[Split]When are you white?

[Huntster]

...the other being blue.

I could never figure out what "white" means. When are you not "white"?

If you have to ask, you'd never believe the answer.

 

[slingblade]

Oh, come on, that's naive. People group and judge you by your race, whether you like it or not. It's called prejudice.

No, it's called too tired to type. sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to say that you don't usually come by your racial identity because strangers on the street inform you of what it is. I mean, it's not like: "Hey, Bob, did you know you're black?" "Wow, really, Jim? I've been wondering where I got this incredible tan!"

You learn it in your family, usually, or maybe you see it expressed around you in your community and just kind of pick it up. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, you might change your self-identification as you grow older. You might not.

But that is the very problem with the concept of race: These stereotypes live on, even today.

Oh, I know that. I meant only that we know skin color in and of itself isn't a determining factor in things like intelligence or work-ethic. I believe some members of the scientific community worked really hard to try to prove otherwise, in the past, but I think that's been pretty much debunked by now.

Do you know exactly how they determine if you are "Cherokee enough"?

Not exactly, no, and tribal membership varies from Nation to Nation. The Cherokee are actually quite liberal about it, but then, they tried hard to assimilate, and realize they have very few "full blood" members. It's kind of a joke that everyone in Oklahoma has a Cherokee grandmother....but it's not a very funny joke.

I think some ancestral records are counted by some Nations. There was a census in Oklahoma/Arkansas back at the turn of the last century: the Dawes census, I think, for the Five Civilized Tribes. From that, many families got a "roll number," but there were also those, supposedly, who passed as white and didn't get one. However, some folks say that's a myth, too. No one passed. This is also not a cut-and-dried issue, as you may have noticed.

http://www.native-languages.org/blood.htm This website is part opinion, and has links at the bottom which you might find helpful.

Sure, if the reasons are based on racial concepts and not education/skills. That's why it is so important that we know exactly what we base our segregation - and I use that word deliberately - of races on.

I agree we can't holler racism all the time without watering it down and not improving anything for anyone, but I find 3% to be a low enough figure that I believe there must be racism involved. This does not mean I'm saying race is the only factor--maybe not that many blacks seek editorial positions. But then we have to ask ourselves why they don't, and that could lead back to more racism, and....no simple answers here.

It is exactly because I am a skeptic that I try to find out what we base these "races" on.

The answers you seek exist, but people have rightly pointed out that this forum is not a good vehicle for laying out the literal tons of evidence and theories and history in order to prove it to you. You're going to have to be willing to visit the links provided; you are, aren't you? You know we can't present everything here.

EDIT: I mean, I can show you lots of studies and sociological, biological, etc, theories on the things you ask--I can show you how we came by the criteria on which we base these "races," but the short answer is: we made it up. If you ask me to prove to you someone is from Africa, I can do that now with DNA. But if you ask me to prove to you someone is black, I have to do it with the stuff we made up. /edit

The difference is that we can determine if the animal has "wings" and the "ability to fly". What I am asking you is how pigmented skin a black has to have before he is "black". How dark must his hair be? How curly?

These questions have no answers!

That's the superficiality of race. It's based on largely cosmetic traits, which are subjective at best. You know about "one-drop" laws, don't you? How in America there were actually laws which said if a person had so much as one drop of black blood, he or she was black? So how many "drops" of blood are in the human body? A few million, or a few billion, or what? And if only one of those drops was black, and the rest were white, the person wouldn't look black at all, yet the law would consider them black anyway, and do you see now? Those questions have no answers, and that's the damned problem! In that context, race has no meaning. It doesn't matter, it doesn't inherently mean anything about a person, taken in isolation.

But race has a societal meaning, and that meaning is largely negative if you aren't white. We want to know what race to put you in so we know how to treat you. It's that simple, and that complex.

I hate to bring up that class again, but my professor made us ask ourselves these very questions, knowing we could not answer them. He used this to point out the futility of trying to order the world based on notions about the meaning behind wide noses and narrow, dark brown skin and light brown skin, kinky hair and straight hair. There is no meaning behind it, except that which society gives it, and that's the problem.

