Black in America

[steverino]

Israeli Jews from Ethiopia, and the "Hidden Jews of New Mexico"
(Non-white Jews)

 

[Nathyn]

"Jewish" can mean race and/or a religion.

I hate it when someone says, "Jews aren't a race," when someone calls anti-semitism a form of racism, because it seems to downplay the extent to which anti-semitism is a form of bigotry.

Races don't exist biologically, so we can only classify them as social constructs. The definition of "race" also includes ethnic groups (I.E. "The German race").

Because Judaism discourages intermarrying and conversion, there's the perception of a distinct ethnic group, so they can be regarded as a race.

And so, anti-Jewish bigotry is indistinguishable from anti-black bigotry. The "Jewish" race is just as much of a biological myth as the "black" or "African" race, but both are still considered to be distinct ethnic groups, so we can consider them races.

As for the original topic: I support MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, but "black history" month is silly and should be abolished. The more we emphasize the existence of race, the more that race will divide us. Blacks should stop seeing themselves distinct from anybody else and whites should stop seeing blacks as distinct, as well. Racial identity is a necessity for racism to exist.

Groups which promote black racial identity in practice resemble some of the modern white supremacist groups who do not support violence or even necessarily separatism, but they just feel pride in their racial identity and wish to defend the interests of their race.

But race is a myth. And the more we start recognizing ourselves as Americans or even greater, humans, the less we have room to judge eachother upon things as trivial as skin-color.

 

[LostAngeles]

I hate it when someone says, "Jews aren't a race," when someone calls anti-semitism a form of racism, because it seems to downplay the extent to which anti-semitism is a form of bigotry.

Races don't exist biologically, so we can only classify them as social constructs. The definition of "race" also includes ethnic groups (I.E. "The German race").

Because Judaism discourages intermarrying and conversion, there's the perception of a distinct ethnic group, so they can be regarded as a race.

And so, anti-Jewish bigotry is indistinguishable from anti-black bigotry. The "Jewish" race is just as much of a biological myth as the "black" or "African" race, but both are still considered to be distinct ethnic groups, so we can consider them races.

As for the original topic: I support MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, but "black history" month is silly and should be abolished. The more we emphasize the existence of race, the more that race will divide us. Blacks should stop seeing themselves distinct from anybody else and whites should stop seeing blacks as distinct, as well. Racial identity is a necessity for racism to exist.

Groups which promote black racial identity in practice resemble some of the modern white supremacist groups who do not support violence or even necessarily separatism, but they just feel pride in their racial identity and wish to defend the interests of their race.

But race is a myth. And the more we start recognizing ourselves as Americans or even greater, humans, the less we have room to judge eachother upon things as trivial as skin-color.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Ill try and stay on topic.

Methinks that TV shows and movies have done a disservice to blacks in the US. Many people live in areas with few to no blacks and therefore developed opinons on blacks from what they saw in TV. Which was mostly stereotypes.

I agree. You're right about its being mostly stereotypes. It goes both ways, however. On shows that are largely produced for and marketed at black persons, however, white persons are often stereotyped as well. The stereotypes usually are not flattering.

On a side note, another identifiable group, Southerners, are portrayed horribly on television and in most movies. The ridiculous stereotypes that abound would lead one to develop unrealistic expectations about persons living in the southern US. Unfortunately, unless you have relatives here, went to school or were stationed in the military here, or have traveled here for business, chances are that you believe a lot of the nonsense about the south that Hollywood feeds you.

Heres a funny story. I went to an almost all white highschool. I really hated taking showers in the lockeroom and tried to avoid it. Why? Cause people were always trying to look at my weiner! Checking to see if the old myth was true. WHO NEEDS THAT PRESSURE!! Especially in 9th grade when your not so.........developed.

HA! Ive never told anyone that story.

That is funny. Thanks for sharing it. I have to admit that on my high school wrestling team we checked out our black teammates for the same thing in the locker room.

You know the flip side to your story? Being white on a team with several black teammates and believing the myth, and knowing you have to shower with them and worrying that it will be obvious that you do not measure up!

AS

 

[Tmy]

As for the original topic: I support MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, but "black history" month is silly and should be abolished. The more we emphasize the existence of race, the more that race will divide us. Blacks should stop seeing themselves distinct from anybody else and whites should stop seeing blacks as distinct, as well. Racial identity is a necessity for racism to exist.

