The Race Paradigm

Again, you seem to be talking about things I haven't said, and all I can do is suggest you go back and re-read the posts in which your questions have already been answered.

You keep saying you are not saying this. I've conceded that I may have misunderstood several times. It certainly LOOKS TO ME like this is what you are saying. I've asked to explain what you meant then, several times, and you keep responding that this is not what you meant.

So what DID you mean?
 
Tons of it out here on the Left Coast. And there's a pretty funny Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a bit of it.

There's also this sort of bizarre kind of politically correct racism out here, or whatever you want to call it where people are awkwardly extra nice to black people to sort of prove they're not racist. I guess it's sort of another form of hypersensitivity.

I think it's two things - eliminating ambiguity by not only being non-racist, but also non-neutral. Eliminates the risk of being seen racist in error.

The second is recognizing that even though this is 2014, it's still very likely that a visible minority has been mistreated, so there's a personal desire to a) demonstrate that not all white people are ********, and b) try to undo a little of the past bad with a little today good, because we can.

Two comparable examples...

My wife was called monkey girl, given bananas, spoken to with ook-ook sound effects all through her childhood... when her workplace decided to participate in a fundraiser at a children's hospital, the worst costume was the gorilla costume (hot, plastic mask, &c)... her coworker who was organizing it was assigning the costumes essentially randomly, but she had the good sense to manipulate the results to ensure my wife didn't end up with the gorilla costume.

A similar situation was my first wife who had prominent face scars from childhood surgery for skin cancer. She spent years as 'frankenstein' and it had a real impact to her self image. When a modelling agency visited her highschool to recruit, one of the teachers actually sought her out to convince her to go to the interviews - something he didn't do for any of the other girls - and she ended up getting a Benetton contract, which she said really changed her life by restoring her self confidence.

I don't consider these to be pandering or handouts - these are fixxer-uppers that if we're lucky might end up in some sort of karmic breakeven.
 
You keep saying you are not saying this. I've conceded that I may have misunderstood several times. It certainly LOOKS TO ME like this is what you are saying. I've asked to explain what you meant then, several times, and you keep responding that this is not what you meant.

So what DID you mean?

And again, you seem not even to have read the post you're replying to.

I've explained exactly what I meant more than once, one time in direct response to your questioning - a response that you then all but ignored. And seemingly are still ignoring.

So, no, I'm not going to type it all out laboriously for a third time. Go back and read my response to the last time you asked exactly the same question, where I answered you clearly and in detail. If you still don't get it after that, then I'm really not sure that I can help you as I've been as clear as I can on the issue and it seems that you're not understanding what I'm saying not through my not communicating effectively, but through you ignoring what I do say.
 
Can you at least direct me to a post where you think you explained it, because I can't seem to figure it out. TYIA
 
How would you classify Rosa Parks and others like her? I mean, she did cause a lot of offense and it's all about not causing offense and following social rules, right?
What advice would you have given to Obama's parents before marrying?

Obama’s parents were never married.
 
Well let's see. There are a few that have kind of gotten turned on their head because people realize what it could seem like unconsciously and that's an interesting place to start, if you aren't confused.

[snip]

I'll try to think of more. I'm a bit distracted at the moment. So apologies for the sloppiness.

Thanks. I see what you mean.
 
Based on that and other stories, plus additional compelling observations I've made in my 40+ years on this planet, I will agree without hesitation that racialism is intrinsic to humanity: that is, the affiliation of individuals with similar physical traits. "Birds of a feather" and all that.
I'm surprised to read this, as it contradicts what I thought your message was. It also seems to contradict your assertion that there are no measurable differences.
Do you perhaps mean that we tend to think of people with similar physical traits of belonging together?

I'm sure we do. We do use visual cues to distinguish social groups but these differences are overwhelmingly artificial: Uniforms, traditional costumes, religious attire, etc...
These differences are regarded as far more important than biological differences. People do group themselves and others according to size, hair color, etc... but they rarely assign much importance to that.

