difference between one set of “blacks” – say the San – and another – say certain groups of Ethiopians – is less that the difference between these Ethiopians (who are “black”) and certain trans-meditteranean groups (who are not).
Stevie thus presumes that a certain color of skin and African ancestry means a certain type of genetic “package” which can be qualitatively compared to other mass genetic packages (“whiteness”). This does not work.
Putting it simply, if Stevie is serious about his “inbred family” definition of race, holding it up as congruent with what C-S says, classifications like “black” and “white” – or even “West African” and “Northern European” make no sense at all in genetic terms. What you need to be looking at are interbreeding population groups of around 500-50,000 people. These would be your “races”. And, as C-S amply and repeatedly points out, such a definition of “race” makes no sense at all in biological or anthropological terms, given the historical definition of race as “subspecies”.
Of course, you could pour new wine (or whines) into old bottles and call that new understanding of human biodiversity “race”, which is apparently part of what Stevie is trying to do. Where Stevie’s project jumps the shark, however, is where he takes that new wine and says, effectively, that it’s exactly the same stuff as it always was. This is what he does when he tries to argue that the existence of a small, self-selected group of Ethiopians from a very small ethnic group who are fast runners “proves” that “blacks are better runners than whites”.
So, is it your contention that intelligence has no genetic component?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, RR? This is a very nice rhetorical manuever you are pulling here: ask someone if they’ve stopped doing something they’ve never done. No matter how they respond, you make them look like a fool.
I have NEVER claimed that intelligence has no genetic component. What I HAVE said is that it has no determinitive genetic component that is congruent with the kind of socio-historical categories that you/Steve and Phil Rushton toss about – to whit “white” and “black”.
The genetic component of intelligence – if it exists (this has not been proven yet, but I think it’s a reasonable assumption) – is almost certainly a very complicated and multi-faceted thing, for intelligence iteslf is not a simple trait. As such, it is almost certainly determined by a vast number of genes and their interactions. Such genetic “packages” don’t transfer from generation to generation with much degree of consistency because each and every single gene in a “package” is a crap-shot individually when people reproduce.
So let’s say ten genes make up the kind of complex we know as “genius” (I know that this is a vast simplification, but you biologists). Ignoring dominants and recessives for the moment, each of these has a 50/50 chance of being transmitted at conception. So what’s the chance of that “genius complex” being transmitted? .5 to the tenth power: roughly .01%.
Now sure, real genetics is much more complicated than that example would lead one to suspect, but it does give you a notion of the scales we’re dealing with. When one reflects that it’s probably not only 10 genes than make a genius, but thousands – maybe millions… Well, the idea that genius runs in families can be seen as very unlikely. Certainly, it happens occasionally (with 6 billion people, the odds are that it would here and there), but it certainly doesn’t happen on a large enough scale to allow one to qualify this as a trait held by one or another mega-biological grouping like “white” or “black”.
If intelligence is partly genetic, doesn’t that also imply that intelligence is partly heritable?
Sure. And the chance of it being transmitted intact is very, very small – that’s from parent to child. When we’re talking about even “inbred family” quasi-racial groupings, the chance that it gets transmitted is even smaller. And the chance that it could be measureably transmitted on the level of “black” or “white” is nil.
Once again, RR, it’s been fun using you as a whipping boy these past months. See you in the funny papers!
LikeLike
^The genetic difference between one set of “blacks” – say the San – and another – say certain groups of Ethiopians – is less SALIENT that the difference between these Ethiopians (who are “black”) and certain trans-meditteranean groups (who are not).
LikeLike
That’s true abagond I just want to point out on the part about the gays and Jewish part yes you can hide it to a point much easier than a black person can but its a hologram life empty. But I see the point you present. Typically though gay and Jewish people tell you those things because we are put in the white category but few white Christians see us as the same especially the gay community.
LikeLike
O Ruth that was right on target
LikeLike