PDA

View Full Version : Race Education and Why it Fails



CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 02:48 PM
You ever heard those really corny sayings like "we're all one race", or "we're all technically brown" or "We're all God's children"? Whenever I hear these things, I just go "bullshit" because I think anyone with half a brain can look at someone of a different race and go "hmm...there are some differences here."

The idea that we're all the same is a total crock and a horrible way to teach people to learn to accept others. Acceptance through denial is just the worst possible thing because no true understanding comes from that. Surely, it becomes easy to accept someone if you pretend that they're just like you. But ultimately, you end up accepting nobody but yourself, or at least, the self-projection of yourself onto others. So when someone comes up to you acting differently, or thinking differently or looking differently than you do, you still have no idea how to react and cope with the situation. Why? Because, in truth, you have not developed any measure of tolerance or acceptance, simply willful ignorance of the facts.

And this applies not just to race, but to sex, age, and sexual orientation. People are living in this fairy-tale world where they pretend everyone is the same and, while this may be an easy way to lie your personal convictions away, it is not a healthy train of thought. We may feel like it's effective, but in truth it's just shoving prejudice deeper into the closet. If anything, discrimination is stronger than ever because, instead of being openly voiced, it is silently taking reign in our institutions. This is the greatest possible threat to general equity as we don't really know where and how it's happening, how to confront it and how to re-educate the people responsible for it.

So, in short, instead of pretending our issues away, let's find a way to embrace the differences of others. If not, at least understand that you have an issue with them and need to learn to either cope or expound on why you can't.


Opinions?

Blue_Dragon
11-08-2011, 03:20 PM
I think what they're doing is oversimplifying what they really mean. It's not that we're all the same, it's more that we're all share the right to be treated in a manner where one person isn't treated better than another due to race/gender/etc. I mean, anyone could tell you no two person is the "same" but just because I have white skin doesn't mean I should be treated better than someone with darker pigmentation cause that doesn't mean anything. It's just superficial. It'd be like if someone treated me worse cause I have brown hair.

At the same time, I can see where in some cases, like "age" discrimination, you'd really have to discriminate. It may not be entirely because of their age, but rather their physical capabilities. I mean, if you're 100 and barely crippling around, and you apply for a fireman's position...are you really qualified for the job? Same thing for women who are not physically strong enough for the job: some skinny little girl is not going to be able to pull me out of a fire. It's that simple.

But, if the girl was some buff chick, and could bench press 150 lbs or more. Well, have at it. She should have the same chance at something as a guy who can do the same thing.

But yeah, I agree, we'd all be really boring if we were the same, and we shouldn't have to be brain washed into treating each other decent by saying "we're all the same" when we are all different.

You ever read "The Giver?" I hated reading it, but it makes the same point you're making.

GunZet
11-08-2011, 03:40 PM
I don't like to look at everyone as 'the same,' cause that definitely isn't true. But equal, until proven otherwise.

Blue_Dragon
11-08-2011, 03:55 PM
Yeah, that's how I feel. You're far more concise with words than I am. :)

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 04:06 PM
Exactly. Equal opportunity is the ultimate objective of our society, but to pretend we're all equal makes it difficult to cope with the truth of our differences.

And yes, BD, I agree about the firefighter thing. See, that is observing a general difference between men and women and properly putting it in context to create a logical argument. In other words, that's exactly what needs to be done to address most of society's discrimination issues. Also, we need to get over this fear of making observations. A large part of getting over our various 'isms' is to learn the difference between plain-sight observation and discrimination, which a lot of people still can't do. So under the impression that citing differences is somehow discriminatory, people refuse to do it and a lot of issues go unaddressed.

Superdooperphailmachine
11-08-2011, 05:07 PM
What exactly are you talking about?
Telling somebody who is not physically or mentally able to do a job they cannot have the job is a different thing to telling a black guy that he cannot work in a cinema because he will probably just talk to all his drug dealing homies throughout because he is black and that is what black people do.
I've always understood the whole we are equal thing as "We are all Human, don't be a dick to a person because they are a Woman/gay/Canadian/poor."

Bacon_Barbarian
11-08-2011, 05:14 PM
We all have equal potential. And that's all that really matters. Also, generally people mean the same on the inside/mentally/biologically ... Or maybe they don't. I always thought that's what was meant.

Hayashida
11-08-2011, 05:18 PM
Canadian
wtf dont you be talkin shit, honky

Superdooperphailmachine
11-08-2011, 05:25 PM
Anyone who bags milk and eats poutine deserves shit talk http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif

Hayashida
11-08-2011, 05:27 PM
The Canadian race is clearly superior to the English race

Superdooperphailmachine
11-08-2011, 05:33 PM
Is Stephen Fry Canadian? I think not.

Hayashida
11-08-2011, 05:39 PM
okay I'll have to give you that one.

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 05:46 PM
Telling somebody who is not physically or mentally able to do a job they cannot have the job is a different thing to telling a black guy that he cannot work in a cinema because...he is black and that is what black people do.

Oh you'd be surprised how often these two things (plain-sight observation and racism) get confused. You've heard of the "race card", right?


"We are all Human, don't be a dick to a person because they are a Woman/gay/Canadian/poor."

That's exactly what's wrong. "We are human" does not qualify as understanding. You are just painting over the diverse body of people that constitute "human" with an extremely broad brush. It's the biggest generalization you can make. Understanding that "we're all human" is not the same as understanding the pain of a paraplegic, or understanding the struggles of a second-class citizen. All it does is find some obvious common ground when common ground isn't the root of the issue. For them to truly achieve equal opportunity, for them to feel embraced by our society, we need to recognize their differences and work around them. That's because understanding is not rooted in similarities, it's rooted in differences. To observe, analyze, accept and hopefully embrace the differences between people, races and ages is what understanding is.

Does that make sense now?

Bacon_Barbarian
11-08-2011, 06:10 PM
Generalization is good. Diversity is bad. Well, no, let me rephrase that. Having diversity is good, but needing to be diverse in the first place is bad. Everyone's the same, we're all human and we all have the same potential at the very moment of conception. It may be much less likely that an impoverished, blind child become a great painter, as opposed to a gentry-born, artistic one, but it is possible.

Also, flat what to your understanding comes from differences and not similarities. You need a place to build from.

Peteman
11-08-2011, 06:14 PM
Lol, I;m studying Anthropology and this subject is a big part of it. At the genetic level, there is really, not much difference beween 'races'. Race is a socially constructed term. What is different are cultures. This is not just a different societies fancy traditional dances with bells. It goes much deeper than that. From the time we're born we learn to catogorize things; these form the basics of our assumtions about absolutely everthing: who we are, how we relate to others, what food we like, what is and what is not. These make us different.

Fenn
11-08-2011, 06:29 PM
Generalization is good. Diversity is bad. Well, no, let me rephrase that. Having diversity is good, but needing to be diverse in the first place is bad. Everyone's the same, we're all human and we all have the same potential at the very moment of conception. It may be much less likely that an impoverished, blind child become a great painter, as opposed to a gentry-born, artistic one, but it is possible.

Also, flat what to your understanding comes from differences and not similarities. You need a place to build from.

We do NOT have equal potential. Genetics determines that some people might be more prone to illness than others, some might be taller than others, some might be more short-tempered than others. On the whole, we have a great deal of control over the final outcome of our lives thanks to our ability to reason and scientific breakthroughs, but there are limits. A person born with no legs is not going to become a professional athlete. It's a tragic truth, but a truth nonetheless.

Sure, it's possible for a deaf person to write music (Beethoven ftw), but these are exceptions. The ratio of deaf-born humans who have become composers as opposed to to those with hearing is, for obvious reaons, incredibly low. Treating a deaf person as if they have the same potential to become a composer as a hearing-capable human is illogical. A deaf person has far more obstacles in front of them.

Which begs the question of what you mean by "equal potential" and how it related to treating people of different backgrounds and identities.

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 06:40 PM
Everyone's the same, we're all human and we all have the same potential at the very moment of conception.

No @ everyone's the same. Yes @ everyone has the same potential, theoretically. But this potential needs to thoroughly be bolstered by outside help. Your example of a blind artist, for instance, takes for granted that said blind artist would need specialized teachers, tools and facilities to have even half a chance at accomplishing that goal. And how do we go about providing these things? Not by looking at these two children, one poor and blind and, the other, rich and without defect, and saying "oh they're the same." We observe the differences and build around them.

When we say "people are the same", what we really mean is "people are the same based on my perception of the norm". When it comes to people that are radically different, viewing them as "the same" will only leave them grossly misunderstood because they aren't. And we know damn well they aren't. I'm not gonna take a man in a wheelchair hiking with me and expect him to meet me at the top of the mountain based on some infinitesimal, theoretical chance.

And yes, Peteman, that is a good point, but understand that race, culture and genetics go hand-in-hand based on one primary factor: geography. So even if we try to disassociate race from the other two, chances are you can make generalizations about someone's culture based on their race and be right maybe greater than half the time. So race is rather relevant to the issue.

Delphinus
11-08-2011, 07:15 PM
Yes @ everyone has the same potential, theoretically.

Find me an olympic-level athlete with muscle dystrophy.
Find me a university professor with an IQ of 60 (I know IQ isn't reliable, but you ought to understand my meaning).
Find me a hideously deformed celebrity who isn't famous for being ugly. (That says something about our culture...)
Find me an unambitious self-made man.

We are not born equal. This is one of the few myths that can be called "liberal bias" without being a crazy conservative. It comes from the very enlightenment notion that we are "all equal in the eyes of God". There is no God. The original liberals acknowledged we were unequal in every way but that one: modern notions of equality are based on that single idea, and that idea is a convenient fantasy.

EDIT: Note that none of this relates to race. No race is inferior to another and the evidence which suggests otherwise was produced by biased sources. It would be interesting, however, to look into the intelligence etc. of people from the same background where the only difference between them is their race and see if there are racial differences in certain faculties. I'm not about to deny that it's a possibility, but my gut feeling tells me that any differences you'd find would be very minor; different races aren't exactly sub-species of humans. >__>

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 07:24 PM
As I said: theoretically. Those things can very well exist, it's just highly, highly unlikely. The chances are infinitesimal, maybe even one in a billion. But of course you are being needlessly specific. Why would a person with an IQ of 60 pursue a career as a university teacher anyway? Their potential for success in society can be found elsewhere. In essence, they do share the same potential in the sense that society doesn't predetermine or guarantee the method of our success. As in, even an average person is not born destined to be a university teacher or a celebrity, or an Olympic-level athlete. We do what we're suited for in life. So I think it's safe to say, theoretically, everyone has a shot at success, just not at the same things.

Delphinus
11-08-2011, 07:29 PM
We do what we're suited for in life.

I agree. Unfortunately some people are not suited for success. There are winners and losers.

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 07:32 PM
Well, when you consider that success is an amalgamation of various material demands, I would argue that a paraplegic who lives in a nice nursing home and is perfectly cared for is more successful than a fully capable man who is jobless and homeless. But that's a different discussion altogether.

Peteman
11-08-2011, 08:05 PM
And yes, Peteman, that is a good point, but understand that race, culture and genetics go hand-in-hand based on one primary factor: geography. So even if we try to disassociate race from the other two, chances are you can make generalizations about someone's culture based on their race and be right maybe greater than half the time. So race is rather relevant to the issue.

So the culture of black people in america and africa must be the same then?

Edit: I've re-read your first post and I see a little flaw in your statement. Your saying people should be more understanding of other people. But could you understand people who refuse understand other people, without regarding them in a negative light?

Delphinus
11-08-2011, 08:05 PM
@Cypress

Granted. But 'success' being relative falls outside the scope of the argument as to whether people are equal. It's a necessary assumption - if we're to say anything meaningful - that it is possible for people to be unequal, and an objective measure of success is necessary for that.

Though I'm not sure if you're quite pushing the relativist viewpoint with your previous post.

Inksprout
11-08-2011, 09:06 PM
For me the message 'We're all the same' end up being, 'I can learn to understand/empathise with everyone else in the world'. Essentially to me it's obvious that everyone is different and faces their own challenges and issues. However I think that there is enough common ground, and our minds all work similarly enough that most people should be able to understand most other people given enough time and the desire to do so. I guess there would be acceptions to this in cases where people are very mentally ill and (mentally)disabled, but I think that a measure of understanding can still exist even with those whose minds work differently to our own. After all we all need the same basic things to survive.

I want to point out that understanding or empathising with someone does not mean you have to agree with them or not see their actions in a negative light. Its simply saying, I have gone to the trouble of understanding how you came to be at the point that you are, and I can say that myself or others could likely feel the same as you, had we been in your position. Obviously if someone is doing something most would consider wrong, or something just plain horrible you are still going to see it negatively and want to stop them and you should.
However understanding why someone else would act a certain way can go a long way to helping dissuade them acting that way.

We used to throw everyone who was 'insane' into the equivalent of a prison and leave them there. Today however we understand that mental illness can happen to just about any one for any reason and that there are many different types. Like Cyp said, we can't just say everyone is the same and then not know how to deal with those who are different, history as shown us how much suffering that attitude can bring. For those its not already obvious to the actual message should be 'We are capable of understanding one another' rather than 'we are all the same'.

Peteman
11-08-2011, 09:22 PM
Sorry this isn't really adding anything but; well said Inksprout. Your words hold much wisdom.

ClockHand
11-08-2011, 09:35 PM
We used to throw everyone who was 'insane' into the equivalent of a prison and leave them there.

Live them there? Are you crazy? (I'm going to throw you there). Those places were the perfect description of hell, every person in there was tortured, were used as experiments and they lived in their own shit. Just as seeing the architecture of those places you know it was worst than living as a animal, specially after you saw the instruments of torture the "professionals" used in there.

Fenn
11-08-2011, 09:37 PM
Live them there? Are you crazy? (I'm going to throw you there). Those places were the perfect description of hell, every person in there was tortured, were used as experiments and they lived in their own shit. Just as seeing the architecture of those places you know it was worst than living as a animal, specially after you saw the instruments of torture the "professionals" used in there.

I don't think he was promoting it, Clock. You're right though, it was horrendous.

Inksprout
11-08-2011, 09:40 PM
Yeah I was trying to say that that was a BAD thing that happened, because people didn't try to understand others who were different. I'm not saying we should do that, I'm using it as an example from the past.

CypressDahlia
11-08-2011, 11:56 PM
So the culture of black people in america and africa must be the same then?

Edit: I've re-read your first post and I see a little flaw in your statement. Your saying people should be more understanding of other people. But could you understand people who refuse understand other people, without regarding them in a negative light?

No, because America and Africa are two different geographies. Beyond that, America is kind of a tough call because it is the only country that has no true cultural origin. It's a country populated entirely by global immigrants that has just barely retained its Puritan roots. Whereas places like Central and South America, though also born from conquest, have maintained relative racial and cultural monotony since the days of their conception. So yeah, America is like one big exception to that rule.

About your second point: my idea is not to agree with everyone around you. My idea is to not hide from differences in race, age, gender, sex, orientation and opinion. Rather, to acknowledge these differences and either 1.) learn to cope with them or 2.) confront them in a meaningful way. Basically, "let's talk about it" as opposed to "let's imagine it away". If we continue to fear citing differences between people, our misunderstandings of one another recede into various closet "isms" that become a part of our infrastructural and cultural institutions. Because we're taught to approach people as if they're the same, the understanding of their differences is never sought so these differences register as nothing but irrational aberrations from ourselves.

And no, Delphinus. I actually tried to define success in a more practical way. I think an agreeable definition for someone who is successful, at least in economic terms, is someone who can maintain an average level of material comfort. For example, a home, food, clothes, money, medicine, transportation and entertainment. Though it may not be 'startling success', I think most of us imagine success in life as being able to afford at least these things.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-09-2011, 12:45 AM
We do NOT have equal potential.
We do at the initial (and I mean initial) moment of conception.


A person born with no legs is not going to become a professional athlete. It's a tragic truth, but a truth nonetheless.

This is actually a very poor example. Said person could very well be a swimmer. Also, paralympics. They're still professional athletes.


Which begs the question of what you mean by "equal potential"
Yeah ... I mean everyone is capable as anyone else of accomplishing something worthwhile. Now, you may have to get very generalized, but it works. Your legless child example. He may never play Pro-Football, but he can still a Pro-Athlete. This of course also has to do with my whole "initial moment" thing. Living up to your potential, that's another matter.

Blue_Dragon
11-09-2011, 02:18 AM
Not to play devil's advocate...

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1294996909/164/4544164.jpg

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

I already stated my opinions, but I thought I'd just add this as food for thought. Even a person with a disability can at times regain potential.

Anyway, I thought the initial argument was that we're all different, not the same, and should be taught to value those differences rather than deny they exist by saying we're all the same?

CypressDahlia
11-09-2011, 02:36 AM
Anyway, I thought the initial argument was that we're all different, not the same, and should be taught to value those differences rather than deny they exist by saying we're all the same?

Yep. That, or be able to talk about differences that are difficult to cope with, which is something that cannot be achieved through denial either.

Fenn
11-09-2011, 09:50 AM
We do at the initial (and I mean initial) moment of conception.