Skin color being important for social identity is an exception among physical trait.

I think it may be good to remind ourselves of the most notorious racists of the last century: The nazis. The pprimary victims of nazi racism were jews, roma and slavs.
You'd be hard pressed to find visible differences between these groups and germans.

Mumbles reminds of one important fact. It is possible for only a few people to force an identity on someone, regardless of their choice.
And if it's based on skin color, it's virtually impossible to escape. That's one thing that makes skin color based identity harmful in itself, IMHO. You can change your clothes, religion, name. As an adult you may not be able to change your accent but it's a choice you could make for your kids.
 
I thought of another way to explain what you're up against. Consider the difference between the concept of the "melting pot" and the "mosaic"

Many people pushed the idea of the "melting pot" in the era of American history where you had the biggest boom of immigrants (BTW I'm aware I tend to discuss these things from an American perspective, I apologize for that narrow view but it's what I know) so in this era the idea of "assimilation" was promoted. This is why you'll see pictures of people from different countries around the world wearing "white man suit and ties" back in old black and white photos from the time.

The eventual conclusion was the the "melting pot" and "assimilation" was ultimately racist because the dominant culture basically took over and forced everyone to be like them.
There is a grain of truth in that but I can't help feeling like there's also a whole lot of racist condescension.
It's most obvious when talk gets to preserving "indigenous cultures". What I hear is: We get to move on and they get to be museum exhibits.

Those "white man suit and ties", where do they come from? Whose national costume is it?
European ethnicities all have their own, different costume. You probably know the scottish kilt, or the bavarian dirndl (what girls wear at the Oktoberfest). And it's not like those differences are unimportant to people.
Look at what went on in the Balkans as recently as 20 years ago. Incidentally, the tie is supposed to derive from croatian garb in the 17th century.

Japan, in the meiji period, consciously adopted many parts of western culture along with the scientific and technological advances. In many ways, the adoption of technology was forced on japan as the only way to resist western military might. But I don't think you can say that any other elements (like the now famous sailor fuku) were forced on it. I don't know to what a degree they adopted suit and tie at the time, though.

Every industrialized country has made a more or less conscious choice of leaving behind ethnic traditions and adopting what is now global pop culture. That's not just a "white" thing. Japan made the same decision.

BTW Are there any historic examples of "mosaic" states working long term?
It's much easier to come up with examples of multi-ethnic states sinking into war than working long time. Switzerland is the only half-way decent example I can think of.
 
There is a grain of truth in that but I can't help feeling like there's also a whole lot of racist condescension.
It's most obvious when talk gets to preserving "indigenous cultures". What I hear is: We get to move on and they get to be museum exhibits.

Those "white man suit and ties", where do they come from? Whose national costume is it?
European ethnicities all have their own, different costume. You probably know the scottish kilt, or the bavarian dirndl (what girls wear at the Oktoberfest). And it's not like those differences are unimportant to people.
Look at what went on in the Balkans as recently as 20 years ago. Incidentally, the tie is supposed to derive from croatian garb in the 17th century.

Japan, in the meiji period, consciously adopted many parts of western culture along with the scientific and technological advances. In many ways, the adoption of technology was forced on japan as the only way to resist western military might. But I don't think you can say that any other elements (like the now famous sailor fuku) were forced on it. I don't know to what a degree they adopted suit and tie at the time, though.

Every industrialized country has made a more or less conscious choice of leaving behind ethnic traditions and adopting what is now global pop culture. That's not just a "white" thing. Japan made the same decision.

BTW Are there any historic examples of "mosaic" states working long term?
It's much easier to come up with examples of multi-ethnic states sinking into war than working long time. Switzerland is the only half-way decent example I can think of.


I don't think it's an accurate comparison to consider Japan. If I'm not mistaken, less than 2 percent of their population is not Japanese. That creates a totally different paradigm.