Groups which promote black racial identity in practice resemble some of the modern white supremacist groups who do not support violence or even necessarily separatism, but they just feel pride in their racial identity and wish to defend the interests of their race.

.

Do you have a problem with St. Patricks day too? Its just the Irish separating themselves from the rest of us. No one ever seems to mind that, but Black history month is the devil bla bla bla.

What is so wrong with celebrating out differences? Should we abolish Italian,. Greek, Spanish ect.. festivals and holidays.? NO MORE AUTHENITIC CHINESE RESTURANTS!!!! Our countries strength is that we pull our identity from so many backgrounds.

The issue wh white supremist groups is that they arent about celebrating they are about dividing.

 

[Tmy]

Israeli Jews from Ethiopia, and the "Hidden Jews of New Mexico"
(Non-white Jews)

I get your point. But there are sterotypical jewish physical features. I can pick a jewish guy out of a lineup. Even if there are members of a group that dont fall within the stereotyed superficial features.

Same goes for Puerto Ricans. They can range from blonde and white skin, to black hair and skin as dark as an african. But we all have an image of a Puerto Rican in out head.

 

[Tony]

I hate it when someone says, "Jews aren't a race," when someone calls anti-semitism a form of racism, because it seems to downplay the extent to which anti-semitism is a form of bigotry.

When did I ever downplay anti-semitism. It'd say it's anti-semitism to describe jews as a race. It often serves the function of dehumanizing and turning them into an "other" to the point where they become outsiders in their own societies. We've seen the consequences of when that happens.

Races don't exist biologically,

Then they don't exist. Race is more of a biological classification than it is anything else.

so we can only classify them as social constructs. The definition of "race" also includes ethnic groups (I.E. "The German race").

I submit that such classifications are based on outdated and wrong ideas about the nature of race.

Because Judaism discourages intermarrying and conversion, there's the perception of a distinct ethnic group, so they can be regarded as a race.

So the jewish convert for whom I work magically became something other than a white-guy because he converted to a different religion?

And so, anti-Jewish bigotry is indistinguishable from anti-black bigotry.

Maybe to you. I can tell when someone is anti-jew and when someone is anti-black.

The "Jewish" race is just as much of a biological myth as the "black" or "African" race, but both are still considered to be distinct ethnic groups, so we can consider them races.

Evidence?

But race is a myth.

Didn't you just say that jews could be regarded as a race? But now race is a myth? Explain.

And the more we start recognizing ourselves as Americans or even greater, humans, the less we have room to judge eachother upon things as trivial as skin-color.

I completely agree.


About the OP. I was reading a book about the 60's the other night, and it occurred to me just how far America has come in race relations. It also took a lot of balls for black americans to finally come out and demand their rights is such a hostile environment.

 

[steverino]

Hey. Great post, Tony!- Forrest Gump

 

[slingblade]

As for the original topic: I support MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, but "black history" month is silly and should be abolished.

When asked why we have to have a Black History Month, my eudaction professor replied "because every day is white history day."

Her meaning is just a hair cryptic. I hope I don't have to explain.

 

[Tony]

Hey. Great post, Tony!- Forrest Gump

Hands off my chocolates bitch!!!

 

[The Atheist]

There weren't many non-whites at TAM. We noticed, me and hubby.

OK, so, um, are there any black people on the forum?

What's going on? I actually find that quite disturbing.

Are black people less "skeptical" than Europeans? (By European, meaning Caucasian - not a word we use here.) Are they more "spiritual"? In the case of Samoans, I can confirm that the penetration of christianity is close to 100%, so it's not unknown for entire racial groups to not be into this kind of stuff.

 

[skeptifem]

Yeah but I think its less encouraged in mainstream black culture to be into 'brainy' stuff.

 

[The Atheist]

Yeah but I think its less encouraged in mainstream black culture to be into 'brainy' stuff.

Two things out that:

If true, they'd be right at home here!

Nice generalisation - anything to suggest that's right?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, not entirely, but mostly so, in my opinion. It's a cultural thing, and mostly worn as a badge of pride. Most of the persons I meet claiming some legally recognized degree of Cherokee heritage (I believe it's 1/16 or 1/32 to be legally part of the Tribe) are no more Cherokee than I'm Nepalese. Also, you should understand that being legally recognized as Cherokee (or a member of any Native American Indian tribe, for that matter) carries with it eligibility for certain set-asides by government and Tribe-only benefits like college scholarships. There is some potential legal and economic benefit to being recognized and being issued a card (yes, they literally have cards for identification).