 

[Huntster]

When is your skin "dark"?

C'mon, Claus.

You're not color blind, too, are you?

 

[Huntster]

Well, here we go again...

Wait, don't tell me: you're going to claim that, because the concepts of "white" skin and "dark" skin are not absolutely defined and it is hard to define a clear bondary between them, then the concepts of being "white" or "black" are useless and you can never tell if someone is either.

I have this psychic ability to determine what you will say because (a) this is what you always do, and (b) in particular, we had a similar discussion with you on this forum concerning those two vague, useless concepts, "night" and "day", as well.

Tell me, Larsen, can you define EXACTLY what "rich" and "poor" is? Where is the cut-off point between them? If there isn't such a point, surely the concepts are meaningless and only point to imaginary differences, proving people have no idea what they're talking about--at least, according to your "logic".

Clearly, in that case, you shouldn't mind being poor instead of rich--they're just imaginary meaningless concepts anyway, and you never understood the difference between them.

So, how about sending me all your money?

Beautiful! I simply can't add to that. It's a perfect response to Clausism everywhere.

Not that Clausism would understand/admit, but what the hell.............

At least it got said/written...............

 

[Huntster]

....No, I am not saying that we can never tell whether people are white or black. I'm pretty white (OK, pig/dough coloured), and Kofi Annan is pretty black (but he isn't pitch black either).

I am, however, talking about the boundaries. We can actually define exactly who is rich and who is poor. We do it in our societies, based on economic ability....

No we don't. There are various means to determine who is rich and who is poor.

Some of those means are accurate. Some aren't.

Right?

We draw a line somewhere, and that's that. While different from country to country, it still is a demarcation line.

You do. I don't.

Not so with skin colour. We have never been able to clearly define just who is "white" and who is "black". It is easy when it concerns me and Kofi Annan. It becomes far more fuzzy when we are talking about Tiger Woods.

You don't know me at all, do you?

Does it make sense to say that I am white and Kofi Annan is black? Sure. Does it matter, when we clearly are so far apart? Not really. It only becomes interesting when we approach the boundaries of those non-defined definitions.

Sorry, Claus. Wrong, yet again.

I'm "white." My brother is "black." Visually. Obviously. It runs throughout my entire extended family, both sides.

My maternal grandfather was "black." His wife, my maternal grandmother, was "white."

My mom was "white." My dad was.........who knows?: dark skinned, straight hair, looked Hispanic, and didn't meet a Hispanic until WWII. Then, after the war, lived in a Hispanic community never speaking espanol, and paid a price for that.

You haven't a clue........

I think it is reasonable to ask why these boundaries should be created, when we can't define them anyway. Especially since these boundaries have meant, and still mean, so much in our cultures.

I agree. The boundaries are only for other folks.

My folks don't fit.

Can you answer the question? When is your skin "dark"?

When it's dark. When it's light, it's light.

And none of that matters in your soul/spirit.

And why is it so important to you to be able to define people by their skin colour?

Because that's the law.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by brodski
Without getting into Larsen's usual silliness, how do scholarship bodies for ethnic minorities determine if someone is or is not a member of that minority? Ok so it will be very obvious in some cases, but do they have an appeals procedure for people who don't look black enough?

I don't know. Perhaps they get their guidelines from old segregation laws in the southern US states, or from the intricate maze that was the South African race-definition system.

The guidelines come from the Feds.

All I know is that my brother qualifies for black benefits, and I don't.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by brodski
Without getting into Larsen's usual silliness, how do scholarship bodies for ethnic minorities determine if someone is or is not a member of that minority? Ok so it will be very obvious in some cases, but do they have an appeals procedure for people who don't look black enough?

That's hardly a silly matter, is it?

No, it isn't silly.

It's insane.

 

[Huntster]

......How much money do you have to earn to be considered rich and not poor?

Unlike Claus, I've learned that money has absolutely nothing to do with "rich" and "poor."

