The Race Paradigm

[Brian-M]

You have a built-in assumption about "white" victimhood that is trivially disprovable, just like when some people try to claim white people can't celebrate their heritage without realizing that there are such things as St. Patrick's Day and the Italian-American Pride Parade.

But to be fair, there is no general celebration of white heritage. Just celebrations of a couple of specific subsets of it.

 

[blutoski]

But to be fair, there is no general celebration of white heritage. Just celebrations of a couple of specific subsets of it.

And in particular, there are 'white heritage' celebrations, and they are rare precisely because they are so overtly racist in nature.

To the point where I don't buy mead from two specific local suppliers because it has got me invited to those Northern Alliance, Heritage Front, Euro-Canadian Defense League, or Canadian Patriots 'white heritage celebrations' in the past. (shiver)


And there's an argument that [Columbus Day is essentially an annual state-sponsored, white heritage celebration.]

 

[truethat]

I used to work downtown by the court houses here in Brooklyn and I was once told a statistic by a criminal prosecutor. He asked me if I knew what caused a greater likelihood of a perp getting the death penalty. And several people chimed in, if the perp was black and he said no. The statistics showed it related, not to the race of the perpetrator but the race of the victim. White victim=death penalty. Not white, we.....eeelll then....

 

[blutoski]

I used to work downtown by the court houses here in Brooklyn and I was once told a statistic by a criminal prosecutor. He asked me if I knew what caused a greater likelihood of a perp getting the death penalty. And several people chimed in, if the perp was black and he said no. The statistics showed it related, not to the race of the perpetrator but the race of the victim. White victim=death penalty. Not white, we.....eeelll then....

The statistics seem to vary regionally, but I expect that anecdote is true, based on many US states.

There are other disturbing analyses of how the racial compsition of a jury or judge impact sentencing and even testimony acceptance.

 

[Brian-M]

And in particular, there are 'white heritage' celebrations, and they are rare precisely because they are so overtly racist in nature.

Hmmm.... I've never heard of them before this. Can't really find anything about them. Although, it does appear that there are European heritage celebrations, which some might argue are essentially the same thing.

 

[truethat]

The statistics seem to vary regionally, but I expect that anecdote is true, based on many US states.

There are other disturbing analyses of how the racial compsition of a jury or judge impact sentencing and even testimony acceptance.

found this which was interesting.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=209046

 

[blutoski]

Hmmm.... I've never heard of them before this. Can't really find anything about them.

My experience being involved in the accidental invitations is that they want to keep them to 'insiders' and are aware that overt advertisement exposes the events to disruption by protesters. I was mistaken for an insider by buying cases of imported German mead, so they thought I was having a celebration of my own.

Although, it does appear that there are European heritage celebrations, which some might argue are essentially the same thing.

I think that's a hint word in this context, yeah.
Euro-Canadian Defense League is a white supremacy organization.

Other hint words are "Heritage" and "Guard"

 

[blutoski]

found this which was interesting.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=209046

Related is a documented discrepancy regarding media interest in missing children of different ethnicities. Subtype of: [Missing White Woman Syndrome]

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I used to work downtown by the court houses here in Brooklyn and I was once told a statistic by a criminal prosecutor. He asked me if I knew what caused a greater likelihood of a perp getting the death penalty. And several people chimed in, if the perp was black and he said no. The statistics showed it related, not to the race of the perpetrator but the race of the victim. White victim=death penalty. Not white, we.....eeelll then....

That ignores the fact that due to the way our society is arranged, the circumstances under which a black person kills a white person typically tend to be very different (and much more straight forwardly predatory and criminal) from the circumstances under which the other possible permutations of homicide involving these two races play out.

Though I certainly don't deny that our still predominantly white society has a tendency to value white life more. All societies and racial groups have a strong in-group preference. I'm not really aware of any other group that agonizes over this completely standard aspect of human nature to the degree whites do.

 

[blutoski]

That ignores the fact that due to the way our society is arranged, the circumstances under which a black person kills a white person typically tend to be very different (and much more straight forwardly predatory and criminal) from the circumstances under which the other possible permutations of homicide involving these two races play out.

Though I certainly don't deny that our still predominantly white society has a tendency to value white life more. All societies and racial groups have a strong in-group preference. I'm not really aware of any other group that agonizes over this completely standard aspect of human nature to the degree whites do.

I'm not sure why you think this. In fact: my impression is that it's mostly the ethnicities that feel they are being poorly treated that are 'agonizing' over it.