Ah, a delimiter, finally. But, why 1/16 or 1/32 (or whatever it is)? Why draw the line there? Completely arbitrary?

Sorry, I've never met you, but my faulty recollection from having seen some (poorly lit) online photos of you led me to believe that you had both blond hair and blue eyes. I take it back then on your word that you don't.

White hair and greyish eyes. When it snows, I become invisible.

Despite the impression one might get from certain online circles, discussing race and racial issues isn't necessarily off limits per se in certain circles in real life. Some degree of sensitivity is recommended, but the topic itself is not socially verboten in my neck of the woods. That includes discussing white and black relations, whatever that means to you, between and among groups which include persons who are white, black, mixed, Asian, or other.

I'm not saying that discussing race and racial issues are off-limits. I'm just saying that, until we have a definition of "race", it is futile to discuss it.

I wouldn't say "Viking," because that's mostly historical now, isn't it?

Not any more historical than being Cherokee. But, if you want to draw the line somewhere, when does something become "historical"?

What about Scandanavian? I would say that Scandanavian is probably a facially morphologic category of ethnic (and probably genetic, too, for certain markers) heritage that has certain typical features. I would hazard a guess that it isn't hard to rule out "Scandanavian" as an ethnic heritage for many persons by looking at them with a quick glance. In this case, I suspect darker hues or skin tones not due to dark tans would be a rather quick way to rule out "Scandanavian," for instance.

That's the problem: You are now stereotyping Scandinavians. No, we are not all tall, blond, blue-eyed Vikings. Danes in particular have been mixed with a lot of especially Germans and Brits, due to immigration and emigration (not to mention the wars!).

You may call that "woo" if you like, but I suspect most of us do it subconsciously every day, whether we're aware of it or not. We are creatures who habitually categorize things, including people. We like to find patterns. One of the most common kinds of patterns we humans are very good at recognizing and categorizing is facial patterns. Pretending that there are not recognizable groups that share a common ancestry and heritability is silly. We can see them and recognize them with a high degree of accuracy without giving it much thought, and if we compared those guesses with ancestries prepared by geneticists, I suspect they would match very often. Go ahead and pretend they don't exist, however, if you like.

I'm not saying that stereotyping doesn't exist. I'm saying that it is meaningless, and leads to no good things.

And to answer AS and Larsen: You don't get to tell me who I am. I get to tell you. And if I happen to want to say I'm black, what business is it of yours? Are you going to tell me what "race" I belong to, based on your observations?

I have no idea why you are so defensive.

No, you don't get to tell me what "race" you are. It makes the whole idea of self-identification ridiculous. Am I black, because I say I am black?

I did once go around saying I was part Cherokee, because that was the family story. However, there is no proof of it, save for two family photos from the late 1800's that show two people whose features look rather "Indian."

I don't self-identify as Cherokee anymore. And you don't get to tell me I'm wrong, because you can see my high-cheekbones and thin lips and the fact my tan can last for months.

Is that what identifies a Cherokee? I can show you other "races" that have the same features, but are clearly not Cherokee. Now what?

As to why I said "non-white?" Because you just can't win on this freaking forum no matter what you do or how careful you try to be. If I had said there were no blacks, SOMEONE would have helpfully pointed out the Asian persons, or the Hispanic persons.

See, what my husband and I said at TAM, verbatim, was this:

Me: Have you noticed, it's a sea of whiteness here?

Him: Yeah. Why is that? Aren't any non-whites skeptical folks, too?

Me: I...I..I'm sure...there must be. No group is monolithic.

Him: I know. So where are they?

Me: (feeling helpless) I don't know. I'd like to know.

Girl6 isn't going to like that. She calls herself black.

That's some truth right there. While the Census and a number of other institutions have been allowing the, "mixed," selection, I've had it be insisted to me that because my grandfather was black, that I am completely black (One Drop Rule anyone?) for one.

Having those checkboxes on official government documents is a huge problem. That makes it legal, acceptable, even desirable, to stereotype people based on "race". It makes a mockery out of the "regardless of race, color or creed" ideal.

It's illegal to register people based on "race" in Denmark.

The only actual debate going on is with Claus, who seems to be denying that race and ethnicity have any meaning at all. We know he's being silly.