This is actually a very poor example. Said person could very well be a swimmer. Also, paralympics. They're still professional athletes.


Yeah ... I mean everyone is capable as anyone else of accomplishing something worthwhile. Now, you may have to get very generalized, but it works. Your legless child example. He may never play Pro-Football, but he can still a Pro-Athlete. This of course also has to do with my whole "initial moment" thing. Living up to your potential, that's another matter.

True, bad example. But no, even before the initial moment of conception our genetics and our environment are shaping the limits of our potential.

That being said, even the human with the greatest disadvantages IS capable of doing something worthwhile. But we are getting away from Cypress' entire point of the topic. Even if people have equal potential, they are very different in many ways, and it is better to acknowledge and understand those differences than claim they don't exist.

Let's say you are a boss, who has two people and a task that requires one part strength and one part intelligence. One worker is smarter than the other, and one worker is stronger than the other (forget about the difficulty of measuring intelligence for the sake of the example). If you treat them with the supposed "completel equality" popular today, then you claim the strong person should have the same opportunity and right as the smart person to do the intelligent task, and vise versa. But doesn't it make far more sense to have each person work to their strengths?

Bacon_Barbarian
11-09-2011, 03:38 PM
Right, Well, on race then, let's just say this. If a white man or black man (or an Asian man or an Indian man or a Purple Polk-a-Dotted man,) who were as similar as possible in a genetic sense, and had the exact same background, they would all have equal potential.

CypressDahlia
11-09-2011, 03:50 PM
Yeah, but that's taking a lot of things for granted.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-09-2011, 04:03 PM
Sometimes you have to. :|

It would probably be best to say that everyone has something to contribute, and that the color of ones skin doesn't change ones potential.

That's a lot simpler/less controversial.

Fenn
11-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Sometimes you have to. :|

It would probably be best to say that everyone has something to contribute, and that the color of ones skin doesn't change ones potential.

That's a lot simpler/less controversial.

This I get can behind. Basically, what should matter is not WHY someone has a certain potential, but the potential itself. So when judging or evaluating someone as, say, a writer, it shouldn't matter whether they are a good writer because of genetics, schooling, race, gender, etc. All that matters is that they are a good writer.

It's also worth noting that racism is counter-efficient in many cases. When you limit yourself to certain races, whether we're talking about friendship or employment, you are automatically limiting the number of potentially worthwhile candidates. I might miss out on the best person for the job because I'm prejudiced and only want white people, or because I'm worried about having "diversity" in my business and only hiring minorities.

ClockHand
11-09-2011, 11:18 PM
I want to stand the point of Ethnics. I hate people calling them self "I'm half Irish and half Scandinavian" and they live like a normal USA family (not even with traditions of those places). WTF? That is even more retarded that racism, its like you are "creating" a race to differentiate you from the rest.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-09-2011, 11:23 PM
It's called pride in your heritage. There is nothing wrong with that. Though ... Doing so without traditions does strike me a bit silly.

ClockHand
11-09-2011, 11:25 PM
Exactly, without traditions is retarded. And even more when you pull it out and you are like the 10 generation that born in USA.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-09-2011, 11:32 PM
*says his grandparents were immigrants and backs out of this argument, as he falls into the more ... sensible "IM PART XYZ" crowd*

Fenn
11-10-2011, 01:14 AM
I want to stand the point of Ethnics. I hate people calling them self "I'm half Irish and half Scandinavian" and they live like a normal USA family (not even with traditions of those places). WTF? That is even more retarded that racism, its like you are "creating" a race to differentiate you from the rest.

Thanks for hating me Clock.

Not practicing traditional customs doesn't change the fact that your history and lineage is a part of who you are. Guess what? People in Japan today don't practice the exact same traditions as 5 generations ago either, even if they never left their country. There are more similarities than immigrants, sure, but customs change, so they aren't a valid indicator.

It's a reference to anscestry and origins, and it's most relevant in America where almost everyone traces their family history back to another country.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-10-2011, 01:17 AM
Interesting (albeit Wikipedia) article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American) on the subject.

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 09:07 AM
Thanks for hating me Clock.

Not practicing traditional customs doesn't change the fact that your history and lineage is a part of who you are. Guess what? People in Japan today don't practice the exact same traditions as 5 generations ago either, even if they never left their country. There are more similarities than immigrants, sure, but customs change, so they aren't a valid indicator.

It's a reference to anscestry and origins, and it's most relevant in America where almost everyone traces their family history back to another country.


You know that it's a big difference to be born in a place and change according to the cultural developments of that place. Than being descendant of X culture and live in another culture?

Let's say you are Irish descendant, and you have lived 3 generations on USA. If you don't follow any cultural tradition related to your ancestors and you live as a normal USA kid, then your past doesn't mean anything beyond to where your family come from. You can't claim "I'm from X ethnic" when you barely practice anything related to them. And saying it as something genetic or about "blood", like "I have irish blood" it makes it even more retarded, because you are mixing ethnics with races.

Fenn
11-10-2011, 10:16 AM
You know that it's a big difference to be born in a place and change according to the cultural developments of that place. Than being descendant of X culture and live in another culture?

Let's say you are Irish descendant, and you have lived 3 generations on USA. If you don't follow any cultural tradition related to your ancestors and you live as a normal USA kid, then your past doesn't mean anything beyond to where your family come from. You can't claim "I'm from X ethnic" when you barely practice anything related to them. And saying it as something genetic or about "blood", like "I have irish blood" it makes it even more retarded, because you are mixing ethnics with races.

I see nothing wrong with saying "I'm X ethnic" because it is generally understood that it is synonymous to "I descend from X ancestors." I also can't fathom why it bothers you so much. If I can't say "I'm Irish" should I simply say "I'm American?" Because their is no true "American" culture. American culture is simply a blend of many, may different cultures.

I suppose you prefer I just label myself "generic white dude."

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 10:26 AM
Well already you saying "American" and not "USA" its part of a culture build by the people of USA. And for my are not synonymous, because a Ethnic group is defined through their culture, and not they genetic or blood. If the you don't follow the traditions of that culture, then you are as equally part of it as I am.

Hell, if I could say I belong to a culture just for the heritage then I would belong to: Spanish, Irish, British, Portugal, German and Native. As I don't follow any tradition of those, I can't say I belong to them. And if you see this through all Latin American, you are going to find that more than 80% of the people have this kind of mixes and more. Still people don't call themself "I'm spanish, irish, british, portugal, german, native descendant", because it would be a lie.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
11-10-2011, 11:02 AM
Yeah, I agree with Clockhand here. The sheer number of Americans I have met the world over who when I ask them where they are from they tell me their from Europe. Seriously.

I remember when I travelled through Laos and I met many random people along the way, one of whom was an American who told me one time that everyone in his family was '100% Dutch', I remember there was a Dutch girl with us who started speaking to him in Dutch, and he said 'No I don't speak Dutch. I've never actually been there.' So when asked by what possible metric this guy could call himself 100% Dutch, he said 'Thats my family history, what else am I suppose to call myself?' ...How about American?

I don't think it has anything to do with culteral traditions, I just find it quite sad that most Americans feel the need to define themselves, or differentiate themselves from other Americans, by latching onto the ethnic lineage of their long dead relatives. I don't care if your great-great-great-great grandfather came from Northern Ireland, that doesn't mean we are the 'same people', we have nothing in common. Just call yourself American, jeez.

Blue_Dragon
11-10-2011, 03:07 PM
Based on your definitions alone, I shouldn't call my boyfriend Guatemalan.
He was born in Guatemala. He looks Guatemalan (mostly Quiche/K'iche, but he also looks as though there's some European/Spanish in him.) But he was adopted at the age of two and has the culture of a Midwestern Caucasian family. He doesn't partake in any Guatemalan Traditions, yet he was born there. So by you and Clock's definition (not celebrating or being a part of the nation's tradition,) he has no claim to being Guatemalan. Or if he has a claim, it's just cause he was born there, but he really isn't part of the culture, in-spite of his trying to learn (which is what, in my experience, many people interested in their own background do.)

This is exceedingly insensitive, especially since he feels he doesn't always fits in with his adopted family. Further, even if he was third generation, for him to be proud, and interested in his background, isn't "stupid" or "ratarded." Yeah, the US "Dutch" guy was irritating, because he was being misleading. When asked where you come from on a foreign trip, you say where you're from (personally, you should probably say country and state,) but when asked your ethnic background, to simply say US citizen is wrong, because it was the immigrants who helped to shape and form the country as it is, which is still happening today. I wouldn't take offense if a European was able to trace back what tribe they came from (Goths, Celts, etc,) so I believe it's equally ignorant to judge someone for being interested in their own history and background. To put in the words of Bob Marley: "If you know your history, then you would know where you're coming from. They you wouldn't have to ask me, who the hell do I think I am?"

One's ethnic background is as much a part of them at times as their nationality. It may not be a tradition they practice in their daily lives, but is something which contributed to their existence and where they are in life today. To belittle and insult a person for having an interest in that history and claiming it as their historic/genetic past is very naive and narrow minded in my opinion.


Edit:

Also, just because someone lists their historic ethnicity, doesn't mean they are claiming they are still a part of that current culture. They're just tracking where their people came from originally. That alone evokes the immigrant narrative of different peoples and is often used as a way to try to connect with different nationalities by finding some common ground: no matter how far back that connection runs. As an example, I met two Irish couples at work, and having a Gaelic name, was able to speak with them and find common ground whereas otherwise, we were complete strangers. By creating this dialogue, there was a small thread of trust connecting us, and we were able to move on from there and discuss other topics. Without that initial connection, they may not have opened up to me. Does this work all the time? No, but certainly worked with them, and has worked for me in the past.

This is just an example, and is my no means, something that would happen with everyone. But I used by ethnic history to help strike a conversation with them. And of course, like the Dutch girl, they asked if I'd been to Ireland. No, I hadn't, but I certainly would like to visit the lands of my background (as well as other places) which I expressed to them. And for their part, they appreciated that I showed an interest, since many US citizens are "America, America, America's the greatest!!!!!" and show no interest in the rest of the world.

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Based on your definitions alone, I shouldn't call my boyfriend Guatemalan.
He was born in Guatemala. He looks Guatemalan (mostly Quiche/K'iche, but he also looks as though there's some European/Spanish in him.) But he was adopted at the age of two and has the culture of a Midwestern Caucasian family. He doesn't partake in any Guatemalan Traditions, yet he was born there. So by you and Clock's definition (not celebrating or being a part of the nation's tradition,) he has no claim to being Guatemalan. Or if he has a claim, it's just cause he was born there, but he really isn't part of the culture, in-spite of his trying to learn (which is what, in my experience, many people interested in their own background do.)

Nationality is different than Ethnic. If he born in there, he is Guatemalan by birth, but he doesn't share anything related to their culture, so he can't be identify as be part of them. He is by culture from USA.


This is exceedingly insensitive, especially since he feels he doesn't always fits in with his adopted family.

Obviously that happens. That is the big reason why every adoption agency is so protective with adopting kids from different nations, its because of the "cultural" gap between those that the kids can feel alienated from their new home.


Further, even if he was third generation, for him to be proud, and interested in his background, isn't "stupid" or "ratarded." Yeah, the US "Dutch" guy was irritating, because he was being misleading. When asked where you come from on a foreign trip, you say where you're from (personally, you should probably say country and state,) but when asked your ethnic background, to simply say US citizen is wrong, because it was the immigrants who helped to shape and form the country as it is, which is still happening today.

Immigrants, like in all America (america the continent). And its wrong to call yourself something you are not. Ethnic is defined by languange, religion, culture and reality, if you don't share those with the people you are getting involve, then you don't belong. This is like calling myself Irish, and I can only say that I had a ancestor who was Irish (probably Immigrant), but who cares? I'm just a generic white kid.

Also Immigrants were, natives become. Our ancestors were immigrants, we are not, we have developed a culture way different from theirs. This is why USA people call them self "americans".



I wouldn't take offense if a European was able to trace back what tribe they came from (Goths, Celts, etc,) so I believe it's equally ignorant to judge someone for being interested in their own history and background. To put in the words of Bob Marley: "If you know your history, then you would know where you're coming from. They you wouldn't have to ask me, who the hell do I think I am?"

It's not my history, its the history of my ancestors, that is the difference. I'm not Irish, they were. I'm not german, they were. What if I track my ancestor and I found one of those were a tribe that was forgotten, could I call myself of that tribe and give it birth again? I'm not, I wasn't and I'm not going to be Irish, my ancestor was, I wasn't.

And if people ask you were you come from, you just say your nation.


Also, watch the new south park episode and you will understand my point.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-10-2011, 03:57 PM
Just call yourself American, jeez.

This doesn't work. Only the indigenous can actually say this. He may have been an American, in that he was born in America, but ethnically speaking, he isn't. It was a stupid way to introduce himself, yes, but did he actually say he was from the Netherlands, or just that he was 100% Dutch? If it's the latter, your argument is sort of ridiculous.

Also, where do you draw the line? My dad's parents were immigrants from Italy, my dad is 100% Italian (and he has a sibling who was born in Italy), and I am 50% Italian (ethnically speaking). My dad's side of the family still is very Italian, they make traditional food, and many of us still have Italian names (I have a cousin named Mario Luigi, I shit you not). Not to mention the fact I still have many "aunts" and "uncles" (actual relationship being closer to great aunts or whatever) who are immigrants themselves that I see regularly. So, yeah, it may be silly to say I'm Italian, but I see no problem with saying I'm Italian-American. If I marry someone who is mostly Italian, and we keep doing Italian things (I'm naming my son Giovanni dammit), is he an Italian-American? What about his kid?


He is by culture from USA.
You know what's interesting, that we have no word for this. Culturally works I suppose, but it doesn't feel right.

And your ancestors history is your own.

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 04:02 PM
And your ancestors history is your own.

Watch south park new episode, in there you will see the both extremes I dislike (the ones that makes history their own, the ones they alienate them self of history).

Bacon_Barbarian
11-10-2011, 04:06 PM
Watch south park new episode, in there you will see the both extremes I dislike (the ones that makes history their own, the ones they alienate them self of history).

Man, I don't like South Park, it's too crude ... Can't you explain it.

Blue_Dragon
11-10-2011, 04:10 PM
@ cCock's argument, I'm too slow and other posts already put in *sigh*


But that is still a part of you, and on some level genetically its a part of you. You may not be that culture now, but it had a impact on who you are and how you got to where you are. Yes, it is part of your history; not just their history. With your reasoning, I should say "Although I'm a citizen of the US, the Civil War is not part of my history, because I didn't live it. It had no effect on me, because I didn't personally experience it." And yet, here we are in the modern day, still living with the repercussions of Reconstruction and later the Jim Crow laws. Obviously, this history doesn't go back as far as some people can trace their lineage, but to say that's not part of your history is wrong, because you are a product of your ancestor's history to some degree. Had they not come here long ago, then you as an individual would not be here.

And although I do agree with your statement "immigrants were, native become," it doesn't mean their background has no effect on their descendants. My Grandmother's children are all US citizens, and so are their children, but they still enjoy a lot of the ethnic foods Grandma cooks, and they still take an interest in what life was like for her in the Philippines. They may not do bamboo dance (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/298677919_4f5975c963.jpg), but they have an appreciation for where their mother comes from. And her history is directly intertwined with their history.

Bottom line is, people are far to interested in minding everyone else's business. If someone wants to say what their lineage is and try to form some connection with their ancestry, then who is someone else to tell them they're an idiot? This is counter productive in teaching acceptance and diversity. Sometimes, it's that belief in connection which pushes someone to learn about another culture. If we only have an interest in our current culture, then we won't care about how we affect another, which is the problem with the US right now: "Because it's not our culture, it's okay to disrespect others." And just because someone says what their ethnic history is, doesn't mean they're saying automatically "I'm a part of that culture." To assume so, would be a wrong assumption. Most people know they're not part of said culture, just because they're of their ethnicity. But they still have a right to share an interest in the culture, and claim the ethnicity.


Last edit: Bacon has a point about where you draw the line. And Clock has a point about extremes. But extreme cases are just that: extreme. And extremes can always be annoying, because there is such thing as "too much of a good thing." You can't base a whole concept on just the extremists.

I have to get ready for work, so if I don't respond, I'm not admitting defeat!!!! But I know how fast subjects change in these threads, so this will probably be the last word I get on it, unless things move slow (which doesn't look like they are.)

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 04:51 PM
You can't alienate yourself of history, but neither do it for yourself. When you say "I'm half irish" or "I'm 1/4 indigenous" you are appropriating yourself of history because you are using it to identify you (and is not the whole history, you are using the things you want). But when you say "I'm from USA", its mean, you are not picking just what you want from history, that you are part of the good, the bad, what you want and what you don't want. And also saying "I have Irish heritage" is not enough, because history is more complex than that, your culture is more complex than that, and if people in USA have problems to identify their own culture, then that its their culture, not the "I have Irish ancestors", that is not, because you are a new generation, you deal new problems and your reality is new.