The dominant white response seems to be "That's because you must be more likely to deserve a harsher punishment, you're badder people, there's no problem here. Move along."

 

[Vortigern99]

Oh boy. I apologize in advance for the TLDR and the "cool story bro" but as I read this thread it reminded me of my own musings as a younger lily white girl who was practically homeless since I was 14 and who has had challenges thrown at her like the unfastened back end of a hay truck on an interstate. My life was so hard that I resented anyone playing the "race card." I used to think such things about race: what's the big deal? "Let's move on with it shall we." Ah but now I'm 43 and have gone through a roundabout or two and I think I have a little more understanding. So I'll share.

The problem with racism (especially when white people are discussing it) is that there basically three prongs of attack: perpetuation, validation and segregation. Whenever the conversation comes up these days, it's usually stuck in a form of segregation; that is: let's talk about black and white...........(and so on and so on.) And I hope among the black community that there is a little temperance sided up with their annoyance and frustration with the conversation, because there is something to be lauded about trying to understand racism.

Unfortunately, white people like to talk about racism like a child who is afraid of water likes to take a bath. If you can get them there, which is an ordeal in and of itself, they will only sit in the water and splash around. Maybe they like to make it funny or amusing by playing with the ducks or floating the soap. But they sit there waist deep in the water shifting waves. And this is why they don't understand.

In order to really understand racism, you need to put your head under the water. You need to get your hair wet, let it flood into your ears, cover your eyes so much that you can't really open them any more, stream up your nose until you choke, open your mouth until it gags you. You need to submerse yourself in it and turn a bit and stay down there and feel the way it permeates.

The problem with racism in this country, especially this country: America born on the backs of slaves and black and white among many others, is that white people never really let themselves feel their own racism. And this is the segregation that turns into denial. Some people like to use the phrase "privilege" as a way of understanding. But what this basically amounts to is a sense that "wow I'm not X so I'm lucky." This is in some ways a perpetuation of racism as it goes on. Racism is abusive, ongoing, insidious and present every single day, in every single minute of our world. Denying it is something worse than ignoring it. Ignoring it means you don't really see it. Denying it means you see it, you know, and you pretend you don't. For white Americans to really understand racism in this country, they need to first look at their own lives and to realize the way they are racist. For indeed they are.

Once we acknowledge our own racism it becomes easier to deal with it. But when white people pretend not to understand, it will never end. When I was a child I grew up in a home of horrible abuse. I was the scapegoat. I was the problem. I was the odd man out. And I remember for years afterward being so incredibly grateful to have one of my siblings admit that not only did the abuse happen, but she perpetuated it out of desperation and ignorance. I think at times it saved my sanity. (what little I have left.) But there are 6 siblings in my family and only one was witness. The others minimized and denied or just ignored it. And I often thought "how blessed am I that one person was there to be witness for me." Because of this, I am aware of how important it is to be a witness.

It does a number on a person's sense of self when people minimize, ignore and deny abuse in a personal history. It might all be well and good to quote our favorite voice narrator of Morgan Freeman as saying it's not relevant any more. All I know is that yesterday Nelson Mandela died; he was imprisoned from 1963 to 1990. So it's a bit too simplistic to talk about racism from the confused mouths of those who have not borne the burden of its understanding.

In our lifetime. In our lifetime. Now. Get under the water of racism. Let it flood into your life. Look at what you do, as you do it. Look at what we do. Let it resonate and understand it, instead of trying to open the drain and wish it away.

I appreciate your efforts at instructing me, as the OP, with your hard-earned wisdom (that's not sarcasm -- I've read and respected many of your past posts). But as I read through the above trying to find ways that it applies to me -- any of it -- so that I can respond, either in agreement or rebuttal, I discover that none of it pertains to me. Whoever you think I am, whatever you imagine my life experience to be, without knowing my specific circumstances and unique experiences with respect to that-thing-called-race, you've hit far from the mark.

In the quote above you tend to couch your lesson in terms of "black" and "white", as though I'm one or the other, as though that is the significant racial conflict that applies to all discussions of race in this country. But the reality in America is infinitely more complex. The ancestors with whom I most closely identify, and whom I most closely resemble physically, were not only enslaved but slaughtered to near genocide on US soil, and were reduced to a tiny fraction of their former numbers. Today the Native population is less than 5 million. This fact -- and the fact that many Americans share genes with the indigenous tribes of this continent -- is often overlooked in discussions on race. But it is a vital point.