It doesn't have any meaning, until we have defined what it is. It's like the discussion elsewhere on "natural rights": How can we discuss something, if we don't know what it is?

As a, "mixie," (thanks Tmy), I don't really think it does. It only bothers me when I find the whole thing being forced down my throat, as I did when I went to a week-long thingum for transfer students at UCLA the summer before last.

I'm a damn mongrel. I may be in this thread and I may be amused by the "Guess my ethnicity" game and the assertations of Greatest about the benefits of, "sticking with your own kind," but I don't really care. It seems more the interest of others what my race/ethnicity is.

That's the point: We are all mongrels. Go back far enough, and we will all find some funny business with "a tall dark stranger" in the family tree.

Someday, we will all look like Tiger Woods.

Claus either honestly doesn't get our nation's fascination with it or he's trying to make a point. Either way, I agree. It shouldn't matter a damn whit, but in reality, it does.

Oh, I get your nation's fascination with "race" alright. I just think it creates problems that should and can be avoided.

The more we emphasize the existence of race, the more that race will divide us.

Absolutely.

Do you have a problem with St. Patricks day too? Its just the Irish separating themselves from the rest of us. No one ever seems to mind that, but Black history month is the devil bla bla bla.

That's because, on St. Patrick's Day, everybody is Irish (so they have an excuse to get sloshed!)

What is so wrong with celebrating out differences? Should we abolish Italian,. Greek, Spanish ect.. festivals and holidays.? NO MORE AUTHENITIC CHINESE RESTURANTS!!!! Our countries strength is that we pull our identity from so many backgrounds.

But that's the problem: Your "identity" is not pulled from so many backgrounds. It is by and large a "white" culture.

WASP = We Are Sexual Perverts.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I get your point. But there are sterotypical jewish physical features. I can pick a jewish guy out of a lineup. Even if there are members of a group that dont fall within the stereotyed superficial features.

Really? You can identify a Kaifeng Jew by sight?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Ah, a delimiter, finally. But, why 1/16 or 1/32 (or whatever it is)? Why draw the line there? Completely arbitrary?

Yes, arbitrary, but it's the Cherokee Nation that drew the line, not the US government.

I suppose it's a bit like Rabbinical law stating that if your mother is Jewish, then you're Jewish.

White hair and greyish eyes. When it snows, I become invisible.

You could cook up a lot of mischief in the snow then. I suggest you take advantage of it in the winter.

I'm not saying that discussing race and racial issues are off-limits. I'm just saying that, until we have a definition of "race", it is futile to discuss it.

On some level you're right, Claus, but not on a daily, functional level. You don't need a PhD in astrophysics to discuss sunlight and how it feels warm on your back.

We don't need geneticists to tell us that we're all human and essentially alike in genetic terms. We know that we're all human, but it's quite obvious that there are visually identifiable characteristics there some persons have, and some don't. We also can recognize that those groups tend to have originated from the same places geographically at some point in human history. Somewhere along the line, culture began to take on a prominent role and be closely identified with those same groups and traveled with them as they migrated around the world. Put all those elements together, and we have something we can meaningfully describe as "race," even today. Whether we should continue to recognize it today is another matter, but we do.

Not any more historical than being Cherokee. But, if you want to draw the line somewhere, when does something become "historical"?

Hell if I know. We do still have a legally separate and recognized nation within a nation in the US called the Cherokee Nation. They have their own government, their own courts, and their own laws. Does the Danish government recognize Vikings today?

That's the problem: You are now stereotyping Scandinavians. No, we are not all tall, blond, blue-eyed Vikings. Danes in particular have been mixed with a lot of especially Germans and Brits, due to immigration and emigration (not to mention the wars!).

Stereotying according to looks? Yes, it is. That's part of what social and heritable "race" is all about. Again, I think I can usually rule out "Scandanavian" as a possibility when I meet a person of mostly Korean descent. Whether you think that's a useful thing to be able to do is another matter. In a perfect world, maybe we all would look like Tiger Woods. Personally, I don't prefer that we all look alike. I prefer variety.

I'm not saying that stereotyping doesn't exist. I'm saying that it is meaningless, and leads to no good things.

It can lead to things which are mean or harmful. Nevertheless, humans naturally look for patterns, especially in faces. That we tend to notice that certain persons share similar patterns in their faces, and those patterns tend to be clustered in certain geographic regions (or at least used to, before world travel became commonplace), is not meaningless. It's a real phenomenon.