To answer your other very good question you might want to consider to concept of cultural hegemony. Who decides? The cultural hegemony makes it the norm. When cultural diffusion occurs it can impact the hegemony, (especially in areas such as fashion, consider the Pashima being picked up in Western cultures)

But over all the dominant culture prevails through no conscious decision. It just happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony


And I agree that sometimes trying to be mindful of a person's race or ethnic background can be patronizing. That's why I mentioned earlier when I've spoken to Asian, Arab and/or Indian people about their ethnic identity I've gotten defensiveness at times because as third generation Americans they consider themselves American.
 
Tons of it out here on the Left Coast. And there's a pretty funny Curb Your Enthusiasm episode with a bit of it.

There's also this sort of bizarre kind of politically correct racism out here, or whatever you want to call it where people are awkwardly extra nice to black people to sort of prove they're not racist. I guess it's sort of another form of hypersensitivity.
.
As Sheldon's mom said.." How do you people in California even talk to each other?"..:rolleyes:
 
But to your point. YES. Exactly. Take a second to consider what I mean here though, and I'd love if Mumbles can give his opinion on what I'm going to say.

Well, Okay...

The unconscious racism is a problem because people are unaware that they are doing it, but everyone is racist especially here in the US. Everyone judges races by stereotypes and even if a person doesn't fit into the stereotype, there's still something in the back of our minds.

The difference between "white racism" where people stereotype white people and "black racism" is extreme.

To some extent, yes. Obviously, racism against black people is no real extreme. Sadly,it's normal, much like prejudice against other groups in the US.

But there is a difference between the obvious racism eg."I'll never hire a black person", and the subconscious variety, as in the manager who whenever presented with a qualified black person, says "I just don't think he'd be a good fit for the company", regardless of the black guy's attitude and demeanor.

As another example, when I was...probably 12, I was big into roll-playing games, and related crap. One of my favorite stores was Games People Play, in Cambridge. One time, when my mother drove me over there, the cashier (a man who is either retired or dead by now) had been showing a number of pewter statuettes to a customer. They had moved across the store, to the cash register, so he could pay for whatever he had bought. I walked up to the statuettes to look...and the cashier dashed across the store in order to put them back under glass, where I couldn't touch them. My mother had seen all of this, and simply walked up and stood behind me with a disapproving stare. And the cashier, rather than being defiant, looked embarrassed with himself.

In other words, his thinking was not "I hate black people". Rather, he saw me looking at the statuettes, and immediately thought "He's going to rob the store!", without noticing my mother walking in behind me, or even consciously thinking "black men are all thieves". After all, if he really did think the latter, why would he feel so humiliated when my mom stared at him?

Those sort of things are probably my worst experiences with racism. As a guy in his mid-30s, it's not going to be Jim Crow nonsense, but rather the things that you don't know, and where the racist might not even know. The clear-cut bigots are easy to see, and easy to call out. It's the "I'm just not sure you fit" folks that you really need to worry about, because the nasty part is that you don't know if they're right, or if they're letting subconscious bias sneak out.

ETA: There's a joke some black folks say - we'd rather deal with the outright racist, than the subconscious sort. With the former, you know exactly where you stand, while the latter stands ready to sneak out and stab you over any perceived slight. The person who sees me and starts screaming "the N-word", I know he's hostile, and I can deal with that. Complaints, lawsuits, leaving the business, whatever. But the guy who freaks out over a joke I made, or because I was around when he injured himself? I simply can't deal with that.

Ex. For me I used to get really frustrated as a lily white blonde haired blue eyed chick, how most black people I met used to tell me how much easier my life was than theirs. I felt it was disrespectful and presumed way too much and it pissed me off.

In a very serious way, I'd say that you were correct. The point behind racism isn't "I've had it rougher than you", but rather that if you take two people from the same background, in the US, people will prefer the white person over the black person.

But a black woman's experiences with racism is going to be much more severe. IOW Not being able to get a job, being treated like a shoplifter on a regular basis, etc etc. It's got a much harsher impact on a persons self image in life when these "head under the water" versions of racism impact your everyday life.