Italians have a strong heritage which is obviously looked through food, but your reality as Italian descendant is way different than a Italian who lives there. You are not Italian, not because you didn't born there, its because you don't live their reality, their social and political problems, their ethic, and even their food (and man they love their food), and if you travel now to Italy you will see that is a different world that what you live, and even if your parents and grandparents do they will see its different as it use to be. It's in the moment of the departure that you start to introduce yourself in a new culture.

And this is the big deal of the first immigrants, they don't have history for them self. They are starting a new history and soon they will just become another generic white guy.


Also, the civil war is a great example of this, for Bacon's dad this doesn't mean anything, for someone who have lived longer in USA it does make noise to his ears. And maybe for Bacon doesn't mean anything either, but then we all get ate by the context we lived, and so we become another generic white kid.


And to stand my first point of this discussion, I hate people who use Ethnic background as some kind of race or genetic background.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-10-2011, 05:18 PM
Italians have a strong heritage which is obviously looked through food, but your reality as Italian descendant is way different than a Italian who lives there. You are not Italian, not because you didn't born there, its because you don't live their reality, their social and political problems, their ethic, and even their food (and man they love their food), and if you travel now to Italy you will see that is a different world that what you live, and even if your parents and grandparents do they will see its different as it use to be. It's in the moment of the departure that you start to introduce yourself in a new culture.


Wait, wait, wait. I think I see where you're going with this, and I'll admit, it's not necessarily a step in the wrong directions, but two things.

1): I never actually said I'm Italian. I said I'm Italian-American. Which is different. The whole "Hyphenated American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American)" thing is actually very interesting. I know some people don't take it all that seriously, but I do think that Italian-Americans definitely place more of an emphasis on lineage and heritage then others groups might.

2): Are you saying that my grandparents aren't Italian because Italy has changed since they left? I don't think you are, but I'm confused by the way you worded yourself. But if you are ... wut.

Peteman
11-10-2011, 06:50 PM
Sort of getting this post back onto the original topic, CypressDahlia what differences exactly did you have in mind, that people should be more understanding of?

Fenn
11-10-2011, 08:00 PM
Correction: Clock is right, it's USA, not American. Sorry 'bout that.

I think the problem si the asker thinking one thing and the responder thinking another. Clock, let's say we just met and you ask me, "Where are you from?" This can mean multiple things:

- Where is your country of origin?
- Where is your family from?
- Where did you just come here from?

If you ask me, "What is your ethnicity?" that also means different things to different people, whether you agree with their meaning or not:

- What culture are you a part of?
- What country do you trace your anscestry to?

Most USA citizens consider interpret the latter response to the second question out of habit. It's really a problem of interpretation and communication error. It pisses you off that Americans interpret it differently, but is this really worth it? Do you seriously hate these people for it? I prefer to save my hate for actions that deserve it.

ONCE AGAIN, IT COMES DOWN TO SEMANTICS. I FREAKING HATE SEMANTICS! :cat_what:

(not anyone in particular, just semantics itself)

ClockHand
11-10-2011, 08:30 PM
Bacon@

1) Ok, mister italian-american (Italian-USA person). Yeah I think that would be more accurate, specially because, as I said, your reality is different from someone who live in Italy.

2) No, they are. But most probably Italy wouldn't look like it use to be anymore.

Fen@

Fenn, if you ask me "Where are you from" I look to the context first. If I'm a foreigner I will tell you my nationality, but if not, I will tell you where I live. I don't see how that question is related to "Where your family come from?", I really don't.

And if people ask about the ethnicity, in my case I would say "Quiltro" (or Kiltro), which answer as the both questions you are making (ancestors and culture). The deal is that most Chileans relate them selfs as Quiltros, which is a concept created by the big ethnic mixture our ancestors lived.

Quiltro is a dirty (commonly ill) street dog that is a mix of many races, a Mongrel.

Probably part of my "hate" to this people is because I don't see the heritage as something separated that my common culture. I see myself as a Quiltro, and I see any other Chilean as a Quiltro to, for us our culture is already stained by our ancestors in the mean of how do we feel, so we don't have the need to relate ourself in stuffs like irish, german, indigenous, and so on. We already accept that we are a mix of things and that is our culture (what makes most Chileans equals).

We feel that related to that, that some people have done this:

http://www.cooperativa.cl/prontus_nots/site/artic/20070815/imag/FOTO_200220070815120535.jpg
A Quiltro and a Dove.

Blue_Dragon
11-10-2011, 09:02 PM
We're not using our ancestry to separate ourselves, we're using it to connect. When we have ethnic festivals, International festivals, and other events where all the tents are side by side. The same stage where polka dancers perform is the same as where the bag pipers, the reggae groups, and the Indian (East Indian) dancers perform. By embracing our different backgrounds, we connect because we acknowledge that although we have multiple differences, we also share a common struggle in our beginning here in the states. Some of us had our ancestors come here in the 1500s, others came last year. But by celebrating this heritage, we draw a line to one another and say "hey, we're different, but we share similarities." In addition, we use these events to learn more about each other, and about other cultures around the world.

We don't have a single word for "US Citizen" besides "American" (which I know is wrong.) Maybe you're right, we should, but we don't. It doesn't mean we can't relate to one another just because we don't have a separate word to call all US citizens (we need to find one, though, cause I'm getting sick of typing that damn phrase out.)

And like Fen says, even if you don't draw a correlation between the different meanings of the question, most people I know would think the same thing, and (as you were saying) answer according to context. Believe it or not, I've had people as me where am I from in context to my ethnic background.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-10-2011, 09:46 PM
Stuff

Alright, we cool then.

@Blue Dragon: Even if using American as the word for USA is wrong as far as nationality goes (which it is), it's still technically correct. :?

Fenn
11-10-2011, 10:07 PM
Clock, I don't hear "Where are you from" as "what is your ethnicity" either. I don't think most people do. My point was it was a case of miscommunication, and if he WAS trying to claim he's as Dutch as someone from Holland, he's making a silly mistake. I don't know how common it is. But most people in the States equate ethnicity with anscestry rather than culture.

And US Americans don't have a unified culture to fall back on, because just about everyone came here with their own traditions and customs. So if ethnicity is defined by culture rather than heritage, my ethnic food is McDonalds and my ethnic music is US Pop. That sucks.

Peteman
11-10-2011, 10:20 PM
Culture is more complicated than that. Given that the US is rather big with lots of diverse people there will still be culturely based ways of seeing things unique to the US, deeper than Mc Donalds and pop music.

Blue_Dragon
11-10-2011, 11:29 PM
Alright, we cool then.

@Blue Dragon: Even if using American as the word for USA is wrong as far as nationality goes (which it is), it's still technically correct. :?

Well yeah, it's technically correct. But I was saying, because most people *ahem ahem* get picky when you're asked this question, one should probably just say "North America" or "USA" so you don't get accused of excluding Mexico and Canada. That's all I was saying. Most likely, if asked, I'd say "American," but know that I wasn't referring to the specific America (South, Central, or North) I was from, nor the country. To honest, though you'd think it'd be obviously if you're hearing the person, since we have accents (but uh...I guess some people from Wisconsin might sound Canadian...since they're so close.)

Edit:

I don't think he literally meant just McDonald's and Pop. It's a joke :P (right?)

Oh! Speaking of culture, this is a great thing that, since we're on the subject, shows some of our culture. You might check it out (it's more diverse than just Pop music :P)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i37ZsSPCNks

Sylux
11-12-2011, 01:34 AM
Clock, I don't hear "Where are you from" as "what is your ethnicity" either. I don't think most people do. My point was it was a case of miscommunication, and if he WAS trying to claim he's as Dutch as someone from Holland, he's making a silly mistake. I don't know how common it is. But most people in the States equate ethnicity with anscestry rather than culture.

And US Americans don't have a unified culture to fall back on, because just about everyone came here with their own traditions and customs. So if ethnicity is defined by culture rather than heritage, my ethnic food is McDonalds and my ethnic music is US Pop. That sucks.
No your ethnic food is corn and your ethnic music is pipe flute tunes

Celestial-Fox
11-13-2011, 07:01 AM
Or, Lolaskans have the native food of whale blubber and drummed storytelling music.

I think that might be part of the problem--the US is too big to have a unified culture. Since it came and was all imperialist in everyone's faces not all at once, states like Alaska and Hawaii are extremely culturally detached. . . . That, and their locations don't help either.



Oh, and Fenn, sociologically:
Race = social construction of a group of people more or less unified by phenotype and/or genetic ancestry. This is generally imposed by other people (what you look like or are categorized by the government as).
Ethnicity = social construction of someone's culture; nationality tends to fall into this category. The individual self-identifies their ethnicity, unlike race, which is usually imposed.

So, racially I am black (though I am half-white, too--there is a massive amount of erasure in racial categorization); ethnically I am white States-American. It's a weird thought because I look like I'm black/Mexican/Polynesian/whatever the heck else people have tried to peg me as, but my white ethnicity is just a lifestyle, also affected by my chosen dialect (for instance, I don't understand and cannot speak in AAVE). You're right, though; there's a problem in arguing these things because very few people are educated in the differences between the two and use them interchangeably.

(Woo, I just wrote an exam paper for university on that--racial vs ethnic identities in Eurasian Britons.)

CypressDahlia
11-13-2011, 08:43 AM
You're right, though; there's a problem in arguing these things because very few people are educated in the differences between the two and use them interchangeably.

Exactly. And not talking about it at all isn't going to improve that any time soon.

Black_Shaggie
11-16-2011, 01:51 PM
Yes! (@Celestial_Fox & Cype)

I've been watching & waiting for folks to stop arguing about the 'shocking' question that Cypress had posed & honestly discuss a way of improving the lack of knowledge about race in general. Of course we're all different. This is obvious & apparent as the nose on any of our faces. The only thing that we as humans share is that very thing: our humanity. I believe that that thing (humanity) is the ability to potentially overcome any adversity that may stand in our way for success &, in this we're potentially the same. But that's not important to what I have to say on this subject of why race education fails.

I used to use phrases like, "We're ll the same..." or "people given the same opportunity..." even "Race X in Country Y has national or ethnic identity...blah...blah."

But I was misinformed. It's not a racist thing to acknowledge the differences among your fellow man or woman, nor is wrong to hold the diverse family of humanity to what they (personally) may be capable or incapable of. What I think happens...& this is wrong...is the generalizations based off of what one thinks of another race, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation...or whatever. One 'bad apple' doesn't spoil the bunch. I feel that people need to be educated to think in a way that teaches them not to judge an entire (I may be using the wrong word here...) demographic, but judge each human individually for their strengths and or weaknesses.

This way the people won't get upset if a black man (let's call him Norm) of average intelligence but above average strength is chosen to perform a labor heavy task while an white man (we'll call him Tyrone) of above average intelligence is chosen for a more problem solving sort of task. Why because they'll know that Norm wasn't passed over for the 'brainy' job because of skin color. It was because Norm personally wasn't as smart as Tyrone.

That's all I have to say & I'm sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has.

Sylux
11-16-2011, 04:36 PM
Uh I've never met a white guy named Tyrone

GunZet
11-16-2011, 04:49 PM
They exist.

Sylux
11-16-2011, 04:55 PM
I don't think I will will ever meet a white guy named Tyrone, just like I don't think I will ever meet a black guy named Johann, it's just one of those names

Celestial-Fox
11-17-2011, 01:19 AM
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there is quite the African population in Europe. I'm sure black Johanns exist too. :|

ALSO. Greatest website in the universe:
http://arewhitepeopleraciallyoppressed.com/

corastaur
11-17-2011, 02:14 AM
Ok that was absolutely hilarious! That is now one of my top favorite websites! And yeah there probably is a black Johann somewhere in the world...

Theres this really cool effect that gives me a little hope in the future of race education. I'm volunteering in a lab that is working on an experiment testing something similar to this, but basically people were shown members of multiple multiracial groups. They were then told that they would be assigned to one of these groups and that later they would work on some memory task with them. The cool thing was that when they were asked to evaluate the members of the different groups, people showed ingroup bias (they favored members of their own group) regardless of racial statuses. Basically they dropped any of their pre-existing racial biases because they were in a group with these people.

I thought this was pretty cool, I dont know what do you think? Does it apply?

Black_Shaggie
11-17-2011, 11:53 AM
lol @ Sylux:

I transposed those names on purpose & all anyone could think about was that they've never heard of white guy named Tyrone or a black dude named Johann. Except CF. See, this is the shit that get's things all fucked up and warped out of perspective. Why in hell would a white guy named Tyrone be the only thing that you wanted to reply about from my post dude? I mean, even if you didn't agree with what I posted, is that all you have to say is: "I don't know any white guys named Tyrone?" I wouldn't call that racist, but it sure makes you (& just you) pretty fucking stupid for the comment alone.

You just became a prime example of why people are in dire need of race education & why it fails so miserably. People want to be racist on some level. It makes them feel better about themselves on some pathetic level to down play another person's race, heritage or nationality & this dick head just proved it.

Or maybe you just like acting ignorant, is that it?

GunZet
11-17-2011, 12:15 PM
For the longest time, before I knew the world. I didn't think British, or European black people existed... Until I saw Harry Potter some years ago, lol.

Black_Shaggie
11-17-2011, 12:30 PM
For the longest time, before I knew the world. I didn't think British, or European black people existed... Until I saw Harry Potter some years ago, lol.

lol What did you think? Black people were only brought from Africa to the Americas? Seriously? I think things like this happen because (like corastaur was mentioning in that experiment) most racial, ethnic & cultural groups tend to stay together. Only when an individual that's from one group finds themselves in a situation where they are either the minority or, one among a multitude of representatives of different groups do they then start trying to learn about or understand these different groups. I won't say that this is the only time, but usually seems fair. That's why people aren't aware of the history of a certain race or ethnic group's population making up a part of the nationality that's comprised mostly of another race.

This is the stuff Cypress Dhalia's trying to get folks thinking about. This is racial miseducation. I don't fault anybody for it, but if we would at least try to change our thought processes on these issues, people would have a better understanding (& respect) for one another.

GunZet
11-17-2011, 12:38 PM
lol What did you think? Black people were only brought from Africa to the Americas? Seriously?
That's exactly what I thought. From the ages 0 to 12.
Reason I posted that is I just wanted to see if you'd consider age as a factor. Nope. I'm also black if you didn't know, and that's what we were taught back in the 90's; black people came from Africa. It was shoved down our throats, even getting higher up in the grades, it was always Africa=black, so I never knew until I started exploring on my own. It's not as strong of an ignorance as you'd like it to be.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 12:52 PM
That's exactly what I thought. From the ages 0 to 12.
Reason I posted that is I just wanted to see if you'd consider age as a factor. Nope. I'm also black if you didn't know, and that's what we were taught back in the 90's; black people came from Africa. It was shoved down our throats, even getting higher up in the grades, it was always Africa=black, so I never knew until I started exploring on my own. It's not as strong of an ignorance as you'd like it to be.

No one born knowing. At the age of 2 to 9 I though elfs were real and dinosaurs live in my backyard, and I neither knew who was hitler or anything.

You can be black and be uneducated about racial subjects. LOL.

Funny thing, Africa also have muslims and others. But yeah there is a misconception that in Africa only black people lives (when there are white people, mostly from french and british colonies).

Black_Shaggie
11-17-2011, 12:54 PM
Whoa! Ease up there GunZet! I hope the tone of my last post didn't imply that you were ignorant at all. The only ignorant person here is that Sylux cat in my book. No, the rest of what I said still stands but wasn't directed at you dude. I too a'm black & schooled in the 80s & 90s. Not only was Black=Africa crammed down my throat, but my Dad's 'black nationalism too'.

Like you, I explored the parameters of my ancestry & discovered that we're all didn't originate from Africa, & that opened so many door for me. But until I did go down that road, I was as oblivious as anyone else to the truth.

That's the ignorance I'm speaking of & if more folks (of any group) would be open to understanding their own ancestry & others as well shit would be really great in my book.

No dude I wasn't trying to blast you with my cynical point of view. I wish more people would wake the fuck up, stop being sheep & figure out shit they want to know for themselves is all.

Celestial-Fox
11-17-2011, 12:56 PM
Also interesting, Clock: Most Arab-Americans are not Muslim; they are Christian.
Most muslims in the US, in fact, are black. So the mainstream, bigoted, stereotypical idea of a terrorist is completely skewed, and claims of "racial profiling for safety" are absolutely invalid.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 01:02 PM
I have no idea how to say muslim without religion in english. So lol.

Most Koreans in here are christians. Race is not related to fate any more. Everything is thanks to the internet (well the globalization, but the internet helps a lot).

Celestial-Fox
11-17-2011, 01:03 PM
I'm unsure of the correct term, but "middle Eastern," perhaps?

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Yeah, that might be good, but if they are from Africa it would be wrong.

GunZet
11-17-2011, 01:06 PM
Whoa! Ease up there GunZet! I hope the tone of my last post didn't imply that you were ignorant at all. The only ignorant person here is that Sylux cat in my book. No, the rest of what I said still stands but wasn't directed at you dude. I too a'm black & schooled in the 80s & 90s. Not only was Black=Africa crammed down my throat, but my Dad's 'black nationalism too'.

Like you, I explored the parameters of my ancestry & discovered that we're all didn't originate from Africa, & that opened so many door for me. But until I did go down that road, I was as oblivious as anyone else to the truth.