Because culture is often tightly bound with sharing those facial patterns, many humans also feel a sense of kinship with those they recognize as having similar facial patterns. Humans have a tendency to refer to them as "their people."

Having those checkboxes on official government documents is a huge problem. That makes it legal, acceptable, even desirable, to stereotype people based on "race". It makes a mockery out of the "regardless of race, color or creed" ideal.

As to the latter point, yes it does. As for why the US government and state governments continue to track race, it is mostly for remedial purposes. The government is fixated on remedying past racial discrimination through official laws and policies directed at offering a leg up.

It's illegal to register people based on "race" in Denmark.

I suspect that historically you haven't had the racial tensions and official discrimination, especially not that based on slavery, that the US has. Also, I suspect that you are not nearly as ethnically diverse at the US. Therefore, it is much easier for your country to deny that race has meaning and even outlaw classifications based upon it.

It doesn't have any meaning, until we have defined what it is. It's like the discussion elsewhere on "natural rights": How can we discuss something, if we don't know what it is?

Most white five year olds who have never seen a black person in the US can recognize that a readily identifiable black person is different from them. They don't need a scientific explanation or definition. That doesn't make the concept "woo."

That's the point: We are all mongrels. Go back far enough, and we will all find some funny business with "a tall dark stranger" in the family tree.

Yes, we are mongrels, but there happen to be identifiable groups of mongrels, like Type A mongrels, Type B mongrels, etc. It's not always easy to determine what type mongrel any given mongrel is. Sometimes it's a Type B.12-C-M.27.

Someday, we will all look like Tiger Woods.

I hope not. Then we will all be fungible commodities, at least from a sexual attractiveness perspective.

Oh, I get your nation's fascination with "race" alright. I just think it creates problems that should and can be avoided.

I agree. Nevertheless, it's there, it's real, and it's something we can indeed discuss with meaning.

But that's the problem: Your "identity" is not pulled from so many backgrounds. It is by and large a "white" culture.

True that American culture is by and large a "white" culture in that most of it derives from English culture from 200-400 years ago, which derives mostly from ancient Roman culture. We're Romans, actually.

Of course American culture has been blended with cultures of its immigrants over the years, and with the descendants of slaves, to become much more than just a former English colony.

American culture is more so than any other today dervived from a common commitment to ideals embodied in our constitution. It is a nation formed not from shared ethnic culture, but from shared ideals. Despite the many changes to constitutional law since our nation's founding, many of the core principles, especially that of valuing individual liberties more than anything else, are still very much with us today. They are with us in the law, and in our daily culture as well. That's mostly true with Americans regardless of their ethnicity.

AS

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, arbitrary, but it's the Cherokee Nation that drew the line, not the US government.

What difference does that make? The US accepts the line.

I suppose it's a bit like Rabbinical law stating that if your mother is Jewish, then you're Jewish.

That's a far better rule than 1/16 or 1/32.

You could cook up a lot of mischief in the snow then. I suggest you take advantage of it in the winter.

Check your lawn.

On some level you're right, Claus, but not on a daily, functional level. You don't need a PhD in astrophysics to discuss sunlight and how it feels warm on your back.

It isn't a question of education but of definition. We know exactly what sunlight is. What is "race"?

We don't need geneticists to tell us that we're all human and essentially alike in genetic terms. We know that we're all human, but it's quite obvious that there are visually identifiable characteristics there some persons have, and some don't.

Name the visually identifiable characteristics that identify a "black" person.

We also can recognize that those groups tend to have originated from the same places geographically at some point in human history.

Somewhere along the line, culture began to take on a prominent role and be closely identified with those same groups and traveled with them as they migrated around the world. Put all those elements together, and we have something we can meaningfully describe as "race," even today. Whether we should continue to recognize it today is another matter, but we do.

We all originate from Africa. Apart from that, it is virtually impossible to nail down the exact origin of a "race", especially in Europe, with so many migrations. You might be able to do it with Aboriginees or Ainu, but while Denmark has been inhabited for about 14,000 years, those who first came here are not our ancestors. The Jutes had left for Britain around 1600 years ago, at a time when people came from the other Scandinavian and Germanic areas to become what we can call "Danes" today.

Hell if I know. We do still have a legally separate and recognized nation within a nation in the US called the Cherokee Nation. They have their own government, their own courts, and their own laws. Does the Danish government recognize Vikings today?

It is illegal to register people based on their race.

