[Split]When are you white?

[CFLarsen]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? I ask because I don't know the answer.

You don't know where drkitten answered the question? Do I understand you correctly?

If I misunderstand you, could you point to the post where he does answer the question?

I see you still refuse to make your point, to reveal what you really want to argue about.

I've made that clear all along. There is no hidden agenda.

 

[marksman]

CF Larsen, could you please state your thesis in a form that is not a question? I've been following your thread and I do not understand what your thesis is.

 

[CFLarsen]

CF Larsen, could you please state your thesis in a form that is not a question? I've been following your thread and I do not understand what your thesis is.

I don't have a "thesis". I have a question.

 

[marksman]

Let me rephrase. Can you please explain in declarative sentences why you think your question is relevant to Politics, Current Events of Social Issues and how an answer to your question might be helpful in that regard?

Putting your question into context might help people answer it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let me rephrase. Can you please explain in declarative sentences why you think your question is relevant to Politics, Current Events of Social Issues and how an answer to your question might be helpful in that regard?

Putting your question into context might help people answer it.

See post #11, #15, #40, #57, #109, #119, #121 (in particular).

If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification. But you need to be specific.

 

[hgc]

I don't have a "thesis". I have a question.

You only have a question? You have no opinion? Nothing you wish to impart to us?

 

[CFLarsen]

You only have a question? You have no opinion? Nothing you wish to impart to us?

See post #11, #15, #40, #57, #109, #119, #121 (in particular).

If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification. But you need to be specific.

Do I understand you correctly? You don't know where drkitten answered the question?

If I misunderstand you, could you point to the post where he does answer the question?

 

[slingblade]

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.

In the U.S. your parents declare your race on your birth certificate. You use that later to do things like get into college or get a job based on minority status. Also, from the moment you start public school, you are asked every so often to fill out a form which includes a tic-box for race.

I do not know what one does if one disagrees with the race declaration on one's birth certificate. I don't know if one can go into a courthouse or some such and say "Look, my parents think I'm white, but I think I'm black, and I want my records changed." I only vaguely remember a similar case in law, which happened relatively recently, but I think a woman tried to do just that (except going from black to white). I don't remember the outcome.

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

You could start with getting rid of the institutionalized racism.

As you well know from seeing my numerous posts about that here, the first step is not getting rid of it.....the first step is getting people to agree it even exists. We can't get rid of what people won't acknowledge.

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.

Absolutely a touchy subject. But also an evasive one. The people answering you are not trying to be deliberately evasive; it's just that the answers you seek are evasive in and of themselves. It's a key skeptical question; a complacency-shaker, if you will.

Many Americans think they know exactly what they mean when they use racial designators. When you ask them to define race exactly, the way you are asking, it should make them pause, think, and realize they can only answer that question when it comes to racial extremes. This should, in turn, make them start thinking critically when it comes to race, and realize that "what we know ain't always so."

 

[Darth Rotor]

See post #11, #15, #40, #57, #109, #119, #121 (in particular).

If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification. But you need to be specific.

Not a clever evasion. Had you clearly and unambiguously done as marksman asked, amongst your various demands on other posters to do as you have asked, his last question would not have been raised. When confronted with that demand, you fail to summarize your own thoughts concisely.

If you are so darned smart, you'd be able to do that. But wait, you are that smart, so you are able to do that. Your unwillingness to do so is a sign of deliberately abrasive behavior, genus passive aggressive. I'll ignore the your arrogant double standard for the moment.

CFlarsen = role player of child who asks "why" to every previously answered question.

That's only an entertaining game for the child.

DR

 

[hgc]

See post #11, #15, #40, #57, #109, #119, #121 (in particular).

If there's anything you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarification. But you need to be specific.

OK, from #121...

In the absence of clear demarcations, it is therefore totally acceptable to simply make up any rule and either accept or reject people, based on these rules. Without telling anyone how you made those rules. And the rules can be adjusted to whatever you feel like, whenever you feel like it, depending on each person.

The implication I draw from this is that you don't think there should be college scholarships set aside for blacks. Is that your position?

Do I understand you correctly? You don't know where drkitten answered the question?

If I misunderstand you, could you point to the post where he does answer the question?

I don't know where or if she answered that particular question. You're going to hang your hat on that?