Like I've said to countless folks, I'd rather live "poor" in Alaska that "rich" in any other spot on Earth.

There is a whole hellava lot of various areas to be "rich" and "poor" in.

 

[CFLarsen]

To answer Larsen, being as my mother is white and my paternal grandparents are Korean and black, under common usage, I'd be described as half white, quarter black, quarter Korean.

Is it silly? Sure. But it is a simple shorthand way of denoting my ethnic background for some folks. In the context of the conversation that was going on, I used it.

Normally, if I'm asked, I rattle of the list. Because it amuses me to watch the facial expressions.

Sure, it's silly. But it still doesn't answer the question: When are you not "white"?

If you have to ask, you'd never believe the answer.

Try me. When are you not "white"?

C'mon, Claus.

You're not color blind, too, are you?

When is your skin "dark"?

No, it's called too tired to type. sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to say that you don't usually come by your racial identity because strangers on the street inform you of what it is. I mean, it's not like: "Hey, Bob, did you know you're black?" "Wow, really, Jim? I've been wondering where I got this incredible tan!"

You learn it in your family, usually, or maybe you see it expressed around you in your community and just kind of pick it up. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, you might change your self-identification as you grow older. You might not.

Fair enough.

Oh, I know that. I meant only that we know skin color in and of itself isn't a determining factor in things like intelligence or work-ethic. I believe some members of the scientific community worked really hard to try to prove otherwise, in the past, but I think that's been pretty much debunked by now.

"The Bell Curve" had a frightening impact on a lot of people. And while you are quite right that it has been debunked now, there are still a loooot of people who believe blacks are more stupid than whites. "The Bell Curve" gave them a (pseudo)scientific reason to believe that.

Not exactly, no, and tribal membership varies from Nation to Nation. The Cherokee are actually quite liberal about it, but then, they tried hard to assimilate, and realize they have very few "full blood" members. It's kind of a joke that everyone in Oklahoma has a Cherokee grandmother....but it's not a very funny joke.

I think some ancestral records are counted by some Nations. There was a census in Oklahoma/Arkansas back at the turn of the last century: the Dawes census, I think, for the Five Civilized Tribes. From that, many families got a "roll number," but there were also those, supposedly, who passed as white and didn't get one. However, some folks say that's a myth, too. No one passed. This is also not a cut-and-dried issue, as you may have noticed.

http://www.native-languages.org/blood.htm This website is part opinion, and has links at the bottom which you might find helpful.

It sure looks uncut and wet...which, of course, further enhances the problem: We divide by race, yet we have no idea how we do it. It is Prejudice^2: First we judge people based on prejudice, and we split them based on prejudice, too.

The answers you seek exist, but people have rightly pointed out that this forum is not a good vehicle for laying out the literal tons of evidence and theories and history in order to prove it to you. You're going to have to be willing to visit the links provided; you are, aren't you? You know we can't present everything here.

Where else would you do it, if not on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum? Nobody is stopping anyone from posting evidence here. It does seem that it is impossible to show any evidence of these demarcations...

EDIT: I mean, I can show you lots of studies and sociological, biological, etc, theories on the things you ask--I can show you how we came by the criteria on which we base these "races," but the short answer is: we made it up. If you ask me to prove to you someone is from Africa, I can do that now with DNA. But if you ask me to prove to you someone is black, I have to do it with the stuff we made up. /edit

OK, fine. You say you made it up. But are there generally accepted standards of e.g. pigment, or are people making it up as they go along - each with their own set of standards?

If the former is true, I'd like to see those standards. If the latter is true, then you don't just have racial segregation. Then you have a society where racism is the accepted norm.

These questions have no answers!

Of course they have answers. If you segregate based on how "dark" you are, then you have to have drawn a line somewhere, based on something.

That's the superficiality of race. It's based on largely cosmetic traits, which are subjective at best. You know about "one-drop" laws, don't you? How in America there were actually laws which said if a person had so much as one drop of black blood, he or she was black? So how many "drops" of blood are in the human body? A few million, or a few billion, or what? And if only one of those drops was black, and the rest were white, the person wouldn't look black at all, yet the law would consider them black anyway, and do you see now? Those questions have no answers, and that's the damned problem! In that context, race has no meaning. It doesn't matter, it doesn't inherently mean anything about a person, taken in isolation.