I can agree with this.

Obviously when she left I went up to see what had happened and he flat out told me he would never hire a black waitress because "they're lazy, they don't know how build a check, and the customers up here don't like them."

As I said, that's a form of open and obvious racism. And yes, it certainly still happens today, although not so much for me in interviews (for the record, I have an MSEE from a prestigious university - at my level, my skin color may actually help me in job searches and the like. Won't help with the cops, though.)

These are not "jokes" these are direct impacts on the very basics of living.

Yep.

The difference between Chapelle's joke and Julianne Hough dressing up in black face is that his was a thoughtful decisive real speech. Hers was a careless thoughtless action. She obviously didn't mean it to be racist, but that's the problem with unconscious racism.

I'm not even sure that she was being subconsciously racist. She was ignorant, and messed up due to that. Once called out, she immediately apologized. And that should be the end of the matter. Now, if she rolls out in blackface next Halloween, *then* there's a real problem, but for now, this isn't even worth fighting.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to say that as a very white man who grew up in a very white area, and also went into those sorts of shops...

I can assure you shopkeepers are just generally not keen on 12 year old boys of any race having access to expensive and/or delicate items.

I can't even begin to count the number of times me and my white friends when I was 12 or 13 would get rebuffed when wanting to see pewter figures or rare comics or trading cards or action figures, etc. Or how universal the assumption that white boys in a white city in that age range, with or without an adult, were likely thieves if given an opportunity.

We were watched like hawks.
 
That's often said but, again, I don't think that earns anyone a free pass. Of course I can't provide a breakdown of who in the audience was laughing with the stereotypical Korean voice as a parody (if, indeed, it was - none of us knows Chapelle's thought process) and who was laughing at it.

True, but (as weak as this sounds) Chapelle is a guy with an Asian wife, and more importantly a genius comedian who specializes in mocking racism. Despite all that, I'll admit that you could be right.

As I say, I don't think it exculpates the performer to say "it's a character". There used to be a show in the UK called 'Till Death Do Us Part whose main character was called Alf Garnet. It was exported to the US and I forget what the show was called (All In The Family, maybe?), but the main character was renamed Archie Bunker. I'm sure you've heard of the US version , so I don't need to go into too much detail, but Garnet was racist, homophobic, sexist, and all. The intent was for it to be a parody of those attitudes and, indeed, the man who played Alf Garnet was politically left wing and, for that matter, a Jew.

But in interviews he admitted that he kept having people come up to him and say "yeah, you're right about all of that stuff" and he'd tell them that they'd got it backwards and that he was taking the mickey out of people like them. But you even listen to the soundtrack of the programme and, just from where the laughs come, you can tell how most of the audience are taking it.

"All in the Family" is the correct title. And yes, the guy who played the main character on that series (Archie Bunker) got many of the same reactions. It got to the point where Bunker was given an invitation to join the local KKK in an episode, and he emphatically rejected them, in order to establish that he wasn't *that* sort of person.

Again, I won't bother arguing against you further. We agree that racial humor is a problem, because actual racists will laugh along with it, rather than at it. We both agree that this a problem. We both agree that *some* comedians use stereotypes to mock people, rather than to mock the stereotypes. We simply disagree as to Chapelle's motives. There's really nothing else to say.
 
Just wanted to say that as a very white man who grew up in a very white area, and also went into those sorts of shops...

I can assure you shopkeepers are just generally not keen on 12 year old boys of any race having access to expensive and/or delicate items.

I can't even begin to count the number of times me and my white friends when I was 12 or 13 would get rebuffed when wanting to see pewter figures or rare comics or trading cards or action figures, etc. Or how universal the assumption that white boys in a white city in that age range, with or without an adult, were likely thieves if given an opportunity.

We were watched like hawks.
I'd suspect race had little to do in either situation. Kids break things and too often can't pay for what they broke.
 

Back
Top Bottom