For the record, I've been persecuted and bullied -- by so-called "blacks" and also by Mexicans -- for being perceived as "white" (though my ancestry is equal parts Cherokee, Dutch, English and Welsh). I've also been mistaken for being Mexican and bullied for that!

I can't tell whether you think that I'm "denying racism" -- that it exists or that it's a problem. Since you seem to be addressing me as the OP, I can't understand why you would mention denial of racism unless you think I'm doing it. If so, let me clarify: racism exists and is a major problem. I'm proposing we leave it behind, starting with the realization that race itself does not exist in any definite or definable or quantifiable or measurable or significant sense, and a recognition that physical traits do not affiliate one with some larger group.

In your post above is also a vagueness in the metaphors ("they sit there waist deep in the water shifting waves... you need to let it flood into your ears.....") which I find impenetrable. Why not say precisely what you mean instead of using poetic language to evoke emotions?

 

[Vortigern99]

[qimg]http://boysninjahalloweencostumes.webs.com/Boys%20Ninja%20proper.jpg[/qimg]

You have a built-in assumption about "white" victimhood that is trivially disprovable, just like when some people try to claim white people can't celebrate their heritage without realizing that there are such things as St. Patrick's Day and the Italian-American Pride Parade.

You're mistaken about me. I don't believe that "whites" are victims of anything approaching significant racism. Rather, the false concept of race itself leads inevitably to some groups being victimized by others. Remove the idea of race from our enculturation process, and the chain of victimization ends.

I don't want to speculate about why you've placed such tinted glasses on yourself, but paranoia is very dangerous.

Oh, and if you dress up in a Halloween costume that can be seen as mocking a particular person or group's characteristics or stereotypes, there is a perfectly logical likelihood that the person in question might not like it.

I'm not paranoid, and I don't know what you mean about "tinted glasses". You're also not characterizing the Hough incident -- which I offered as one recent example of how the false idea of race affects behavior in this country -- with anything approaching accuracy.

 

[angrysoba]

That ignores the fact that due to the way our society is arranged, the circumstances under which a black person kills a white person typically tend to be very different (and much more straight forwardly predatory and criminal) from the circumstances under which the other possible permutations of homicide involving these two races play out.

Though I certainly don't deny that our still predominantly white society has a tendency to value white life more. All societies and racial groups have a strong in-group preference. I'm not really aware of any other group that agonizes over this completely standard aspect of human nature to the degree whites do.

This seems like an unusual twist on the naturalistic fallacy. i.e It's perfectly natural for white society to discriminate against blacks. It's only unnatural for whites to care about that.

 

[Vortigern99]

This is why when I read the OP I couldn't understand why the poster was trying to connect race=unscientific with actinglikeaprick=ok.

I'm pretty sure science has verified there is such a thing as midgets, but going out for hollowe'en "as a midget because it's hilarious" shows a profound lack of social competence.

Hough was not "acting like a prick"; she was dressing up as a character she admired. The media and the public, mired in the false paradigm of race, misconstrued her intentions. I can't tell if you genuinely don't see the distinction, or if you're ignoring it to belittle me based on some perceived ideological or moral gulf between us. Also, how can someone dress up as a midget? I can't wrap my mind around that, but maybe it's 'cause I'm 6'7".

Also, you misspelled Halloween. Drives me nuts when people do that.

My feeling is that the general theme of this thread is something I see a lot in Skeptical social events:

"I don't understand all these social rules and appear to lack what is called common sense. I've decided that this means I'm superior - Wake Up Sheeple!"

There are several contributors (sometimes a combination). I have sorted them in order of most common in my experience:

1. [1] lack of experience in social situations due to introvertive personality
2. [2] lack of experience in social situations due to life circumstances
3. [3] high-functioning on autism spectrum
4. [4] narcissism
5. l[5] ow intelligence

None of that pertains to me, so maybe you can try again? Maybe with a wee bit less condescension?

[1] No, I have many friends and am outgoing in real life. I was in theater in my 20s and love to make people laugh with my impressions and absurdist humor at parties. Not introverted in the slightest.

[2] No, see above. I also made my living as a salesman and a Mexican food waiter for many years, if that gives you any clue as to what I mean when I say I'm outgoing. I will strike a conversation up with a stranger in a store just to make them laugh, and have talked to literally thousands of people over the years in their living rooms and kitchens and places of business.

[3] No autism in my family or in me.

[4] As guilty as anyone of being self-centered, I suppose, but not to any unreasonable or pathological degree.