But race has a societal meaning, and that meaning is largely negative if you aren't white. We want to know what race to put you in so we know how to treat you. It's that simple, and that complex.

I hate to bring up that class again, but my professor made us ask ourselves these very questions, knowing we could not answer them. He used this to point out the futility of trying to order the world based on notions about the meaning behind wide noses and narrow, dark brown skin and light brown skin, kinky hair and straight hair. There is no meaning behind it, except that which society gives it, and that's the problem.

The problem is when you start segregating people based on those "cosmetic traits". It is one thing to throw out "you're black, he's white". It is quite another if it becomes a way to set people apart, especially if you claim there are ways to tell which is which.

 

[Huntster]

Like I said, it differs from country to country. If you don't have enough money to live, then you are poor......

And if everybody doesn't have enough money to live along with you, you're middle class.

Forget it, Claus. You've gotta be there to understand.........

Poverty lines are used e.g. to determine if people should receive government aid.

Yeah. I suppose so.

Your skin colour, however, doesn't change whether you live in the US, Denmark or Burkina Faso. Or how much money you have.

No, my skin color doesn't change. I've travelled around. I remain my same "color."

My hair remains kinky, too.

However, attitudes regarding race are different in various places.

 

[Huntster]

When are you not "white"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you have to ask, you'd never believe the answer.

Try me. When are you not "white"?

When somebody tells you you're not white.

Here's a mind twister for 'ya:

When are you not black, Claus?

Originally Posted by Huntster
C'mon, Claus.

You're not color blind, too, are you?

When is your skin "dark"?

When it's not "lighter" than the beholder.

C'mon, Claus. You can do better than that, can't you?

 

[Huntster]

.....There are lots of licenced profeshions that you can learn in school, but do you need a degree in accounting to be a CPA or an engineering degree to get certified?

In Alaska, or as far as the Federal Government is concerned, you do.

You can't be licensed in a profeshion (?) unless educated and qualified.

Say, where do you live?.................

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen
The fewer people below the poverty line, the richer the country is.

Or the lower the poverty line is set. Who decides what the poverty line is? How do we compare one country's poverty line to another's?

Easy. Consult the CFLarsen Guide to Poverty and Righteousness.

Try jungle.com. Easy installments of repeated reading of insanity, repeated attempts at moral redemption, and a whole lot of useless debate are the only costs.

 

[CFLarsen]

And if everybody doesn't have enough money to live along with you, you're middle class.

Forget it, Claus. You've gotta be there to understand.........

What do you mean?

However, attitudes regarding race are different in various places.

When somebody tells you you're not white.

When it's not "lighter" than the beholder.

So, other people determine your skin color? Based on what? Prejudice?

When are you not black, Claus?

Am I black?

 

[Huntster]

It's not my clear boundary. Take a peek at this UNDP document. That's one way of defining it.

Can you answer when a black person is black, and when he is not? I'm not black, Kofi Annan is. But where is the boundary?

Right where government sets it.

Period.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right where government sets it.

Period.

And where is that?

Come on, contribute with something worthwhile.

 

[slingblade]

Where else would you do it, if not on the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum? Nobody is stopping anyone from posting evidence here. It does seem that it is impossible to show any evidence of these demarcations...

No, we're not clicking here. I can give you links, but you have to go to them. I cannot reprint entire books, or entire pages of books. I'm not allowed to, and you know that. Silly Claus.

OK, fine. You say you made it up.

No. I said WE made it up, meaning humanity in general.

But are there generally accepted standards of e.g. pigment, or are people making it up as they go along - each with their own set of standards?

If the former is true, I'd like to see those standards. If the latter is true, then you don't just have racial segregation. Then you have a society where racism is the accepted norm.

Apologies, but as to the last sentence...duh.