 

[CFLarsen]

In the U.S. your parents declare your race on your birth certificate. You use that later to do things like get into college or get a job based on minority status. Also, from the moment you start public school, you are asked every so often to fill out a form which includes a tic-box for race.

I know, I've lived in the US. I was frequently asked for the same information. Ridiculous.

I do not know what one does if one disagrees with the race declaration on one's birth certificate. I don't know if one can go into a courthouse or some such and say "Look, my parents think I'm white, but I think I'm black, and I want my records changed." I only vaguely remember a similar case in law, which happened relatively recently, but I think a woman tried to do just that (except going from black to white). I don't remember the outcome.

Well, you are asked for it frequently, but since there's no central database in the US where such information is kept (to my knowledge), it is futile to demand it.

OK, that actually wasn't very nice to intersexual people...

As you well know from seeing my numerous posts about that here, the first step is not getting rid of it.....the first step is getting people to agree it even exists. We can't get rid of what people won't acknowledge.

But there is no question that it exists. All you got to do is stop making race an issue. It really is that simple. It won't solve all problems with racism, but it will send a message that, at least when it comes to the American "system", race doesn't matter.

Take Denmark: We have a centralized database where all citizens are registered. Name, birthday, birthplace, place of residence, and a lot of other things. What we can't register is "race". It is simply against the law. Do we have racist issues? Sure, like any other country. But it isn't state sanctioned.

Absolutely a touchy subject. But also an evasive one. The people answering you are not trying to be deliberately evasive; it's just that the answers you seek are evasive in and of themselves. It's a key skeptical question; a complacency-shaker, if you will.

So I gathered. That, however, won't prevent me from seeking answers.

Many Americans think they know exactly what they mean when they use racial designators. When you ask them to define race exactly, the way you are asking, it should make them pause, think, and realize they can only answer that question when it comes to racial extremes. This should, in turn, make them start thinking critically when it comes to race, and realize that "what we know ain't always so."

It should, yes. Unfortunately, I have yet to see such change in thinking. It clearly shows that there are issues that even some skeptics avoid.

 

[hgc]

Hot off the presses, and apropos of this discussion...

Colleges Giving Even More Financial Aid to Wealthy Students

The Quick and the Ed

 

[CFLarsen]

Not a clever evasion. Had you clearly and unambiguously done as marksman asked, amongst your various demands on other posters to do as you have asked, his last question would not have been raised. When confronted with that demand, you fail to summarize your own thoughts concisely.

If you are so darned smart, you'd be able to do that. But wait, you are that smart, so you are able to do that. Your unwillingness to do so is a sign of deliberately abrasive behavior, genus passive aggressive. I'll ignore the your arrogant double standard for the moment.

CFlarsen = role player of child who asks "why" to every previously answered question.

That's only an entertaining game for the child.

DR

So, you don't like the form by which I have made my points. Is there anything regarding my points that you need further clarification of?

OK, from #121...

The implication I draw from this is that you don't think there should be college scholarships set aside for blacks. Is that your position?

I am saying that there shouldn't be college scholarships set aside for people of a specific race. Whatever that is. Academic merit should be the only factor when granting college scholarships.

We do not lower the academic bar to accommodate people, whoever they are, for whatever reason, if they are not able to meet the standards of academia. We might as well lower the standards for scientific evidence for the benefit of paranormal believers.

If some groups - blacks, hillbillies, whatever-group-you-can-think-of - are falling behind, then you fix that problem. But you do not lower the standards of academia.

I don't know where or if she answered that particular question. You're going to hang your hat on that?

But if you don't know if she answered that particular question, was I wrong to refer drkitten's statement as a lie? Just yes or no, please.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, you don't like the form by which I have made my points. Is there anything regarding my points that you need further clarification of?

Your last interchange with slingblade suffices for my interest in this topic. While I don't care for your discussion style, I too find state sponsored racialism unpalatable.

DR

 

[hgc]

But if you don't know if she answered that particular question, was I wrong to refer drkitten's statement as a lie? Just yes or no, please.

Yes.

 

[slingblade]

I know, I've lived in the US. I was frequently asked for the same information. Ridiculous.

Many people agree with you.

Well, you are asked for it frequently, but since there's no central database in the US where such information is kept (to my knowledge), it is futile to demand it.