That's the ignorance I'm speaking of & if more folks (of any group) would be open to understanding their own ancestry & others as well shit would be really great in my book.

No dude I wasn't trying to blast you with my cynical point of view. I wish more people would wake the fuck up, stop being sheep & figure out shit they want to know for themselves is all.

I know exactly what you were getting at, it's all good. But like I mentioned in my last little bit "It's not as strong of an ignorance as you'd like it to be.". We're all ignorant with something when it comes to racial identification, nobody knows everything. And just because Sy doesn't think that a certain people are capable of having a certain name, doesn't make him that uber ignorant person you make him out to be. He could have easily said "yea, a white person will NEVER have this name," but I didn't see that anywhere. Sure it was ignorant to a degree, but there was no need for an outright attack. So in his defense, go after the ones who deserve it, being the blatant, and blind racists of any group, and the ones who keep that mindset alive by teaching it.

Thought I'd toss that out there, haha.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 01:11 PM
In Sylux case, he is not ignorant (well he is, but is not a crime), reckless and with poor analysis yes. It's ok to create this assumptions if you have 10 years old, but ones you are growing and you realize this propositions are wrong (and have problems), you start doing better and clever propositions. In this case, he did a proposition of a 10 years old kid without thinking in what was wrong with it.

In social sciences you have to think, most of the time, that everything is possible. Social behaviors are very unpredictables (even if you can do a prediction that its very obvious, it will never give you a 100% of success).

Fenn
11-17-2011, 02:40 PM
Theres this really cool effect that gives me a little hope in the future of race education. I'm volunteering in a lab that is working on an experiment testing something similar to this, but basically people were shown members of multiple multiracial groups. They were then told that they would be assigned to one of these groups and that later they would work on some memory task with them. The cool thing was that when they were asked to evaluate the members of the different groups, people showed ingroup bias (they favored members of their own group) regardless of racial statuses. Basically they dropped any of their pre-existing racial biases because they were in a group with these people.

I thought this was pretty cool, I dont know what do you think? Does it apply?

I'm glad this is true; I thought I'd heard of it before. It is a strong support for using co-operative activities and tasks to break racist mentalities.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 02:58 PM
lol @ Sylux:

I transposed those names on purpose & all anyone could think about was that they've never heard of white guy named Tyrone or a black dude named Johann. Except CF. See, this is the shit that get's things all fucked up and warped out of perspective. Why in hell would a white guy named Tyrone be the only thing that you wanted to reply about from my post dude? I mean, even if you didn't agree with what I posted, is that all you have to say is: "I don't know any white guys named Tyrone?" I wouldn't call that racist, but it sure makes you (& just you) pretty fucking stupid for the comment alone.

You just became a prime example of why people are in dire need of race education & why it fails so miserably. People want to be racist on some level. It makes them feel better about themselves on some pathetic level to down play another person's race, heritage or nationality & this dick head just proved it.

Or maybe you just like acting ignorant, is that it?
Ohp, brotha bear called it, I'm really fucking stupid. It's not like I don't want to sound racist by commenting on racial differences, it's that I'm stupid. It's not like I see that blacks have a leg up socially in Virginia and the North, it's that I'm really fucking stupid. It's not that I can see that a black person can call a white man a cracker and then take his scholarship up just because he's black but a white man can't utter the word nigger without being Jewish as well (which, by the way is another social leg-up: nobody except for arrogant children pretend that being Jewish doesn't mean anything - which they're really right, but they aren't recognizing how it is in mature society), it's that I'm really fucking stupid.

Delphinus
11-17-2011, 05:12 PM
Because cracker is just as bad an insult as nigger. An invented swearword against a dominant group versus "a word with a terrible history of being used to abuse, oppress, and subdue". Is it even possible to insult white men?

Btw affirmative action is not discrimination. Well, it is, but it's better than the alternative, innit?

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 05:21 PM
Because cracker is just as bad an insult as nigger. An invented swearword against a dominant group versus "a word with a terrible history of being used to abuse, oppress, and subdue". Is it even possible to insult white men?

Btw affirmative action is not discrimination. Well, it is, but it's better than the alternative, innit?

For me neither of those are insults.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 05:28 PM
Because cracker is just as bad an insult as nigger. An invented swearword against a dominant group versus "a word with a terrible history of being used to abuse, oppress, and subdue". Is it even possible to insult white men?

Btw affirmative action is not discrimination. Well, it is, but it's better than the alternative, innit?

Um, no? Affirmative action is discrimination: a rich black boy from a successful black family will surely win a scholarship over a middle class white boy with great fucking grades.

Superdooperphailmachine
11-17-2011, 05:32 PM
A rich boy from a successful family is the key part there.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 05:35 PM
Scholarship is the key part there. My point is that it's not even wage-based, it's race-based.

Celestial-Fox
11-17-2011, 06:04 PM
Um, no? Affirmative action is discrimination: a rich black boy from a successful black family will surely win a scholarship over a middle class white boy with great fucking grades.

In the USA, affirmative action is selective discrimination with projected use over a short period of time in order to level a playing field rigged against minorities by whites in the past. The purpose of affirmative action is to one day reach a point where everyone has an equal starting point which currently does not exist in modern society.

Do not rebut this until you watch this.
Yes. It's an investment of time.
But if you are truly interested in the subject and want to have a serious discussion about it, then this is imperative.

Note: This is a Harvard University lecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AUhReMT5uqA

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 06:23 PM
Asians are over-represented in terms of college admissions. Harvard actually admitted to capping its admission rate of Asian American students in attempt to preserve "diversity". What do we call that?

I wouldn't call it racism, obviously, as it has nothing distinctly to do with the fact that they're Asian American. Theoretically, the same thing would happen to any race which exhibited the same behaviors. It's like a negative-edge of racism. Inverse racism, I guess? Considering the effect comes not from racism, but from treasuring diversity too much.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 06:26 PM
Discrimination.

Also is the Asians fault jajajaja.

It's hard, but I don't believe is a race factor what is in game there, its a cultural problem. I believe it goes more to Asian culture (Chinese and Korean) with studies and success than their race.

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 06:30 PM
Dammit you replied while I was editing my post. I hate when that happens. >=O I'M CUTTING BACK THE ADMISSION OF CHILEANS IN THIS THREAD YOU GUYS POST TOO FAST.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 06:32 PM
D=

NooooooooooooooooOOOOOOooooo

ooooooo
o

ok =D

Well culture change, and so new generations of asian-american kids are going to get lazyers and so other demographics are going to get more active (it's a crappy prediction). I don't know, but culture change and so new generations.

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 06:34 PM
So I guess the big question here (and I believe this addresses the issue of Affirmative Action, too) is:

Is the overly deliberate pursuit of diversity harmful? Does it undermine merit?

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 06:42 PM
I believe that the pursuit of diversity is harmful. I can't talk about you guys, but for us there is no racial education or anything like that, and when we see an asian or a black person in our group we have the tendency to be very friendly (extremely friendly).

And some times we face that those groups doesn't want to stay with us, as an example we have a big korean community in here, and even if we are very friendly with them and all that, the true is that they don't see us as the same way, and even more they exclude themself of the group. A example is that they go to different schools, and I'm ok with that, is their education, they should be trying the best to be the best, but the point is that they go to far, they don't want to stay and they see everyone as just a step to go to a different country and make money there.

Its cool about thinking in your future and all that, but when you alienate yourself of the culture and people who is trying to be friendly with you, is kinda of being a dick.

I don't know if I put my point correctly, but its simply that, some times trying to be different without thinking that you live and share with other people (and you don't care about those) is kinda of being a dick.

PD: this might also be a cultural thing for my, that in here we like friendly people, we are friendly and its bad seeing when you are not friendly when we were.

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 07:22 PM
Diversity is just a happy coincidence.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 07:23 PM
Asians are over-represented in terms of college admissions. Harvard actually admitted to capping its admission rate of Asian American students in attempt to preserve "diversity". What do we call that?

I wouldn't call it racism, obviously, as it has nothing distinctly to do with the fact that they're Asian American. Theoretically, the same thing would happen to any race which exhibited the same behaviors. It's like a negative-edge of racism. Inverse racism, I guess? Considering the effect comes not from racism, but from treasuring diversity too much.
That's bloody racism right there. Diversity is a shitty word and nobody knows what it means anymore. How can you preserve something that changes with generations and current events? If no wars are going on and all countries are at peace or have strict border laws containing everybody by penalty of beheading, will we have to "preserve the diversity?" No, we just let them into fucking college.

Fenn
11-17-2011, 07:38 PM
Asians are over-represented in terms of college admissions. Harvard actually admitted to capping its admission rate of Asian American students in attempt to preserve "diversity". What do we call that?

I wouldn't call it racism, obviously, as it has nothing distinctly to do with the fact that they're Asian American. Theoretically, the same thing would happen to any race which exhibited the same behaviors. It's like a negative-edge of racism. Inverse racism, I guess? Considering the effect comes not from racism, but from treasuring diversity too much.

That is racism. The problem with the policy is it promotes diversity of skin tone and nationality over diversity of thought and of talents.

I would have no problem if Harvard, say, capped the number of Math-focused students because they are a liberal arts college and you want kids who excel in a variety of subjects. But capping based on heritage or ethinicity is counter-productive and illogical.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 07:40 PM
I'm glad at least someone around can translate my viking-speak into proper English with manners and all that junk

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 07:46 PM
Yes, but you can't help but feel it's not so much racism as it is a coincidence. Like I said, theoretically that could be any race. It just happens to be that one race that consistently fits that student profile.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 07:47 PM
What the hell is a student profile, he isn't even a student because they won't let him in!

Superdooperphailmachine
11-17-2011, 07:47 PM
Why are they taking race into consideration? Why does it matter?

Sylux
11-17-2011, 07:47 PM
Because they're just a bunch of big, stupid jellyfish!

CypressDahlia
11-17-2011, 07:49 PM
To be honest, it doesn't. Diversity is a coincidence and trying to preserve diversity is silly. But I'm just saying that is not necessarily the effect of racism but rather the effect of over emphasis on diversity.

Sylux
11-17-2011, 07:57 PM
Emphasis on trying to create some kind of horrible balance of different races and ethnicities is just racism, we can't use anything more than simple language here because it's a blatantly obvious crime.

Blue_Dragon
11-17-2011, 10:00 PM
I'm not saying I'm for or against affirmative action, because in my experience, I don't believe it's stopped me from getting a job (everyone's having trouble right now, so I'm not bitching.) I do think, if they really want to give a leg up to minorities, then our government should actually work harder on improving our education systems and schools (especially in poor areas.)

I'm not saying all minorities are poor, but those who are living in a ghetto (which the very name implies poverty in today's language) are often times going to run down schools that don't have proper funding. As a result, their schools can't afford special programs or sometimes even updated text books (my books in 6th grade said "someday man will land on the moon," and I was just going to school in a small town.) A student in a middle to upper class school is going to get more special programs that motivate them to learn and enjoy education more than a student going to a school which cannot afford to provide these programs. Middle to upper class students tend to have a lower drop-out rate than a student going to a poor school, which is where the whole problem begins with even needing affirmative action: students going to the poorer schools, who more often than not tend to be minorities, don't have as fair of a chance from the get go as a student going to a school with more funds.

*A caveat*
This is true for anyone who's poor, not just minorities. So improving education in these poorer schools is going to help people of varying ethnicity, not just "blacks" or "latinos" or however one is going to stereotype the poor. It's just a good idea to help our kids have a better chance at finding a decent job. And I realize there are plenty of "white" students who fall into the same rut in crappy schools. My school was crappy, too (though, even so, it was in far better condition than many of the schools in Springfield. And the tornado wiping out the grade school helped a lot with rebuilding the system. We're actually getting a bit of "diversity" in what was once a very racist, near sundown town. That's a side note.)

But as for Springfield, IL, I have noticed that the middle class students tend to go to the better school and are more likely to find a good/decent career, than those going to the schools in poorer areas (like South East High) often drop out, or don't have a chance to go on to college.

Edit: sorry if my sentence structure is a bit tedious. I'm going on like 3 hours of sleep and probably make no sense. I know I'm wordy, and I need to try to cut back on that. Also, I want to say, I'm not trying to stereotype, so if I am, that was not intentional.

Fenn
11-17-2011, 10:35 PM
To be honest, it doesn't. Diversity is a coincidence and trying to preserve diversity is silly. But I'm just saying that is not necessarily the effect of racism but rather the effect of over emphasis on diversity.

They are discriminating on the basis of ethnicity. AKA racist, or prejudice, or whatever the technical term is. Even if it doesn't have to do with a specific race, as you explained the "coincidence," it's still using the superficial attribute of ethnicity to make the decision.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-17-2011, 10:50 PM
Diversity is weird. I live in a suburb, and my High School has approximately 400 people in it. Approximately 390 of the students are white. And one of the things that really bug me is the racism of the students. Very few of them actually know somebody who is truly different then them, and as such, they are very ignorant. Which is a shame. The non-whites at the school are treated the same as everybody else, by both the faculty and the students ... But, the student body is filled with stereotypes. They also use the n-word a lot, and white people saying that word bugs the ever living shit out of me.

And now, supposedly, our suburban school system is being integrated with the big-city school system to promote diversity. Which is silly. Yeah, it isn't good that my school is nearly completely white, but it's a good school. The school-board of the city is just trying to dump poor performing students on us, both black, white, asian, and purple polka-dotted, so that their system looks better and ours looks worse.

ClockHand
11-17-2011, 11:44 PM
They also use the n-word a lot, and white people saying that word bugs the ever living shit out of me.

I don't understand why the word "nigger" bugs you. Is just a word with a bad connotation, but again, is just a word and as any word it can change the connotation and denotation with time. Obviously if you ban people from use it (and so they can change the meaning) you are just prolonging its bad use and meaning.

Again for my those words mean nothing, sweatback, sandnigger, cracker(?), are just words and It might be because I'm not part of this kind of education about race or this part of the USA's culture, but for me those mean nothing.

Giving a word such power and keeping it as a taboo will just make things worst.



I'm not saying all minorities are poor, but those who are living in a ghetto (which the very name implies poverty in today's language) are often times going to run down schools that don't have proper funding. As a result, their schools can't afford special programs or sometimes even updated text books (my books in 6th grade said "someday man will land on the moon," and I was just going to school in a small town.) A student in a middle to upper class school is going to get more special programs that motivate them to learn and enjoy education more than a student going to a school which cannot afford to provide these programs. Middle to upper class students tend to have a lower drop-out rate than a student going to a poor school, which is where the whole problem begins with even needing affirmative action: students going to the poorer schools, who more often than not tend to be minorities, don't have as fair of a chance from the get go as a student going to a school with more funds.

*A caveat*
This is true for anyone who's poor, not just minorities. So improving education in these poorer schools is going to help people of varying ethnicity, not just "blacks" or "latinos" or however one is going to stereotype the poor. It's just a good idea to help our kids have a better chance at finding a decent job. And I realize there are plenty of "white" students who fall into the same rut in crappy schools. My school was crappy, too (though, even so, it was in far better condition than many of the schools in Springfield. And the tornado wiping out the grade school helped a lot with rebuilding the system. We're actually getting a bit of "diversity" in what was once a very racist, near sundown town. That's a side note.)

But as for Springfield, IL, I have noticed that the middle class students tend to go to the better school and are more likely to find a good/decent career, than those going to the schools in poorer areas (like South East High) often drop out, or don't have a chance to go on to college.

Edit: sorry if my sentence structure is a bit tedious. I'm going on like 3 hours of sleep and probably make no sense. I know I'm wordy, and I need to try to cut back on that. Also, I want to say, I'm not trying to stereotype, so if I am, that was not intentional.

This is completely naive. I agree that education is a big factor to work, but you are over simplifying things. The big problem is the culture around the low social economic class, which in his extreme is attached to violence in almost unfix-able way. When you deal with a problem that is attached to the opportunities a social economic class have to find jobs and to have opportunities, is way more complex than just education. As we know in higher social economic classes names, last names and knowing people are the best way to have a opportunity of a job, while for middle social economic classes they take hard work, creativity and other tools to find a job, I'm not saying one is more hard worker than other, I'm saying that they open their opportunities in different ways. The big problem with low social economic classes is that they have nothing, you can give them education, but as most of these kids grew in unstable homes, and in its extreme, in violent homes the education becomes a source of bigger stress and less important factor for the kids. Even more in aggressive homes (or spaces), the kids start to learn the language of violence and the appropriation of territory which lead to more violence. I remember a kid who live in the lowest social economical class in here, he had 5 and he was asked about what he wishes to become in his future, he answer: I want to be a soccer player or a drug dealer. The answer reflect his culture and way of life, they see both as the only possible ways to success, and if you can achieve one you do the other. Even if to those kids you gave education the sad reality is that you can't change the fact that those are his goals and that he live in a crappy place and no one cares about him.

The big problem of "giving equal opportunities to the different social classes" is complex and dynamic, and can only elaborate bitter answers, even worst machiavellics and aggressive.