We have both. "Generally accepted standards" as well as our own personal standards of not just pigment, but also facial features, hair, and so forth. Yes, I occasionally see people who are so lightly pigmented, that I might consider them white, unless they happend to have certain facial features or hair type or both. sometimes, I'm just not sure, but frankly, I really don't care. I don't brood on it, by any means.

The standards of judgement vary from individual to individual, but also have a certain amount in common. It's just both. It's societal conditioning. Maybe it's because I come from the south, but where I grew up, people would actually sit and discuss who was what. Sitting on sidewalk benches, watching people go by, or in the park, or at a ball game: "You see that gal over there? What is she--high yaller? (yellow)." "I can't really tell. Maybe she just likes to be in the sun, or maybe she's Indian." Common conversation where I grew up.

Of course they have answers. If you segregate based on how "dark" you are, then you have to have drawn a line somewhere, based on something.

Lines can be arbitrary and easily crossed, either way. Lines don't have to be fixed. There are more than two genders, after all. http://www.isna.org/

The problem is when you start segregating people based on those "cosmetic traits". It is one thing to throw out "you're black, he's white". It is quite another if it becomes a way to set people apart, especially if you claim there are ways to tell which is which.

Yeah, Claus, we know this already. We call it racism, and we recognize that it isn't always overt or obvious or even conscious. What do you suggest we do about it?

 

[Morrigan]

I must say, Claus is the most deliberately obtuse person I've ever seen.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, we're not clicking here. I can give you links, but you have to go to them. I cannot reprint entire books, or entire pages of books. I'm not allowed to, and you know that. Silly Claus.

You don't need to do all that. Precisely the way we can present evidence in other matters, you can present your evidence in the same manner.

No. I said WE made it up, meaning humanity in general.

OK. Invent some word in English that means "we, in general"...

Apologies, but as to the last sentence...duh.

We have both. "Generally accepted standards" as well as our own personal standards of not just pigment, but also facial features, hair, and so forth. Yes, I occasionally see people who are so lightly pigmented, that I might consider them white, unless they happend to have certain facial features or hair type or both. sometimes, I'm just not sure, but frankly, I really don't care. I don't brood on it, by any means.

The standards of judgement vary from individual to individual, but also have a certain amount in common. It's just both. It's societal conditioning. Maybe it's because I come from the south, but where I grew up, people would actually sit and discuss who was what. Sitting on sidewalk benches, watching people go by, or in the park, or at a ball game: "You see that gal over there? What is she--high yaller? (yellow)." "I can't really tell. Maybe she just likes to be in the sun, or maybe she's Indian." Common conversation where I grew up.

But I am not primarily talking about the racial slurs and bigotry you can find in parts of the general public. I am talking about formalized racism: When you divide races, based on physical traits, and use those divisions in an official manner. E.g., for college grants, or other forms of financial support. I have not seen any other justifications than vague, self-invented definitions of just what "race" is.

Lines can be arbitrary and easily crossed, either way. Lines don't have to be fixed. There are more than two genders, after all. http://www.isna.org/

I know that. No need to pick on Newt Gingrich, he has enough problems as it is....

Yeah, Claus, we know this already. We call it racism, and we recognize that it isn't always overt or obvious or even conscious. What do you suggest we do about it?

You could start with getting rid of the institutionalized racism.

I must say, Claus is the most deliberately obtuse person I've ever seen.

I'm obtuse because I am not satisfied with the evasive answers to a perfectly simple question: How much pigment does a person has to have in order to be called "black"?

Because I don't accept this evasiveness doesn't make me obtuse. It merely demonstrates that this clearly is a very touchy subject.

 

[hgc]

..
I'm obtuse because I am not satisfied with the evasive answers to a perfectly simple question: How much pigment does a person has to have in order to be called "black"?

Because I don't accept this evasiveness doesn't make me obtuse. It merely demonstrates that this clearly is a very touchy subject.

And every poster in this thread has told you in one way or another that there is no single answer to that question. You can't possibly be that dense. What are you up to?