You lived here, so you know we're an unusual country, in that our states often have more power individually than the central government. Our records are not kept in a central database, for the most part, but in individual state databases. If I want a copy of my birth certificate, I have to write to the Department of Vital Records in my home state. The school forms we fill out are tallied, and the numbers sent to both the state and the federal government, but I think it's anonymous. They just want the numbers, not the names of the people who generate the numbers. The numbers help to tell them which schools are going to need more funding for things like free lunches, because a school with many non-white students may need more funding. But these numbers are just one aspect of such calculations. Not all whites are rich, and not all non-whites are poor.

OK, that actually wasn't very nice to intersexual people...

Oh, I thought we were just making fun of Newt, in general.

But there is no question that it exists. All you got to do is stop making race an issue. It really is that simple. It won't solve all problems with racism, but it will send a message that, at least when it comes to the American "system", race doesn't matter.

There is nothing simple about that. I hope you aren't suggesting "color-blindness," because being blind to a person's perceived color doesn't make racism "go away" all by itself. There are too many other underlying perceptions we must correct first, before we can get to the place where race no longer matters.

Take Denmark: We have a centralized database where all citizens are registered. Name, birthday, birthplace, place of residence, and a lot of other things. What we can't register is "race". It is simply against the law. Do we have racist issues? Sure, like any other country. But it isn't state sanctioned.

Does Denmark also have a centuries-long history of government-sanctioned slavery? Did the Danish invade Denmark and subjugate the native population they found there? American racism is largely predicated on American history. If your country doesn't have the same sort of history, the comparison is lacking.

It should, yes. Unfortunately, I have yet to see such change in thinking. It clearly shows that there are issues that even some skeptics avoid.

Hearing and trying to answer those questions changed my thinking dramatically. One person at a time isn't very effective, but right now, it seems to be all we've got.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

Then, you need to show where she answered this question:

How many blacks self-identify as blacks because they find it beneficial if they are in a strongly black community?

Otherwise, how can you claim that she spoke the truth when she claimed (in post #129) she had already answered the questions?

Many people agree with you.

But what do they do to rectify the situation?

Oh, I thought we were just making fun of Newt, in general.

Yeah, well...that is not too challenging, is it?

There is nothing simple about that. I hope you aren't suggesting "color-blindness," because being blind to a person's perceived color doesn't make racism "go away" all by itself. There are too many other underlying perceptions we must correct first, before we can get to the place where race no longer matters.

Again, I am not saying that it will make racism go away. I am saying that it won't have the official stamp of approval it has today.

How do you suggest we approach this problem? What can be done? Realistically, of course.

Does Denmark also have a centuries-long history of government-sanctioned slavery?

No. Denmark abolished slavery in 1792 (effective from 1803), one of the first (the first?) countries to do so.

Did the Danish invade Denmark and subjugate the native population they found there?

There is archeaological evidence of migration, but nothing comparable to the influx of people to the US.

American racism is largely predicated on American history. If your country doesn't have the same sort of history, the comparison is lacking.

The comparison is relevant, because we have the same options to eradicate state-sanctioned racism. Technologically and politically, the US and Denmark are both very advanced. Yet, Denmark has decided not to make race an issue. And Denmark has a hell of a lot longer history than the US, so it should be much easier for the US to let go.

Hearing and trying to answer those questions changed my thinking dramatically. One person at a time isn't very effective, but right now, it seems to be all we've got.

Again, one huge leap would be to abolish state-sanctioned racism. Why isn't there public support of that?

 

[marksman]

See post #11, #15, #40, #57, #109, #119, #121 (in particular).

Okay. Are the following quotes from those posts the purposes for which you asked the original question? If not, please identify the quotes from those posts that do so.

Post 11
"We have never been able to clearly define just who is "white" and who is "black"."

Post 15
"I am saying that, when we approach the boundaries, it gets tricky."

Post 40
"when we talk about who gets a college grant based on skin colour, somebody somewhere has to draw that single thin bright line. Someone might draw it somewhere else, for another purpose. I want to know what they base their decision on."

Post 57
"White people could simply self-identify as a minority group (as needed) and get better deals than they would have as a majority."

Post 109
"If you segregate based on how "dark" you are, then you have to have drawn a line somewhere, based on something."