If you think education can solve everything, I will ask you to go to a fabela. In Brasil the fabelas are the spaces of the low social economic class, and its reign by kids (between 12 to 18 years old, no one of these live longer) with guns, machine guns and drugs. Education can't do anything against power (the illusion of it) and money.


*The word is in a spoiler; after a long deliberation with Jubeh (my assessor for the use of this USA taboo words, who is not happy with my using it) we got to the conclusion to put it in a spoiler (with no changes) and see how people react. Still all this prove as evidence the weight of the word and how silly it is.

Blue_Dragon
11-18-2011, 12:43 AM
Well, it's a good thing I never once said education was the fix all. In fact, I said " if they really want to give a leg up to minorities, then our government should actually work harder on improving our education systems and schools (especially in poor areas.)"

I also didn't say it was the only problem the poor/poor minorities had. But knowledge can help to empower people to a degree. I stress, "to a degree." If a student who lives in a violent situation is educated and shown there are other ways to solve a problem or dispute, or even to survive, there is a chance they may diverge from a violent life-style.

Anyhow, again, I never said "education is the only answer." That would be putting words into my statement, wouldn't it :) But, education, as you agree, is just a one major player in a larger, more complex problem. I know there's a lot more to it that. I don't speak in absolutes, because to do so is folly.

ClockHand
11-18-2011, 12:49 AM
I also didn't say it was the only problem the poor/poor minorities had. But knowledge can help to empower people to a degree. I stress, "to a degree." If a student who lives in a violent situation is educated and shown there are other ways to solve a problem or dispute, or even to survive, there is a chance they may diverge from a violent life-style.


Yeah, no point in putting words in your mouth (or paragraph), but this is my point. Even if you show a chance, reality shows him something different, and this is why I see education as something worthless if you can't change their reality.

I wasn't saying that education is not the way or that you shouldn't dramatize it. My point is that education is worthless without other changes in the life of the person.

Blue_Dragon
11-18-2011, 12:59 AM
That's true, I can agree with that. You can know everything there is to know about farming, but if you're in the city and have no farmland and no means of obtaining it, or getting a job related, it's not going to help you. (maybe not a good example, but it's what I can think of right now.)

ClockHand
11-18-2011, 01:01 AM
Give a man a fish and he could eat a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat every day.

But if there is no place to fish, everything you taught him was useless.

The same work with jobs.

GunZet
11-18-2011, 02:52 AM
I don't understand why the word "nigger" bugs you. Is just a word with a bad connotation, but again, is just a word and as any word it can change the connotation and denotation with time. Obviously if you ban people from use it (and so they can change the meaning) you are just prolonging its bad use and meaning.

There's a nice long story that spans generations on why people hate that word. Now the modern evolution of it is more accepted among many races, I have no idea why, as it just drops the 'er' at the end.
So nigga please, best check yo shit.

cwutIdidthar?

Celestial-Fox
11-18-2011, 04:19 AM
Um, Clock, your nonexistent problem with that word stems from the fact that it's never been used to oppress you.

Let's just say when I started first grade at five years old there was a group of people that wouldn't play with me on the playground because I was black.

Let's just say just this year on vacation in Florida a different group of people tried to pull that word on me as some horrifically bigoted punchline and I had to leave the area and go back into the hotel.

You've no jurisdiction over whether the word is okay or not to use because, a) it will never affect you, and; b) there's a conflict of cultural understanding.

CypressDahlia
11-18-2011, 08:00 AM
They are discriminating on the basis of ethnicity. AKA racist, or prejudice, or whatever the technical term is. Even if it doesn't have to do with a specific race, as you explained the "coincidence," it's still using the superficial attribute of ethnicity to make the decision.

Yes, but the fundamental concept behind racism and diversity are different. Racism is done in spite of a specific race, whereas this kind of coddling of minorities is done in favor of them. So the reason they did this is not because they hate Asians or something, but because they particularly value lower class minorities. You see how that's different, right? It's not a hateful thing, but rather the double-edge of an overzealous thing.

So it's a lot more complicated than saying "it's racist, and it has to stop" because there is definitely an achievement gap between races that can't be remedied with topical solutions. Yet "fixing" things like poverty, thug mentality, gangs and such is a goal that might never be realized. Poverty, in a bottomless capitalist society, will always exist and the others are so inextricably woven in inner city culture that, without either direct censorship or reeducation, there is no way to cut those ties.

So how do we promote the success of youth stuck in the quagmire of inner city life without robbing others'? The goal is to make diversity self-evident. By that, I mean have a country in which all races are represented equally in school admissions, business ownership, etc. based on merit alone. But we might never get there due to how deeply ingrown the core issues are. So it's a dilemma.

GunZet
11-18-2011, 08:05 AM
Give and take, that's basically what it boils down to. Or maybe I should say sacrifice and receive or something *shrugs*

Fenn
11-18-2011, 10:03 AM
Um, Clock, your nonexistent problem with that word stems from the fact that it's never been used to oppress you.

Let's just say when I started first grade at five years old there was a group of people that wouldn't play with me on the playground because I was black.

Let's just say just this year on vacation in Florida a different group of people tried to pull that word on me as some horrifically bigoted punchline and I had to leave the area and go back into the hotel.

You've no jurisdiction over whether the word is okay or not to use because, a) it will never affect you, and; b) there's a conflict of cultural understanding.

Celestial-Fox, I sympathize (although I do not empathize since, like with Clock it's never been used against me) with your story. But the fact is I don't think the word itself is the problem.

If they didn't insult you with the n-word, they could have just used or invented some other word to mean "worthless black person." Fact is, whoever those people were, they were viscious racists. The word itself isn't the problem--it's people's intention when they use it. I'm gonna take a guess you aren't insulted when a black comedien uses the word affectionately during his stand-up routine, although I can't speak for you. Most people aren't offended, though, because they no he isn't trying to insult anyone with it.

In a world where using the n-word, the c-word (for Chinese people), etc. have no power to offend anyone, racists quickly lose power.

CypressDahlia
11-18-2011, 10:50 AM
You don't have to say c-word rofl. Just say chink. I mean, part of the reason we're still so offended by it is because we treat it as such a taboo. Desensitization works, man.

ClockHand
11-18-2011, 12:31 PM
Um, Clock, your nonexistent problem with that word stems from the fact that it's never been used to oppress you.

Also because the word doesn't exist here.


Let's just say when I started first grade at five years old there was a group of people that wouldn't play with me on the playground because I was black.

Let's just say just this year on vacation in Florida a different group of people tried to pull that word on me as some horrifically bigoted punchline and I had to leave the area and go back into the hotel.

Wow, there are persons that would use a word with such power to hurt other? Obvious, if you give a word such a power obviously the bad intentionated ones are going to use it to hurt others. There are assholes, racist, xenophobic, and more in the world, and they don't give the power to those words, we all give the power, we are all guiltier for making the word a taboo and giving power. This people only use it knowing its power to hurt others.


You've no jurisdiction over whether the word is okay or not to use because, a) it will never affect you, and; b) there's a conflict of cultural understanding.

I completely disagree with you. I do not have jurisdiction over the word or any word, but we all are guiltier, WE. Even if you say "this word oppress black people" I have news for you, the words is used and can be used by everyone, everyone is connected through dialogue so everyone is guilty for the power the word have. I have no jurisdiction, I don't even live in USA, the word in here doesn't even exist until Internet become mainstream, it doesn't affect me, but the true is, the word has been learn, the word still have power and if the word is still a taboo the biggest the power is going to have, specially for the people who want to hurt others.

Words can change if you give them a chance, I have seen that million of times, but if you let it as a taboo the word will remain forever with that meaning and people are going to use it any way, specially if it can hurt others.

Fenn
11-18-2011, 01:40 PM
Also because the word doesn't exist here.



Wow, there are persons that would use a word with such power to hurt other? Obvious, if you give a word such a power obviously the bad intentionated ones are going to use it to hurt others. There are assholes, racist, xenophobic, and more in the world, and they don't give the power to those words, we all give the power, we are all guiltier for making the word a taboo and giving power. This people only use it knowing its power to hurt others.



I completely disagree with you. I do not have jurisdiction over the word or any word, but we all are guiltier, WE. Even if you say "this word oppress black people" I have news for you, the words is used and can be used by everyone, everyone is connected through dialogue so everyone is guilty for the power the word have. I have no jurisdiction, I don't even live in USA, the word in here doesn't even exist until Internet become mainstream, it doesn't affect me, but the true is, the word has been learn, the word still have power and if the word is still a taboo the biggest the power is going to have, specially for the people who want to hurt others.

Words can change if you give them a chance, I have seen that million of times, but if you let it as a taboo the word will remain forever with that meaning and people are going to use it any way, specially if it can hurt others.

I'm very on board with the idea that the speaker does not give power to words, the listener does.

C-F, I hope you don't take us as being insensitive.

GunZet
11-18-2011, 02:05 PM
When it comes to racial slurs, you really almost have to be a part of that culture, and know the background of that word to understand where the power comes from. It's both in part of the listener and the speaker, moreso the listener, since if you know what the word is supposed to mean, and the story behind it, that's where part of the power comes from. Wheres the other side of the power comes from the intentions of the speaker.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-18-2011, 03:37 PM
I don't understand why the word "nigger" bugs you. Is just a word with a bad connotation, but again, is just a word and as any word it can change the connotation and denotation with time. Obviously if you ban people from use it (and so they can change the meaning) you are just prolonging its bad use and meaning.
This would imply it ever had a positive meaning. I mean, it's alright if African Americans say it. Or if a Chinese person refers to himself and his Chinese friends as chinks ... Racial slurs are just odd. Same goes for dego or what have you.


Again for my those words mean nothing, sweatback, sandnigger, cracker(?), are just words and It might be because I'm not part of this kind of education about race or this part of the USA's culture, but for me those mean nothing.
I've never even heard those first two.


Giving a word such power and keeping it as a taboo will just make things worst.
It's like people using the word faggot. The word should be dropped entirely. And as long people think it's funny, it won't be.

Fenn
11-18-2011, 04:30 PM
How much physical effort does it take to use a racial slur? A single breath? A small bit of oxygen, and a few muscle contractions? And yet that one word can cause great emotional harm because people take it that way.

It's the same with all insults. I'm not saying people are not justified in becoming gravely upset at insults, but really it doesn't help the cause to become so. When words lose their power to hurt, racists are SCREWED because the only way to hurt someone is through action, and as we know, actions speak far louder than words. The racist is forced to expose themself unmistakebly for what they are, rather than cowering behind their words and making the victim look the fool.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-18-2011, 04:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah. Stick and Stones isn't true.

Delphinus
11-18-2011, 05:06 PM
If you're not an apathetic robot words can hurt you.

Being an apathetic robot is good, though, because you give more money to corporations and giving money to corporations makes you beautiful and talented and special.

Celestial-Fox
11-18-2011, 05:58 PM
Fenn: Being as "wordy" as you think you are, it's kinda hilarious that you think that words don't have meaning within the speaker-listener dialectic. That's the point of words-- they mean something. Otherwise it's just an obnoxious noise or sequence of shapes. Also, don't you find it curious that Gunz and I are trying to tell you that, "Hey, you're really just a privileged, uneducated bigot" and you're just not getting it?


When it comes to racial slurs, you really almost have to be a part of that culture, and know the background of that word to understand where the power comes from. It's both in part of the listener and the speaker, moreso the listener, since if you know what the word is supposed to mean, and the story behind it, that's where part of the power comes from. Wheres the other side of the power comes from the intentions of the speaker.
Gunz is right. Someone from a different background cannot and does not have place to reclaim a word. Additionally, Cype's argument with "chink" (ugh) is the way it is because of the successful (though not complete) reclamation of the word, something that has not been more than slightly accomplished with the n-word, or whatever the heck you want to call it.

Whoops, Jay-Z's got something to say about that ... so does Oprah (http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Jay-Z-on-the-N-word-Video)

Let's just say I'm between them.

Oprah: Words have power from past actions
Jay-Z: Oppressive words need to be reclaimed

--BUT, and I cannot emphasize this enough--because of the power and oppression assigned to words, some people cannot reclaim them. It's not their job, nor within their privileged hegemonic cultural right.


I'm gonna take a guess you aren't insulted when a black comedien uses the word affectionately during his stand-up routine, although I can't speak for you. Most people aren't offended, though, because they no he isn't trying to insult anyone with it.
Lol, I hate "black comedy." It's utter garbage.


I hope you don't take us as being insensitive.
Additionally, if you have to use that comment, usually you are being slightly so. It's like prefacing a statement with "no offense." Furthermore, I refuse to to apologize for the feelings I have for being attacked over an aspect of my physical identity that I wish I could hide because it changes my social interactions in a way I don't appreciate. I've even had a boyfriend who would talk about my race nonstop and it bothered me because people are not colors.

If you ever have to use that word, you're doing something entirely wrong.
Get with it.

CypressDahlia
11-18-2011, 07:40 PM
It's a long process but I think we all want the same thing. We want for the word to die one way or another. But desensitization is the most healing way to go about it. Just like how one who conquers their fears can one day look them in the eye without as much as a shudder. Hopefully we can deal with slurs in a similar way.

I've rationalized "chink" and "gook" and "chinaman" to the point where they don't affect me. The only time I'll get upset over it is if I can tell you're deliberately trying to dig into me, at which point I'm just mad cuz you're trying. The idea of desensitization is not to prove your mettle to others. If you're still offended, there's no shame in saying it because obviously that means the process is not working as well as it should be. Maybe we need to slow down, or even rewind. But the intended result is for every race to be able to face their respective slurs and strip them of all their power.

I see that a large part of the problem draws from the fact that people are taking on the grievances of their ancestors. And, though it is important to appreciate and understand the struggles of our ancestors, we can't forget that the reason they struggled so hard is so that, in this day and age, we would not have to shoulder the same burdens that they did. The best thing we can do is take advantage of that. Move forward. I understand the struggles of my parents and my people as a whole. But it is that understanding that allows me to move forward. And also, the prospect that, if my forward thinking does reap success, I can give back to the people who couldn't or hadn't moved forward themselves.

I mean, there is no fixing what's been done in the past. And letting those events hold you back and put you down in emotional shackles is just another form of self-oppression. Slavery and racism are both artifacts of darker days. And, like all old things, they have begun to wither away. All we have left to do is to liberate our minds.

Fenn
11-18-2011, 08:35 PM
Fenn: Being as "wordy" as you think you are, it's kinda hilarious that you think that words don't have meaning within the speaker-listener dialectic. That's the point of words-- they mean something. Otherwise it's just an obnoxious noise or sequence of shapes.

I definitely didn't express my point well at all if you think this is what you meant. Damn my wordiness.


Also, don't you find it curious that Gunz and I are trying to tell you that, "Hey, you're really just a privileged, uneducated bigot" and you're just not getting it?

God I wish I had any way to refute that, but it's too accurate. I'm completely separated from this situation. I AM priveleged, and I am uneducated. Maybe I'm even a bigot and don't realize it. But I care about the situation, I want it to stop. SO WHAT THE F*** AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? WHAT THE F*** DO YOU WANT ME TO DO? TO SAY? HONESTLY I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. I JUST WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.


Gunz is right. Someone from a different background cannot and does not have place to reclaim a word. Additionally, Cype's argument with "chink" (ugh) is the way it is because of the successful (though not complete) reclamation of the word, something that has not been more than slightly accomplished with the n-word, or whatever the heck you want to call it.

Whoops, Jay-Z's got something to say about that ... so does Oprah (http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Jay-Z-on-the-N-word-Video)

Let's just say I'm between them.

Oprah: Words have power from past actions
Jay-Z: Oppressive words need to be reclaimed

--BUT, and I cannot emphasize this enough--because of the power and oppression assigned to words, some people cannot reclaim them. It's not their job, nor within their privileged hegemonic cultural right.

I agree. And not everyone can, especially people out of the loop like myself. So are we just going to keep cringing, and crying, and raging about the use of the words to hurt people while the racists walk around emotionally tormenting minorities with the vile atrocities they spew forth? Are we supposed to waggle our fingers and say "Hey, don't do that, you hurt my feelings."


Lol, I hate "black comedy." It's utter garbage.

It depends on the skit to me. I was just using it as an example.


Additionally, if you have to use that comment, usually you are being slightly so. It's like prefacing a statement with "no offense." Furthermore, I refuse to to apologize for the feelings I have for being attacked over an aspect of my physical identity that I wish I could hide because it changes my social interactions in a way I don't appreciate. I've even had a boyfriend who would talk about my race nonstop and it bothered me because people are not colors.

If you ever have to use that word, you're doing something entirely wrong.
Get with it.

Fine. So how do you want to make the world a place where you don't have to hide, or be ashamed? Where you aren't attacked? I've said enough, and you've taken a stand that my way is irrational. I'll concede. So now it's your turn.



(Edit: Lol what a contrast between Cype's and my replies...)

Celestial-Fox
11-18-2011, 10:17 PM
Note: this post is entirely explanatory. I do not refute a single statement.

But um, yeah, I actually agree with Cype, too, Fenn. the purpose of me stepping into this particular conversation in the first place was to explain to people why it isn't particularly okay for non-blacks to use the word for purposes of "liberating" others or whatever. It's bull.