[5] Scored in the top 10% of the US in the National Latin exam, graduated with a 4.0 GPA in the top 10% of my class. So, no.

[Duncan J. Watts] recent book on common sense - [Everything Is Obvious] - is worth a read. The relevant content is that he has done a great deal of research into why discussions about common sense (like this thread) are difficult and perhaps even futile - some people have it and some people don't. Those who don't have common sense need to be spoonfed manners, and are often frustrated by the complexity and perception of dependence on others to interpret what appear to be arbitrary rules.

What you are condescendingly calling "common sense" I am naming the zeitgeist go-with-the-herd mentality of racial hypersensitivity that will probably not outlast this century.

 

[Vortigern99]

Wasn't it Mike Wallace? Where Wallace suddenly wasn't a "white man" anymore, but jewish?

The irony...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh8mUia75k8

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Upthread someone posted the relevant portion of the transcript from that interview, and it speaks eloquently to precisely my mission statement and proposal here. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean by "irony" in this instance...?

 

[Vortigern99]

The idea of race has been scientifically discredited.

Umm... not long ago [well, a while but neverthless "recent" by relevant standards] I read an article in Nature that...

Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility.
[snip]

Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position.. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.
[snip]
Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people's DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person's major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

This is fascinating material and I support and concur with it 100%. If you thought that what I've been saying somehow contradicts it or that I'm trying to argue some position against it, it's time for you to re-read my posts (assuming you're interested in my position enough to do so). None of the above says anything about making essential racial distinctions. "[G]eographically differentiated polymorphisms" among related groups or populations of human beings is only one facet of the melange of factors that go into defining what we call "race", which include behavioral and cultural traits as well, and historically always have since the inception of the term. You and others in this thread appear to be arguing that a special, genetics-and-physiology-only definition of race is the definition that everyone uses and means when they say or write the word. It isn't.

 

[Kahalachan]

The idea of race has been scientifically discredited.

In American media today, accusations of "racism" are routinely brought against public figures who acknowledge, celebrate, emulate or poke fun at the differences that exist among human populations. Recently, for example, a young actress was excoriated in on-line news articles for dressing up on Halloween as a character from the TV show Orange Is the New Black. The actress in costume is called "white" and the character and actress she was dressed up as is called "black". Despite the young woman's explanation that she admired the character as whom she dressed, claims of racial insensitivity were made, references to "Minstrel shows" and "blackface" were invoked, and the costumed actress was generally portrayed as "stupid" for applying a light mocha-colored make-up to her own face. This kind of horrified reaction to a simple acknowledgement, or even celebration, of distinct physical traits among populations is common in the US, both publicly and privately.

In a biological sense, race is nearly useless as any kind of taxonomic classification like species. As far as I know, anthropology is a science and race and human ancestry is still valid there. It is helpful to trace someone's ancestry to a specific continent at a certain time frame.

As far as how wimpy Americans are about race, I agree. When race is treated as arbitrary as red hair and freckles, then we race is no longer a problem.

I find the sentiment "Watch out don't offend black people" to be itself racist. It seems to have the tone of fear beneath it. I'm no more scared if a black person is pissed off at me than a white person.

If someone got mugged and the mugger happened to be black and in anger the victim referred to the criminal as the N-word, my concern is a mugging took place. That there was theft and violence. How many people upon hearing a slur would do this instead? I'm sure quite a bit.

When irrational thoughts and offensive words are considered worse than actual violent crime, then we know America's fear of racism just went rampant and self perpetuating.

 

[truethat]

That ignores the fact that due to the way our society is arranged, the circumstances under which a black person kills a white person typically tend to be very different (and much more straight forwardly predatory and criminal) from the circumstances under which the other possible permutations of homicide involving these two races play out.

Though I certainly don't deny that our still predominantly white society has a tendency to value white life more. All societies and racial groups have a strong in-group preference. I'm not really aware of any other group that agonizes over this completely standard aspect of human nature to the degree whites do.

Who said anything about a black perp?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Who said anything about a black perp?

Don't ask awkward questions when Skeptic Tank is saying black people are biologically evil.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Think of it this way, maybe - the swastika has, throughout history, been a symbol of peace and love. In many cultures and religions it still is to this day. But if you wear a t-shirt with one on you shouldn't act surprised if some people think you're sending out a different message than you intend to.

That would work better if the argument was that the confederate flag shouldn't cause offense.

Would it be anti-semitic to dress up as Jerry Seinfeld? What if a german does it?