Stereotying according to looks? Yes, it is. That's part of what social and heritable "race" is all about. Again, I think I can usually rule out "Scandanavian" as a possibility when I meet a person of mostly Korean descent. Whether you think that's a useful thing to be able to do is another matter. In a perfect world, maybe we all would look like Tiger Woods. Personally, I don't prefer that we all look alike. I prefer variety.

It isn't a question of creating a perfect world where everyone looks like Tiger Woods. That is what is going to happen, as people become more and more mobile and breed across cultures, far more than we do today.

It can lead to things which are mean or harmful. Nevertheless, humans naturally look for patterns, especially in faces. That we tend to notice that certain persons share similar patterns in their faces, and those patterns tend to be clustered in certain geographic regions (or at least used to, before world travel became commonplace), is not meaningless. It's a real phenomenon.

Because culture is often tightly bound with sharing those facial patterns, many humans also feel a sense of kinship with those they recognize as having similar facial patterns. Humans have a tendency to refer to them as "their people."

When is it beneficial to legally divide people into racial groups?

As to the latter point, yes it does. As for why the US government and state governments continue to track race, it is mostly for remedial purposes. The government is fixated on remedying past racial discrimination through official laws and policies directed at offering a leg up.

By focusing on racial differences and insisting on dividing people up based on race? Brilliant.

I suspect that historically you haven't had the racial tensions and official discrimination, especially not that based on slavery, that the US has. Also, I suspect that you are not nearly as ethnically diverse at the US. Therefore, it is much easier for your country to deny that race has meaning and even outlaw classifications based upon it.

One would think that exactly because of its history of racial tensions and official discrimination, the US would find it easy to refuse to divide its citizens up into groups based on race.

Most white five year olds who have never seen a black person in the US can recognize that a readily identifiable black person is different from them. They don't need a scientific explanation or definition. That doesn't make the concept "woo."

Yes, it does, because we don't have clear boundaries. What would they call Tiger Woods? Or Colin Powell?

Yes, we are mongrels, but there happen to be identifiable groups of mongrels, like Type A mongrels, Type B mongrels, etc. It's not always easy to determine what type mongrel any given mongrel is. Sometimes it's a Type B.12-C-M.27.

How is "black" an identifiable group?

I hope not. Then we will all be fungible commodities, at least from a sexual attractiveness perspective.

Aren't we all already fungible commodities?

I agree. Nevertheless, it's there, it's real, and it's something we can indeed discuss with meaning.

How meaningful is it, if you can't tell me what it is?

True that American culture is by and large a "white" culture in that most of it derives from English culture from 200-400 years ago, which derives mostly from ancient Roman culture. We're Romans, actually.

Bad example. To be a Roman citizen, you didn't have to fit into a specific racial group.

Of course American culture has been blended with cultures of its immigrants over the years, and with the descendants of slaves, to become much more than just a former English colony.

American culture is more so than any other today dervived from a common commitment to ideals embodied in our constitution. It is a nation formed not from shared ethnic culture, but from shared ideals. Despite the many changes to constitutional law since our nation's founding, many of the core principles, especially that of valuing individual liberties more than anything else, are still very much with us today. They are with us in the law, and in our daily culture as well. That's mostly true with Americans regardless of their ethnicity.

If there is one thing that separates Americans, it is race.

 

[AmateurScientist]

As a side note, I had no idea Tony Dungy was black. I just classified him under, "of indeterminate ethnic orgin."

I think that's a very interesting remark. See, even you subconsciously, or perhaps even consciously, attempted to classify Dungy's ethnicity.

You stated earlier that you were mildly annoyed with the "guess LA's ethnicity" game, and I can understand why, but here you do it too. I'm not blaming you, because we've been conditioned to do it.

Thanks again for speaking out about it, as you and Tmy have been able to give your own perspectives and relay your own experiences that those of us who are not black or mixies could not have personally experienced.

I also agree with you that race shouldn't matter, but it does. In the US, it is almost always at least under the surface in many of our relations with others, even with our close friends who are of ethnicities different from our own.

AS

 

[HarryKeogh]

Matters of race are complex, sure. But does anyone not have a clue what is meant when someone says at TAM "Hey, where are all the black people?" or "there are more non-whites here than ever before"?

 

[AmateurScientist]

That's a far better rule than 1/16 or 1/32.