I don't favor the word, but I understand its casual usage (hence the coherence of Jay-Z's argument*) entirely. However, I just don't believe it's within other peoples' right to take their little place in line to use the word at this juncture in time.

* Never would I think I'd see the day where I'd cite Jay-Z in a serious racial debate, considering that he's not exactly my cup of tea as far as rap goes.


So are we just going to keep cringing, and crying, and raging about the use of the words to hurt people while the racists walk around emotionally tormenting minorities with the vile atrocities they spew forth? Are we supposed to waggle our fingers and say "Hey, don't do that, you hurt my feelings."
I'd like to casually inform you that I'm like Cype, and I don't care anymore (though when I was younger I did). Because if someone tries to rag on me with that word it's more hilarious to me than anything--at least be specific about why you hate me. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I don't have to mope around going, "Oh, this makes me sad," and then cry. Um. No. Nothing gets done that way, no matter what you're talking about. So you're right; we're not going to do those things because it's futile.

I can't just say, "Aw, Fenn, I'm gonna go cry now," because what's that going to do? Nothing. But people can do what I just did to get people like you to understand at least why some people don't think that it's okay. And you got it. I mean, you don't have to agree entirely, but at least you understand it. (Hence the civility between Oprah and Jay-Z; they don't agree, but they get where the other person is coming from.) The problem right here is an unknown lack of respect for other people. Black people aren't educated in history or in the way of reclamation, so they lash out quickly. Others aren't educated about their privilege and historical oppression in words rather than violent acts. So there's an unnecessary amount of quibble, because both sides haven't the slightest clue about the depth of the subject upon which they speak.


The only time I'll get upset over it is if I can tell you're deliberately trying to dig into me, at which point I'm just mad cuz you're trying. The idea of desensitization is not to prove your mettle to others. If you're still offended, there's no shame in saying it because obviously that means the process is not working as well as it should be. Maybe we need to slow down, or even rewind. But the intended result is for every race to be able to face their respective slurs and strip them of all their power.

It's true, Cype. I don't disagree with a single thing in your last post. We're actually saying the same thing here. People get caught up in time periods that they did not endure (which is why Oprah's viewpoint isn't whiney or in invalid in the slightest--she lived through that) and overexaggerate their pain. At the same time, though, other people are unaware of the edge that white privilege has, so they tend to be a little bit more out of the loop on what's respectful. So people meet each other halfway at attacking each other. No party is particularly righteous.

So no. Whining or being sad or ashamed is counter-productive. What's needed is education. And I'm not ashamed that I look the way I do. Yeah, I still hold that I'm ethnically white. But that's no fault of my melanin. I'm not going to hide the way I look, either; that's just letting them win (http://www.blackacrylic.net/post/2896501933/). I mean, appearance--even outside of race--always gets people's panties in a bunch. I have bright yellow dreadlocks, so people don't take me very seriously at times, inventing in their minds that I don't shower and that I smoke weed. That sounds a little ridiculous, right? But why is that? Ignorance and a lack of education.

And because of that alone is the purpose of my posting--


I don't understand why the word bugs you. Is just a word with a bad connotation, but again, is just a word and as any word it can change the connotation and denotation with time. Obviously if you ban people from use it (and so they can change the meaning) you are just prolonging its bad use and meaning.
--and also because some people are never taught reclamation etiquette. I never came here to say that the n-word's going to kill us all. I came here with the hope that people like Clock can open up their closed-off minds to see both sides--hoping that they can learn that yes, words like that need to be stripped of power, but at the same time, no, not everyone is able to take part in the act of its stripping.

And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

Fenn
11-18-2011, 11:28 PM
Much more clear! Ha, sorry if I was giving the impression that I wanted to USE the word. It wasn't like that at all.

Education. I know it isn't the be-all, end-all of our problems, but I strongly believe it is an essential aspect to the solution to nearly every problem on this planet.

ClockHand
11-18-2011, 11:52 PM
words like that need to be stripped of power, but at the same time, no, not everyone is able to take part in the act of its stripping.

You are kidding me? You are saying that only one group is part of this equation? You know that you can't segregate the groups that share a word, even if they don't use it (or shouldn't), because they are just part of the context.

Celestial-Fox
11-19-2011, 12:43 AM
Clock, you yourself said that you don't understand the word or its usage, so I'm inclined to take into consideration that you will never understand the subject in its entirety. I'm not here to "convert" you or whatever; the attempt in itself would be unworthy of effort, only because I know you are unwilling to understand the subject from the view of the oppressed, rather than the oppressors.


Using slurs [even] on yourself when you are not a member of the marginalized group they slur, even if you’re doing it in a “reclaimy” fashion, is not [...] okay. It propagates the system that allows these words to be used as slurs and appropriates the struggles of the marginalized groups that are slurred.

Yes, oppressors are part of the equation. However, the context is extremely muddled at this point in time because the effects of reclamation hasn't reached an effective point.

Fenn
11-19-2011, 11:04 AM
I'm not so sure we need to "reclaim" words as much as simply strip them of power to harm. What I was (poorly) trying to explain was that the word needs to become useless to racists looking to harm someone, not that it needs to enter everyday speech. And in that sense, the only ones truly capable of doing that are the people being oppresed by that specific word.

ClockHand
11-19-2011, 01:03 PM
the word needs to become useless to racists looking to harm someone, not that it needs to enter everyday speech.

^this

But for that it need to lose its power, and keeping as a taboo it will keep having power.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-19-2011, 01:05 PM
Yes, but reclamation is bull shit, white people throwing around derogatory terms for non-whites isn't going to get anything done. Then again, not using them keeps up the taboo, meaning that when the words are used they're especially painful.

Fenn
11-19-2011, 02:46 PM
Yes, but reclamation is bull shit, white people throwing around derogatory terms for non-whites isn't going to get anything done. Then again, not using them keeps up the taboo, meaning that when the words are used they're especially painful.

Mhm. I think what matters is how people react to it externally, not who says it. Basically, when people use racial slurs they are actually making a statement about their own ignorance, since what they are saying about the race is objectively false. So if the public response to racial slurs is "Haha what an idiot," the word's power is gone.

GunZet
11-19-2011, 02:51 PM
So if the public response to racial slurs is "Haha what an idiot," the word's power is gone.
Not immediately. But over a period of time, and not completely.

CypressDahlia
11-19-2011, 02:54 PM
No, dammit. Desensitization is not about proving your mettle, or feigning apathy. Desensitization is about actually not letting the word affect you. Surely, it's not something that can be done quickly and in few steps, but that is the objective. The internal reaction is what counts. Denying the power exists is not the same as removing the power. It does not remove the feelings of hurt and discomfort, which is what the long-term goal is.

Fenn
11-19-2011, 03:00 PM
No, dammit. Desensitization is not about proving your mettle, or feigning apathy. Desensitization is about actually not letting the word affect you. Surely, it's not something that can be done quickly and in few steps, but that is the objective. The internal reaction is what counts. Denying the power exists is not the same as removing the power. It does not remove the feelings of hurt and discomfort, which is what the long-term goal is.

External conditioning in societies can become internalized in individuals. If one person sees others who are no longer being hurt by the word, they are likely to adopt this reaction. Although at first it may be merely external, eventually this feeling can become internalized.

CypressDahlia
11-19-2011, 03:09 PM
Things like racial slurs are rooted in personal identity, though, so people have to sort it out for themselves, for the most part. Besides, I wouldn't consider imitation healing in any way. Just like I'm sure many people adopt the idea that the internet is not "srs bsness", a lot of us still get heated (though not admittedly) when it comes to issues that bother us on a personal level.

Fenn
11-19-2011, 03:11 PM
Things like racial slurs are rooted in personal identity, though, so people have to sort it out for themselves, for the most part. Besides, I wouldn't consider imitation healing in any way. Just like I'm sure many people adopt the idea that the internet is not "srs bsness", a lot of us still get heated (though not admittedly) when it comes to issues that bother us on a personal level.

In the end, people have to sort it out for themselves. But having a society that actively recognizes the idiocy of racial slurs helps support people in that struggle.

Bacon_Barbarian
11-19-2011, 03:20 PM
Desensitization is about actually not letting the word affect you.
This.

Any good person will think the person is an idiot, but even if it's an idiot that insults you, you will feel offended.

Fenn
11-19-2011, 03:44 PM
This.

Any good person will think the person is an idiot, but even if it's an idiot that insults you, you will feel offended.

I know. And what better way to show people they don't need to let the word affect them by leading through example?

Black_Shaggie
11-24-2011, 12:21 AM
I have to agree with Fen. Words, be them racial slurs or otherwise, only carry as much weight as one tends to give them. I take no offense when someone calls me the "N" word. It's kind of funny actually. Because it appears to me when they do it's because that's the only thing they can think that's 'wrong' with me. My race. If you think about it, it's kind of a compliment.

Fenn
11-27-2011, 07:49 PM
I am often troubled by my status as a White male. On one hand I am considered a member of the priveledged class and have certain unwritten advantages over others in areas such as job interviews and the legal process. On the other hand I at times feel looked upon with spite even though I never wished or purposely caused the inequalities between races. It's quite a conundrum. How can I contribute to racial equality when I am afraid the common response I will get from either side is "STFU whitey."?

GunZet
11-27-2011, 07:52 PM
Grow some balls and get on with it?

Fenn
11-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Grow some balls and get on with it?

>_>

Okay. I'll shut my mouth and keep myself far from any racial issues from now on.

GunZet
11-27-2011, 08:00 PM
I mean, that's all you can do, besides go off and date a woman that's not your own race, lol. You don't seek acceptance, you just carry on with yourself and your mentality. That's about all I can say.

Fenn
11-27-2011, 08:01 PM
I mean, that's all you can do, besides go off and date a woman that's not your own race, lol. You don't seek acceptance, you just carry on with yourself and your mentality. That's about all I can say.

That's good advice, actually :)

Bacon_Barbarian
11-27-2011, 11:19 PM
go off and date a woman that's not your own race

That wouldnt mean much ...

GunZet
11-28-2011, 12:16 AM
Which brings you to my next sentence.

Sylux
11-28-2011, 12:35 AM
Interracial/intersocial (interracial not meaning non-white, interracial meaning non-Jewish) relationships never work out for me. I just can't deal with the non-Jewish and non-Southern cultures. I can't even date a white girl from New England!

Bacon_Barbarian
11-28-2011, 12:52 AM
That's extremely off Sylux.

ClockHand
11-28-2011, 01:31 AM
Interracial/intersocial (interracial not meaning non-white, interracial meaning non-Jewish) relationships never work out for me. I just can't deal with the non-Jewish and non-Southern cultures. I can't even date a white girl from New England!

have any kind of relationship worked for you?

Delphinus
11-28-2011, 10:23 AM
Stop pretending to be a cool psychopath Sylux

Black_Shaggie
11-28-2011, 12:27 PM
Hey...let's get off of Sylux guys. He's entitled to think & feel anyway he desires to. I apologize for calling him an idiot earlier.


This is for Fenn who said:

"I am often troubled by my status as a White male. On one hand I am considered a member of the priveledged class and have certain unwritten advantages over others in areas such as job interviews and the legal process. On the other hand I at times feel looked upon with spite even though I never wished or purposely caused the inequalities between races. It's quite a conundrum. How can I contribute to racial equality when I am afraid the common response I will get from either side is "STFU whitey."?"

The solution is simple. Don't apologize for being who you are or where you came from. We all have 'certain unwritten advantages & disadvantages'. If you're sure of your own personal lack of cause in the inequalities that exist between races, then don't feel guilty about them. The best way for any of us to contribute to racial equality lies in treating each individual person as just that, an individual. Sure, we all have different characteristics that make us unique & race happens to be one of them. No need to dwell upon that one particular characteristic though.

If someone says "STFU whitey", to you...you should retort with "Hey FU you rat-batstard (or something to that effect)!" But do so with confidence & without devolving to their level. You CAN argue with another person without bringing race into it & if they do...so what? You know who you are & that's all that matters anyways.

Fenn
11-29-2011, 12:02 AM
You guys are right (Gunz and Shaggie). And to clarify, I didn't mean literally saying "STFU," but more of the general impression I fear receiving. Either way being comfortable with myself is good advice.

Black_Shaggie
11-29-2011, 06:02 PM
Often, when people play the 'race card' during an argument or disagreement & are confronted individually as to why race isn't even an issue [in whatever the two are at verse about], they find themselves at a loss for words because they didn't expect to be challenged after doing so.

Blue_Dragon
11-30-2011, 02:59 PM
One thing that pisses me off is how people will often try to defend their race by excluding other races/cultures. This doesn't just happen in this instance, but I want to vent about what happened to Marc and I at the BGSA (Black Graduate Student Association) at Northwestern a couple years ago.

First off, you need to know Marc is Latino--he's not white, but even if he was, I think the same thing would have happened. The BGSA was, I suppose, attempting to include other races/ethnities into their agenda, and so he was accepted to give his presentation at the conference. It was on the Black Migration from the South, to Chicago, and the effect it had on BLACK old settlers. Not the whites there, but the African Americans who had been in Chi-town for generations.

Most people were first off, downright rude. Cold, is the first thing that comes to mind. Maybe it was because we're interracial, maybe not. But I'd never experienced such rude stares--and I'm from hillbilly-ville. They didn't even stare at us like that in Athens (hometown, pretty racist, or at least used to be.) Second off, the students kept challenging him not on the dang subject he was speaking on, but rather why he had an interest in the history. Basically asking, "why are studying us and not Latinos." I don't think if a black student was studying European history, he/she would have been challenged as much. But I feel many of the students were unjustly getting defensive because they felt that was "their" history and no one else's. This kinda goes back to what Fen was saying about "What can I do" to promote equality. Here's Marc just trying to get a better understanding of another culture's history, and he's met with hostility. Yeah, Gunz is right, you need to just grow some balls and keep with it: but I think EVERYONE needs to work on acceptance. What does it matter if he's not Black? It's not just one race's history--it's all of our history.

They were also very rude about us staying at the hotel, too, and made us stay in separate rooms. Geez, was it a freakin' convent? I also noticed during one Pakistani man's speech, they did the same thing to him, but were exceptionally bias toward the students of their own race. They were elitist snobs within their own community. It was obvious most of these students came from a well-to do background, and not the ghettos (which is a stereotype most people hold.) The professors were the only professional ones there, which is sad, cause these were Grad students and were supposed to be setting a good example. As a result, Marc said "fuck you" to the whole study, left early, and is now in Latin American studies for his Doctorate. Maybe he shouldn't have given up, but he's the type of person who doesn't have patience for that kind of stuff. Anyway, I think he's still going to compare the Black Migration to the migration of Latinos to the US and the similar treatment they receive. We'll see...

All I'm saying, is that we all need to work on being more inclusive. This example applies to ALL races and ethnicities, not just the people at the BGSA conference. I also want to make it clear, not all the students were like that, just the majority. Some of them, I befriended and still talk to today.

Black_Shaggie
12-02-2011, 02:13 AM
Blue Dragon I totaly agree & empathize with you and Marc. Fact is, at least in my experience, there allways some elitists inherent in all races and...it seems to me that they are the greatest contributors to both classism & racism.

I think that the blacks here in the US feel that what brought us here to the Americas and the racial, social and political struggles that we've endured over the years gives us the right to be offended by anyone else who speaks on the issues. Don't get me wrong. I'm saying that this is a GENERAL belief & one that I do not subscribe to. So, when a person from another race studys black history in America & then speaks on the subject, most feel as if they can't possibly comprehend it & because they aren't black, they can't rightfully know about such things. Again, this is a GENERAL belief & one that's most certainly wrong.

It saddens me because it truthfully is those who do come from a upper-middle to upper class background who subscibe to this kindn of elitism. If Marc were to go to an inner city community center or high school & give the same presentation, I believe that he would have been accepted and welcomed with a more positive attitude. In these areas most latinos are accepted as equals anyway.

It's like I said earlier, people needn't focus soley on race as what defines them because it's only one facet on the gem that defines the whole of individuality. Check this out. I study a very obscure form of Tai Chi & have been doing so for going on 8 years now and far from being a master (There's an 18 year sylabus to Wu Style). Most of us who do Tai Chi often practice at a particular park here in Nashville. The asian martial artists see my teacher, my best friend & myself (all of us are black) practicing and silently shun us and show disapproval with an air of superiorty. Never mind the fact that my teacher has studied for over 20 years, most of which was in China, from a direct disciple of Wu Style Taiji Chuan and is an master of the old form he's teaching us as well as the modern form that's practiced world wide today. He's also a very skilled accupuncturist. In tai chi, there's a training excersize called 'push hands' which tests one's balance & sensitivty which are some of the basic aspects to tai chi. I can remember on more than one instance in the past 8 years that, while playing push hands with some of these dudes in the park, that they were the ones who did not possess the proper balance or sensitivy for their level of personal study in whatever style they practice. Even still, the claim was that I was doing it wrong and that, only asians can learn asian martial arts.