Post 119
I couldn't find any declarative statements of your intent inasking the question here.

Post 121
"In the absence of clear demarcations, it is therefore totally acceptable to simply make up any rule and either accept or reject people, based on these rules. Without telling anyone how you made those rules. And the rules can be adjusted to whatever you feel like, whenever you feel like it, depending on each person."

Now, in post 121, it seems like you aren't actually advocating that we make up completely arbitrary rules but are in fact stating that such a position is the logical extension of the standards you believe others are advocating in this thread. But I could be wrong, as I find your writing style excessively vague.

As for the other posts, it seems you want to discuss racial preferences and affirmative action and how people determine whether someone fits a classification. Is this accurate? I have to admit that having read the posts you referenced I'm still very unclear what you think this thread is going to accomplish by way of discussion.

It seems you actually do have a thesis:
Racial classifications, such as used in quotas, affirmative action, racial preferences or the express racial discrimination of the Jim Crow days suffer from a problem of definition as it is impossibly to clearly define one race from another.

Is this a rough approximation of your point?

Because if it is, it is my impression that most people have thought you were making a totally different point, which I would restate as follows:
"Race" simply doesn't exist because it is impossibly to classify everybody as one race or another. Some people have such vague racial features (whatever those may be) that to say anybody is of a race would be fallacious. Ergo, race is a myth.

All the people who have been citing studies have been responding to the latter point... that race isn't a myth, even though the lines between races is very fuzzy. I don't think anybody has been responding to the intial point because I don't think anybody was ever very clear that was your point at all. I certainly wasn't and frankly, I'm still not sure that was your point.

 

[hgc]

Then, you need to show where she answered this question:

How many blacks self-identify as blacks because they find it beneficial if they are in a strongly black community?

Otherwise, how can you claim that she spoke the truth when she claimed (in post #129) she had already answered the questions?

But I answered this question:

But if you don't know if she answered that particular question, was I wrong to refer drkitten's statement as a lie? Just yes or no, please.

... in just the form you insisted. I did not claim that she spoke the truth in regard to answering your LarsenList of questions.

What possible explanations are there for my answer? Is it possible that she was mistaken in regards to that particular question? Is it possible that she thinks an answer is something different than what you think it is? I don't know. But I do know that there are other possible entities than your idea of a true statement and a lie. And I know that your accusation is reminiscent of the best of Shanek.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay. Are the following quotes from those posts the purposes for which you asked the original question?

Those are the consequences of the answers I got.

Now, in post 121, it seems like you aren't actually advocating that we make up completely arbitrary rules but are in fact stating that such a position is the logical extension of the standards you believe others are advocating in this thread. But I could be wrong, as I find your writing style excessively vague.

I'm not advocating any such thing.

As for the other posts, it seems you want to discuss racial preferences and affirmative action and how people determine whether someone fits a classification. Is this accurate? I have to admit that having read the posts you referenced I'm still very unclear what you think this thread is going to accomplish by way of discussion.

Yes, that's accurate.

It seems you actually do have a thesis:
Racial classifications, such as used in quotas, affirmative action, racial preferences or the express racial discrimination of the Jim Crow days suffer from a problem of definition as it is impossibly to clearly define one race from another.

Is this a rough approximation of your point?

Point, yes. Thesis - that's overdoing it a bit.

Because if it is, it is my impression that most people have thought you were making a totally different point, which I would restate as follows:
"Race" simply doesn't exist because it is impossibly to classify everybody as one race or another. Some people have such vague racial features (whatever those may be) that to say anybody is of a race would be fallacious. Ergo, race is a myth.

I am saying that, if people want to segregate people based on race, then it is up to them to clearly define what they mean by race. So far, I have not seen any such clear definitions.

All the people who have been citing studies have been responding to the latter point... that race isn't a myth, even though the lines between races is very fuzzy. I don't think anybody has been responding to the intial point because I don't think anybody was ever very clear that was your point at all. I certainly wasn't and frankly, I'm still not sure that was your point.

Again: Fuzzy lines don't cut it, when you want to draw a line. And that's what people do, when they assign e.g. college grants to people because they are "black". Unless they make up the rules as they go. In which case, you have state-sanctioned racism, based on people's personal prejudices.