Agreed. I didn't make the rule. I'm merely relaying it to you. I still haven't checked whether it's 1/16 or 1/32, but it's one or the other.

Check your lawn.

There hasn't been snow there for a week, and that was only for a few hours.

It isn't a question of education but of definition. We know exactly what sunlight is. What is "race"?

Was MLK a black person? What about Frederick Douglass? Harriet Tubman? Rosa Parks?

Name the visually identifiable characteristics that identify a "black" person.

No. Look at some photographs of the persons I listed above for some examples, although you will note above that I stated clearly that those characteristics vary widely from individual to individual, just as they do for all persons of all other ethnicities. Thankfully, we humans don't all share the same, indistinguishable face. We might all look like Gumby.

We all originate from Africa. Apart from that, it is virtually impossible to nail down the exact origin of a "race", especially in Europe, with so many migrations. You might be able to do it with Aboriginees or Ainu, but while Denmark has been inhabited for about 14,000 years, those who first came here are not our ancestors. The Jutes had left for Britain around 1600 years ago, at a time when people came from the other Scandinavian and Germanic areas to become what we can call "Danes" today.

Yes, yes, I know. Out of Africa we all came. Humans didn't stop (and haven't stopped, for that matter) evolving in Africa. We have evolved over thousands of generations, and heritable characteristics have traveled with those various migrating populations. Some are found in some surviving descendants of those populations, whereas some different characteristics are found in the surviving descendants of other populations.

Yes, historical migrations and invasions displaced groups from certain places, as happened in your Denmark.

It is illegal to register people based on their race.

Fair enough. Not so here. Hence, we have surviving American Indian Tribes that exist as separate nations within the US. It's a little surreal legally, politically, and diplomatically.

It isn't a question of creating a perfect world where everyone looks like Tiger Woods. That is what is going to happen, as people become more and more mobile and breed across cultures, far more than we do today.

No question about it. As you and LA noted above, we're all mongrels already. Our mongrelization will increase, however, in successive generations such that differentiating between readily identifiable groups based on several shared facial characteristics will become increasingly difficult. I wonder what that will do to multiculturalism, which seems to have been invented to preserve and celebrate our differences, not to do away with them.

When is it beneficial to legally divide people into racial groups?

The liberal ideal in the US is for remedial measures to correct past discrmination. Personally, I agree with Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele that Affirmative Action and similar programs and policies have outlived their usefulness, and today create more problems than they solve.

By focusing on racial differences and insisting on dividing people up based on race? Brilliant.

I don't support those programs, Claus. I'm for abolishing them as well. I'm particularly fond of MLK's ideal of a colorblind society, however naive or unrealistic that may be. Who knows? It may not be ultimately.

One would think that exactly because of its history of racial tensions and official discrimination, the US would find it easy to refuse to divide its citizens up into groups based on race.

It doesn't. I would argue that it's primarily because of our fixation on remediation and guilt. I say get over it.

Yes, it does, because we don't have clear boundaries. What would they call Tiger Woods? Or Colin Powell?

I agree there are not clear boundaries for many persons. That doesn't mean that there are not plenty of persons who are easily and readily classifiable as primarily belonging to one racial or ethnic group or another.

As for Woods, if I recall correctly, he once referred to himself as "Cablinasian." Like LA, he seems to be annoyed with the constant attempts to pigeonhole him racially or ethnically. I think Powell acknowledges that he is black.

How is "black" an identifiable group?

I can't provide you "EVIDENCE???" here, Claus. It just is, at least historically in the US, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Aren't we all already fungible commodities?

Yes and no. How's that?

How meaningful is it, if you can't tell me what it is?

I'm not a particle physicist, but I use electons every time I turn on my iPod. "Electronics" are useful to me, even if I can't explain how they work.

Bad example. To be a Roman citizen, you didn't have to fit into a specific racial group.

Nope, but culturally we are much more Roman than anything else.

If there is one thing that separates Americans, it is race.

Yes and no again. The remarkably different reactions to the OJ Simpson acquittal in 1995, split almost perfectly along racial lines, depending on whether you are predominantly white or black, is a great example of there being "two Americas." On the other hand, having served in the US Army alongside many fellow soldiers who happened to be black, and having studied what it is like to be in combat, I would hazard a guess that American soldiers in combat in Iraq feel a very strong bond with their fellow American soldiers -- their brothers in arms -- one much stronger than the bond any of the black American soldiers might feel with black strangers in Somalia.

AS