I think that those guys at the park see us as people who can't possibly learn from their culture because it's theirs and that when can't appreciate it. More than likely the offense stems from the idea that we'll disprespect their traditions. But in truth what we're studying isn't some innate racial ability and most western martial artists have a high level of respect for the asian culture and it's traditions. It's just martial arts. Of course, I have met and do know quite a few asian martial artists who respect what we do and encourage our training.

Hell, manga's the same way. Some believe that you can't be a manga artist if you're not japanese. But that really boils down to study and skill as well doesn't it?

We seem to segregate ourselves based upon our cultural or racial identity and refuse to accept anyone from another group from ideals or things that the entire world can or could benefit from. If we were to work on being more inclusive as Blue Dragon has said above, we'd be one step closer to race not being a prominant issue at all.

Inksprout
12-02-2011, 02:29 AM
The idea that someone can't learn a martial art because they aren't Asian is so ridiculous. I think it probably comes in part from sheer jelousy, people who are out of touch with their own culture or haven't bothered to learn about it see you practising something and they feel guilty for not supporting and learning their own culture's traditions while a bunch of other people are.

Also on the story about the talk, I can't believe the conceit of the students listening to the talk. They haven't experienced for themselves what the talk was on. What they know about it is probably little more than any one else who can study does. There is absolutely no reason for them to act protectively over a story. It just seems like they are encourageing racism.

I thought the reason why people say people who aren't japanese can't be 'manga' artists was because the term manga meant japanese comics specificaly rather than a particular art style. Anyone can be a comic artist and draw their comics in whatever style they like, but of course you can't call yourself a term that specifically means japanese comic artist if you are not japanese.

CypressDahlia
12-02-2011, 03:04 AM
Cultural ownership is a very dangerous thing, especially in America where we would greatly benefit from sharing cultural property.

You can't expect other people to understand you if you don't give them a chance. And saying someone can never understand because of their race is extremely regressive and culturally insular.

ClockHand
12-02-2011, 02:15 PM
Martial arts are by facto traditionalists. Its hard, because you can't ask them to be "open minded" or to change their ways, its their traditions and is something they own in a way, but at the same time they should share with others. I have done plenty of martial arts, and at the end I prefer MMA, just because in traditional martial arts people look with bad eyes certain concepts.

I think people should have cultural ownership, they should be proud for their past and what they have or do, but the ownership should be shared. It's like having a museum just for you, it's pointless if you don't share it.

Fenn
12-02-2011, 02:36 PM
It's like having a museum just for you, it's pointless if you don't share it.

^Good comparison.

Blue_Dragon
12-03-2011, 03:29 PM
@Black Shaggie:

Yeah, I agree with you. Actually, most of Marc's friends are inner-city black guys. The reception at the BGSA didn't affect his view of blacks in general. We were just shocked that the "educated" peoples were more closed minded than the "ignorant poors." And I use quotes, because I don't think the poor are always uneducated. Their educated in other things, other life skills. It's just funny, cause we always think of college students as uber open minded (which is often true,) but this was what we experienced in Chicago, which is a diverse city.




I think people should have cultural ownership, they should be proud for their past and what they have or do, but the ownership should be shared. It's like having a museum just for you, it's pointless if you don't share it.

Dude, these are wise words. I agree whole-heartedly.

Black_Shaggie
12-04-2011, 06:37 AM
It's funny how much class plays into race. Here folks, let me add a little levity to this discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0&feature=player_detailpage

I think this dude's got the right attitude, but here we have someone supposedly of a "higher class & station" telling him what's what. In this scene, the people involved are of the same race & nationality, but the poorer one has been subjugated to the oppression of unwanted government.

But you're correct in using the term "ignorant poors", because that's how many of the "eduacted" (or middle to upper-class) African-Americans view those from the lower class or inner cities. They assume that there, only lies the dregs of humanity & are embarassed by them. We blacks (well most of us anyway) in the US have a particularly "skewed perspective" in regaurds to race.

I didn't want to bring this up here,but I think this will further illustrate my point:

http://www.angelfire.com/ne/savedbygrace/lynch.html

Ever heard of the infamous Willie Lynch letter? This supposedly is the reason that my people suffer from so much self loathing & find it difficult to see past race (In general, not everyone). I won't go into the details, just read the link above & decide for yourselves. Either way, since Lynch's system was used, I think this may explain some of the things that you and Marc have experienced.

Again, I really did not want to bring this stuff to the discussion & I apologize to everyone in advance because it may be taken quite offensively. But the letter is real.

CypressDahlia
12-04-2011, 07:04 AM
I have been told many times the reason black people stake so many cultural claims is because they want ownership of something that was previously taken away from them. But why is it that contemporary black culture doesn't reflect ethnocentric influences so much as it reflects urban and street influences? Do they cope with a lack of background by creating a new one in its place? Or maybe they just don't identify by their heritage?

This has always confused me because most kids I know who subscribe to "urban" culture are ones who haven't a clue about their ethnic backgrounds.

GunZet
12-04-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't know, man. Most of em don't give a damn, and absorb the culture around em, same as anyone else would. Grow up in a ghetto neighborhood, you act ghetto, grow up in a very educated neighborhood, but happen to be black; you act like Malcolm X, grow up in a culturally mixed neighborhood, you end up like me. But don't take that seriously, I just wanted to rhyme, you see?

Black_Shaggie
12-04-2011, 01:32 PM
All valid questions there Cype, allthough I am a black man here in the US, I'm no expert on the matter. I will tell you how I personally see things, however.

I think the majority of us blacks in the US do feel as if our cultural identity was taken away from us. If you followed the link in my last post dealing with slavery, one might at the very least understand that a lot cultural identity was taken away from blacks in the US early in the history of this country. I'm not trying to spew any hatred here, but facts are facts. Many black people here in the US are direct descendants of slaves and, a kind of slavery that attempted to dehumanize them. It took a great deal of effort over generations for the blacks here to relearn a what cultural identity was lost or forgotten and, now just as you mentioned above, many of us wish to cling on to the ownership of this cultural identity that was taken away from them. I personally, like to acknowledge that my ancestors were of Western African descent, brought to the Americas under less than desirable cirucmstances & overcame the oppresssion & racial predjudices throust upon them so that I wouldn't be so affected by them today. I respect & honor everything that ancestors have gone through in order to give me an equal chance here in a culturally diverse country. I will not take it for granted nor would I ever use take sacrifices in vain. But that's just me, and as we've all sort of agreed to here, despite race we're all individuals.

I think things started to really change for blacks in the US around the late 70s in the generation directly following the Civil Rights movement. Here we had the most equality than we'd ever had previously & really felt a lot of pride in our race as we began to learn where exactly we came from for ourselves. Over the past 30 years however, many of my people have failed to properly pass this sense of cultural identity down to the newer generations. When they do touch on the most important part of our history here in the US, the slavery, the lesson is usually given from a misconstrued perspective. In high school in the 90s, my American History text book only had 1 chapter on slavery in it & this was small. The black histroy class I took had a very small text book that was quite outdated as well. So, I was reduced to learning the "truth" about my ancestry from people like my "Black Nationalist" father our elders in my community who either wished to forget about slaver alltogether, or focus so violently upon the negtive aspects that all the strides made since then were made to seem moot.

So, I feel as if the current generation of blacks here know where our people came from but don't truly understand the responisbilty that they have to improve things even further. (lol) I don't think they even realize actually how racisit that they are sometimes because they may think that racisim is only something that a caucasian can be cappable of.

Now Urban Culture? This is entirely a 'beast of a different color' & one that more problematic to us all than we may think. Sure, many of these urban & street influences such as gangs and other forms of organized crime may have thier origins in some black community. But these things have been romanticised by popular culture on the whole. I live in Nashville, TN & ride the bus all the time everywhere & I see kids of all types embracing this Urban Culture. Within these groups, race doesn't seem to exist at all though, ironically it does manifest itself outside the group. I feel that many of the kids in the US today believe that this new urban cultralisim is an alternative for one that may be lost, forgotten or even unwanted. But this applies to all of the races here in the US and not just blacks or other minority groups. In some ways, therin lies a sense of racial equality...only to then categorized by some other kind class of status (i.e., ganngster, thug, pimp, playa, hustler, etc...). This, of course, is all wrong in my opinion because it's replacing a negative racial or cultural identity with a negative social or national one.

But hey, that's just how I see it & I'm only one 40-year-old dude & I could be wrong.

Blue_Dragon
12-04-2011, 03:50 PM
I think another problem we need to address, in addition to learning about more about slavery in school, is to stop coddling people who keep claiming the Civil War was a about "States Rights." This concept steals away from the 4 million who suffered from slavery, and disrespects the whole history.

The park service finally stepped up and did this, but I know schools don't. The whole "States rights" argument only started AFTER the war, when people like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee put out memoirs and crap cause they lost. They state over and over it was states rights, not slavery, which caused the war. Yet what people kept neglected was the ACTUAL declaration of sessions. I understand it's probably hard to be on the loosing side, but re-writing history was just another way to slight the African Americans. And it's a frickin' stupid legacy we've been stuck with ever since.

**And before I get any people yelling at me because their ancestors fought for "states rights," I have a disclaimer. Individual soldiers reason for fighting all differ. Many soldiers who fight are doing it for reasons that diverge with the country's reason for fighting. My statement is in reference to why the South as a "nation" left the United States (I don't do "union" bull crap, cause they left the US, not the Union.)**

My point for bringing this up, is that it's no wonder people feel displaced and alienated in their own country, especially when this is the time in history I can see the "losers" are the ones who wrote history. Not to mention the all the crap that followed the war.

Little known fact, after the Civil War, black men had been given the same rights as whites. The were equal, legally. But shortly their after, without anyone enforcing these rights, Southern governments started implementing the Jim Crow laws and segregation (not sure exact date for that. It's really the most ridiculous thing I've EVER heard of.)

That's kind of a soap box I've been on, but I thought it would be appropriate to bring it up here.

Inksprout
12-05-2011, 12:35 AM
It's funny hearing about US history from people who actually live there. At my school we covered some USA history and the parts about slavery. It was always my understanding from these teachings that the Civil War was because of slavery. It was never explained to me from any other view point. So whatever is being taught in the USA doesn't at all reflect what I was taught at school.

On the subject of who writes the history books I think there are always people who get severly abused through biased recordings of history. In australia horirble things were done to the aboriginal people including genocide, discrimination, abuse, and child theft. The actual government made laws to attempt to breed out the entire race of people, and those who were half half ended up outcasts. The stupidest part is none of this was recorded properly in history or taught in schools till about 30 years ago? I have a little bit of aboriginal blood on my mothers side, and even though we look nothing like it the discrimination was so bad that when my mother was a child she was told to say she had Indian background if asked, because there were concerns she would be taken away and put in the care of white people. I know this story of discrimination is found in many countries but it scares the flip out of me that whole chunks of human suffering can just be left off the history record

Blue_Dragon
12-05-2011, 01:49 AM
I know, right? Which is why it's great there are people starting to seriously get into some of these studies. There are so many misconceptions from school text, not to mention, they aren't updated very often. It's usually not til we get to college that a lot of what you thought you knew is revealed to be false. Luckily, I had a hippie teacher in High School, who really dispelled a lot of that early. But in grade school and middle school, it was all following the crappy text books.

Side note: did anyone else have teacher who always started at the front of the history book, so all you never made it to "modern" history? I can't tell you how d*mn sick I got of learning about the frickin' pilgrims. Every year, the same crap! My school was pretty crappy, though.

Yeah, some people over here are STILL sore about the Civil War. It's like they just can't get over it. I'm not talking about the African Americans who often still face discrimination today. I'm talking about old Caucasian families. It's true, I wouldn't want to be judged for what my ancestors did--but don't be a coward about it, and don't keep the hate alive (I know that "Southerners" get stereotyped as all being racist, which isn't true. But for those who are--anyone who is for that matter--they really need to reevaluate their thinking): accept it happened, and move on. Don't re-write it. My ancestors aren't all innocent either, and it's not like people in the North treated blacks any better. They just had a marginally better existence than being a slave. They still had plenty to worry about in the North (sundown towns, race riots, lynchings in some parts of the North. Let's not forget being kept out of white neighborhoods, like the play A Raisin in the Sun. Anyone else think Sydney Poitier (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5l3OK9iK0fs/TTxlBAPsWiI/AAAAAAAAADk/4-V_hVycdhQ/s320/poitier+a+raisin.jpg) was hot?)

Black_Shaggie
12-05-2011, 09:09 AM
Sydney Poitier said, while receiving his lifetime achievement award. "I am no less than any man and, my dreams are as real as I aspire to make them." This sentence motivated me so much..."my dreams are as real as I aspire to make them." Seems like Poitier took control of his individual situation (being a black immigrant in the US during a time where blacks still were having a really rough time being generally accepted as equals) & became a famous actor-not just a 'black actor-but a credible as any white leading man of his day. People can continue to use whatever attrocities may have happened to their ancestors as an excuse to explain their own personal shortcomings or they can take control over their own individual situations. If you label yourself as an inferior, people (of any race, including your own) will more than likely treat you as such. If you carry yourself (and act accordingly) with self confidence that you are "...no less than any man..." then you're one step closer to making your race less irrelevant in your interaction with others.

Sure, almost every race of man on the face of the earth has suffered 'dark times' of oppression. In a sad way, it is in the nature of man to oppress one another for political control or...fear that on race or nationality or culture may become more productive than the oppressive one. Religion has a lot to do with this oppression as well & the predjudices run deep. I feel that in this new century that we're starting to see a better world picture & that's a good thing.

ClockHand
12-05-2011, 12:22 PM
That's why Archeology exist. Isn't about Maya civilizations or Babylonia, is about Historical problems. By example: How many times history tells you that the USA Natives and the USA army were fighting constantly? According to archeology, none. The evidences in army camps, exteriors and natives tells that they almost never fought each other.

This kind of problems are the important, not how old is man in the Americas (continent), but how people lived lived and what really happened in history, because history is biased. I'm not saying we aren't biased, but I believe materials don't lie (we lie).


History is weird bitch, if you give it to much relevance you become an ass who lives in the past, if you don't you will be searching your identity in other assholes. People who live their whole life through the history of their ancestors are blind to new possibilities for the future, but people who doesn't appreciate the history of their ancestors are lost in track. And this can go back to my previews post about me hating people who call themselves Germans when they have lived for 4 generations or more in USA. Yes ancestors have a past that connect us, but we also need to learn to make distinctions, it wasn't our past you we can't live in it, but we neither should be blinds to it.

Inksprout
12-05-2011, 07:41 PM
Archeology doesn't lie, but it can be misinterpreted, which is the main problem with it. Humans still haven't come up with an unbiased way to record history that is very meanginful. Archeology is just bare facts which can be used to more or less guess what went on in the past. Its not a sure fire way to understand the past. It also doesn't provide any human view point. Again it just tells the bare facts, it doesn't say for example if the people of the past were happy or sad, it can't tell us if they had family fueds or were passion about a war they were fighting or if some of the supposedly religious people were secretly atheists. Archeology is history without human thoughtm which makes it kind or interesting but less relevent than say, someone's old diary.

Humans developed the ability to keep track of history and tell old stories and presumably a curiosity about the past so that we could learn from the past and not make the same mistakes repeatedly. While archeology helps us learn about the past it is not as rich and informative as it could be because it lacks a human voice. A big part of archeology is guessing that sort of thing but imagine how much more we would know if there was a record actually written by someone who lived in that time.

Black_Shaggie
12-05-2011, 07:50 PM
But that's the delimia isn't it? To victor goes the spoils. As you said above, humans still haven't come up with an unbiased way to record history as of yet. But now that we're living in this new age of information & technology, more perspectives on history are being revealed. I mean to say, one than one perspective on the history of a certain group, country or people(s) are starting to surface recently. So, you have more than one perspective on say...the Civil War here in the states and you have archeology to collaborate with this story or another...or both...to formulate a clearer picture of what happened. The picture is still blurry as hell, I'll agree...but I'm just saying both history and archeology are relevant.

Inksprout
12-05-2011, 07:58 PM
Yeah, the internet is becoming a great tool for figuring out truer events. I think ordinary people, who aren't in a position of power and just want to live normal happy lives give the truest representation of what is going on, because they often don't care who is winning. In a war they are just the ones suffering regardless of which side they are on. That to me is what is great about the internet, anyone can write their experiences on it for the whole world to read. Even countries where media is very controlled can use the internet to help them get real information to each other and the rest of the world. Hopefully with the internet and globalisation in general humans are going to get better at recording true history.

Blue_Dragon
12-06-2011, 01:42 AM
You still need to be careful of your sources online. Just cause something is video taped or written out, doesn't mean it's legit. People can just as easily use these technologies to fool you. And videos/images can be doctored. Sounding paranoid now, but it's true.

Black_Shaggie
12-06-2011, 08:58 AM
It isn't paranoid at all. It's very true but, there's still enough real content out there to debunk the fake stuff. Usually, I see 'Blair Witch' situations being revealed for what they are shortly after posting. The real trouble is when a government uses these tactics to obscure the truth. Or completely ban the use of certain global search engines (Like China did with Google). That's when the internet fails us...

Bacon_Barbarian
12-19-2011, 11:46 PM
You know, I was just thinking.

WARNING DANGEROUS THOUGHT CRIMES AHEAD.

One of my cousin-in-laws is an amazing dude. He's much older then me (in his 40s) but I can still talk to him about all sorts of random crap (ex: Transformers) and he's a really bright guy. I don't see him much because he lives in Huston, but it's always fun seeing him around. Thinking about this cousin, I started thinking about one of my best friends. Much like my cousin in law, he's very smart and is just a fun guy to be around. We can talk about music, video games, politics, whatever. This is the thing though. They're both black. I, of course, have no problem with this. But for a long time, people did. 50 years ago, my cousin could never have married the man she loves because of the color of his skin and I would never have lived in a (relatively) nice neighborhood and had a black neighbor. Hell, in some parts of the country this still couldn't happen.

Why? Why are people such idiots?

Thinking about all of this has me fairly upset.

Sylux
12-20-2011, 02:07 AM
Then fight it, Bacon. We do not have more important quarrels in our States: the issue of race is most pressing, and foremost of all. If it boils your skin as it does for many others including myself, we must devise a way to compromise these things - compromise, being most important, and full equality coming naturally, and of course, with force, but not physical in any manner (it should never come down to touching anything but another's mind).

GunZet
12-20-2011, 12:05 PM
The future isn't looking so bad after all.

Renzokuken
12-20-2011, 12:11 PM
Hehehe ^

Delphinus
12-20-2011, 12:21 PM
If it boils your skin as it does for many others including myself, we must devise a way to compromise these things - compromise, being most important, and full equality coming naturally, and of course, with force, but not physical in any manner (it should never come down to touching anything but another's mind).

Your bum is stuffed with tweed.

You also supported compromise and non-violence. Compromise on any issue, but especially ones where one side is right and the other is wrong (racial equality), is for the weak. Non-violence has never worked. Don't be so gutless.

GunZet
12-20-2011, 12:35 PM
I will fking gut you, Del.

Sylux
12-20-2011, 05:35 PM
Your bum is stuffed with tweed.

You also supported compromise and non-violence. Compromise on any issue, but especially ones where one side is right and the other is wrong (racial equality), is for the weak. Non-violence has never worked. Don't be so gutless.
Okay you want violence well I will cut you open

Fenn
12-21-2011, 04:49 PM
Your bum is stuffed with tweed.

You also supported compromise and non-violence. Compromise on any issue, but especially ones where one side is right and the other is wrong (racial equality), is for the weak. Non-violence has never worked. Don't be so gutless.

What about active non-violence?

Delphinus
12-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Only if it works.

Fenn
12-26-2011, 08:24 PM
Well, yah.

Socrates
12-27-2011, 05:09 AM
Your bum is stuffed with tweed.

You also supported compromise and non-violence. Compromise on any issue, but especially ones where one side is right and the other is wrong (racial equality), is for the weak. Non-violence has never worked. Don't be so gutless.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBelT-Xi1CY

AudriCantDance
12-27-2011, 01:59 PM
Your bum is stuffed with tweed.

You also supported compromise and non-violence. Compromise on any issue, but especially ones where one side is right and the other is wrong (racial equality), is for the weak. Non-violence has never worked. Don't be so gutless.

In ways you are right. Compromise does not work for this society. But there is always an option. Look at Toronto, we act like its great cause of all the diversity, but in fact, its riddled with race hate crimes. When people of different races come to live together in one spot. we naturally leave each other to our own lives:"voluntary segregation" different races werent meant to live with each other, our cultures and opinions about others are too shallow. violence/peace has never worked, as if it isnt physical violence against a race, its mental abuse/systemic discrimination :/ dont blame the system, if you feel abused because of your sexual orientation/colour of your skin/religion, why dont you move to someplace where you will be accepted..? problem solved.

Delphinus
12-27-2011, 06:21 PM
different races werent meant to live with each other, our cultures and opinions about others are too shallow.
That's ridiculous. Physical race is one of the most superficial traits of people, and culture and opinions about people are quite shallow too. To be honest, the only thing that seems to matter is personality. People of totally different cultures and races can get along just fine, so long as they like each other as people. And arguing that 'different race werent meant to live with each other' is untestable. How can you defend that? "Weren't meant to" is a moral statement. Justify segregation to me morally.


dont blame the system, if you feel abused because of your sexual orientation/colour of your skin/religion, why dont you move to someplace where you will be accepted..? problem solved.

Wow. I don't know what to say. "Don't try to change a country, move elsewhere"? Really? How do you think that's going to work in the long term?

Kodos
12-27-2011, 06:24 PM
Well, I mean, it worked so well for the Jews.

Black_Shaggie
12-28-2011, 11:33 AM
No...I'd have to agree with Del. At least in part. I can't say non-violence has never worked because non-violent protests eventually 'wear down' it's opposition (i.e., Ghandhi & equal rights for his people in S. Africa, M.L.K. Jr. & the Civil Rights movement). In those to situations, they did not compromise but didn't devolve down to the violence inflicted upon them. I think that takes more strength than actually taking up arms. But hey, it's just my personal opinion.

Now AudriCantDance, is entitled to his/her opinion too. But dude, think about what you're saying by different cultural group weren't meant to be together. Does that really make sense? Del said physical race is a superficial trait & I agree. I mean, if we were stick to our own cultures & races, would we even be having this type of dialogue on a website dedicated to an art form created in Japan? If what you say is true then, how is it that people of different races & cultures come together as co-workers, friends & even family equally all over the world, within different cultures everyday without any problems? No the problem isn't our racial differences at all. Of course, a person will will feel a close affinity to someone from their own race or culture, but that doesn't mean that we're genetically predisposed to interaction & dealings with that group exclusively. It's one's personal perception of themselves juxtaposed to their perception to the world around them. If you feel wronged because a certain group has migrated into what was once a community, city, country that was once mainly populated by your race or culture & began to prosper while both respecting your customs & keeping their own alive, then that's a personal problem. If a group of people all feel the same way on that type of issue, it's more than likely some kind of personal identity issue going on there. "I'm this is my country & better than that friggin' immigrant because [INPUT RANDOM IRRATIONAL EXCUSE HERE]!" And I'd wager that same personal identity problem can create a warmonger who would sacrifice his or her life to impose their ideals on how things should be on the rest of the world with hatred & violence. But what they really hate is the idea that other races & cultures are merely different than their own & this frightens the crap out of them.

Man...that's just ass backwards thinking to hold on to all that hate, but you're entitled too, & it's one of the major reasons why race education is failing.

Gerzorz
01-02-2012, 08:58 PM
Sup, just thought I'd add my two cents.

Just because the United States, UK, or whatever may have a "better" environment for racial/sex/religious relations, it doesn't matter, because the vast majority of the world most definitely does not.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect change in the entire world overnight completely going against what many consider to be "tradition".

Even then, changing the entire populous' opinions is not an easy thing to do. I would argue that it's impossible.

So... hate with generalizations will always exist. I think it's part of human nature, really.

I would also argue though, that it's better to ignore the vast majority of our human impulses. After all, humans come from the dicks, not from the nice people. Evolutionarily speaking, of course.

If you don't believe in Evolution, I respect your opinion, please read more on the subject before making such a rash opinion off of what your close friends and relatives tell you. Learn things for yourself.

ClockHand
01-02-2012, 09:02 PM
Just because the United States, UK, or whatever may have a "better" environment for racial/sex/religious relations, it doesn't matter, because the vast majority of the world most definitely does not.

JAJAJAJAJA

GunZet
01-02-2012, 09:04 PM
Yeaaaaa, UK and the US aren't really much better. That's just how everyone views it, but racial hate, sexual hate, religious hate, they're all very alive in the UK and US. Although from what I've heard, the UK is more accepting.

spidergoth
01-02-2012, 11:51 PM
That's ridiculous. Physical race is one of the most superficial traits of people, and culture and opinions about people are quite shallow too. To be honest, the only thing that seems to matter is personality. People of totally different cultures and races can get along just fine, so long as they like each other as people. And arguing that 'different race werent meant to live with each other' is untestable. How can you defend that? "Weren't meant to" is a moral statement. Justify segregation to me morally.



Wow. I don't know what to say. "Don't try to change a country, move elsewhere"? Really? How do you think that's going to work in the long term?

I'd like to know the same. In addition to where that sort of thought leaves people who identify themselves as multiple races (leave out the fact that a majority of the world is mixed whether they want to believe it or not). I mean look at the diversity of Mexico, that is a mix of the native population such as the Aztecs with the caucasian Spaniards and the Africans who were originally brought over as slaves/servents. You can have someone with blond hair and blue eyes, someone with tan skin and straight dark hair, and someone who is darker skinned with curly hair and they all identify themselves as the ethnically "Latino/a or Hispanic" and the "Mexican" nationality. Where would these different people go?

I suppose that comment really offended me, I'm half African American and half Turkish so where would I go? Knowing I'm a little bit of Puerto Rican and most likely have a American caucasian side too. Or are people like me some sort of abomination because different "races" (however you think that is defined) were never meant to live together to begin with.

I think being accepting of everyone regardless of ethnic differences and religious belief would be ideal, I'm not an idealist and would never believe the world would come to such a conclusion. However judgement on someone should be based on the type of person they are not about something as superficial as "race" that can't even be clearly defined.

Fenn
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Segregation and discrimination aren't just wrong they're simply illogical. You're denying yourself potential friends, potential allies, potential supporters, etc. Being inclusive opens up new avenues for social interaction, and as anyone in the job market will tell you connections mean everything. Even outside of employment, respecting other's races and ethnicities has positive consequences.

When it comes to industries, racial discrimination should theoretically be a disadvantage: the valuable employees of a discriminated race will be passed up by bigoted companies, and picked up by the accepting ones, giving them an advantage. The only trouble comes when there is a "monopoly' or near-monopoly of discrimination, where all or the majority of corporations in a field are all prejudiced, leaving minority employees with no where to prove themselves, and perpetuating the discrimination. That's why it's important to be active in ending racial discrimination: enough businesses become accepting, and the monopoly is broken, basically forcing companies to hire by talent rather than race.

ClockHand
01-03-2012, 11:58 AM
Segregation and discrimination aren't just wrong they're simply illogical.

Actually is the most common behavior about societies. Doesn't matter the culture but segregation and discrimination have been always used as a mechanism of preservation (for power, relationships or economy). Just saying.



You're denying yourself potential friends, potential allies, potential supporters, etc.

I agree, but lets remember than any society or ethnic group is very conservative about the way they live and new individuals, or changes, provoke a immediate discrimination. This is because the group is always trying to preserve it self and they see new individuals as possible threats, than possible allies.


When it comes to industries, racial discrimination should theoretically be a disadvantage: the valuable employees of a discriminated race will be passed up by bigoted companies, and picked up by the accepting ones, giving them an advantage.

I agree, but it's not easy. What companies and industries need are homogeneous individuals because having different ethnics inside a industry will mean different "holy days", which is equal to different days of work. Its hard for a company to accept everyone, if at the end everyone is changing the plans of the company. Also you need to think in how hard is to reach a different culture in a market, its a big waste of money and many companies would prefer not to try those bold moves. Just watch Maruvel in Japan.

I agree about discrimination being the a slowdown for our "progress" (social and economic), but we need to remember that the behavior is part of the society (ours or from others) and to fight it you need to fight the reality of that society, which is harder and it can lead to ethical discussions.

I was thinking in doing a analogy between USA society with Brazil society. Both are very different and I though maybe the problem could come from fear, USA is known for spread fear through their medias, and so maybe discrimination could be enforced by fear, while in Brazil society live in less fear (thing that is funny because of the fabelas) and so the discrimination is less. But it would be hard, I would need to do field study in both places -.- and is better than people do the analogy themselves with their own experience.

PD: Just pointing that discrimination is not that irrational. It is bad, but not irrational.

Black_Shaggie
01-04-2012, 09:45 AM
I will agree that cultural & ethinc groups do tend to 'discriminate' against others & have been doing so for a very long time. Nationalities & religious groups also discriminate against ideals different than their own. I think all the xenophobia stems from a fear of the unknown. I mean to say, if you're familiar & used to a certain order to things, & a new variable or pattern emerges, you may be hesitant to proceed with that new thing in your routine. And, at the very least, it'll slow you down before you try get rid of it (discrimination) or used to it.

But is this really a racial/social/cultural/national issue? Or is it merely a bunch of individuals finding a sense safety & belonging in the confines of certain group structures? Take gang culture, for lack of a better example. More often than not, gangs recruit through intimidation but they also actively recruit misguided youth without a sense of social belonging to the national structure or even a strong connection to their racial culture &, with time within a gang's culture they're taught to discriminate against other gangs on not only the basis of territory or resources but over wars that had been waged long before they became involved into that culture. The more fanatical would attack an enemy gang member on site just because of a color. In the end, the youth (or new gang member) has been conditioned into believe in values that we would all consider wrong here but, the bias that the gang member had would be just as tangible as some actual races or cultures who discriminate against others.

I think most of the racism discrimination in the world today exists because of old disagreements & arguments between groups which have somehow become part of the traditions of one or more of the groups.

ClockHand
01-06-2012, 08:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMvfEdTUO6Q&feature=relmfu

I know, those are funny, but its actually interesting, some of those weren't intended to discriminate, some could be out of place, and others could be just the reaffirmation of stereotypes.

But which is really a racist moment on tv? Is the host of a show doing a stereotypical analogy? or is a person saying stuffs without looking the weight of his words? Or finally the guy who is just an old crazy racist.

Bacon_Barbarian
01-15-2012, 06:12 PM
I really want to know the context of what Hillary was saying. And that last one.

Fenn
01-16-2012, 04:44 PM
PD: Just pointing that discrimination is not that irrational. It is bad, but not irrational.

Completely agree. I didn't quote the whoe thing because, in a nutshell, this was your argument, and I agree. And like you said, this doesn't change the fact that it's bad. If I did what was natural all the time I'd be in big trouble by now.

ClockHand
01-16-2012, 05:18 PM
I don't know if this is funny or disturbing, but apparently every person I know hate jews. Weird, isn't? Well this discovery follows the logic that "discrimination is not irrational" because every person I asked about "why do you hate jews?" gave me a answer, a reason -don't arguing if is a bad or good, but it is a reason-. Apparently most people I know have been screwed by someone who was/is jew; a boss that doesn't want to pay the retirement of a employ, a lover who want to take all the money from the other person (when they weren't marry and he didn't brought any in come to the house) or people who ask for money and never gave it back. And I know all those are personal experiences, not all jews are bad or better said "jews are not evil", but its kinda problematic when the whole community re-affirm this bad impresions.

The Israely Stadium formed by the jew community in here, it have a very heavy security, they check you entirely and they don't allow you to move freely in the Stadium. It might be because we aren't used to high security, like the highest security we deal is a guard telling us "open your backpack please" and we usually answer "by law: only with a police present you can ask to someone to open his bag or backpack", and the security person shut up and you are free to go, so I will give this high security a pass. But still contrasting with the Palestinian Stadium, it makes people think that something is odd (the Palestinian Stadium have a policy of open doors to every visitant).

Other example is how high people of the same stadium (israely) use guards for their own protection, which is kinda crazy because almost no one in here use guards, not even drug dealers.

And finally the most global example on how a community shatter its reputation: Israel. Its hard to not hate someone who is in some way related to this awful nation.

So, I know, discrimination is bad. But I think we are facing a different type of discrimination here, one that is not anymore of the color of skin or the history of a group of people, but rather of what these communities or group of peoples are showing their actions to us.

And almost as my final thing. One of the biggest problems is that jews have their own schools, the first of step of discrimination is to come and discriminate yourself to others.

I don't know how I feel about this, I have jew friends and even they hate jews.

Fenn
01-16-2012, 05:26 PM
Sorry, could you just explain briefly what a stadium is, so I can understand the situation? I have a good idea what you mean, but when I hear stadium in the U.S. I think sports, not ethnicities.

This is an issue though: when stereotypes prove true more than not. Psychologically, stereotypes do serve a purpose as a heuristic that helps us use past information in present situations. In my experience, the majority of those from Asian cultures I have met are good at math. So naturally I assume when I meet a new Asian student, they are good at math.

The key is knowing when it is and isn't beneficial to use these stereotypes.

ClockHand
01-16-2012, 05:28 PM
Well there are 2 types of Stadiums, one is a professional stadium where people play soccer (we don't have other kind of stadium, not other sport is popular here) and the Community Stadium which are stadiums to do sports founded by a community. Its more like a club with a sport focus.
And I'm talking about the latest.


And I don't know about asians being good at math. Well i live in a asiatic island, more like a korean island in the city. Like most of my friends neighboords are asians. And yeah there are some that are good at math, and others who don't but their parents force them to do something math related because it bring money (like the case of a friend who wanted to be chef but he is study economy).

Oh and I the latest even that its making people hate more every jew. A jew just burned a part of Torres del Paine, which is a big sanctuary of nature.

Fenn
01-17-2012, 08:07 PM
Well there are 2 types of Stadiums, one is a professional stadium where people play soccer (we don't have other kind of stadium, not other sport is popular here) and the Community Stadium which are stadiums to do sports founded by a community. Its more like a club with a sport focus.
And I'm talking about the latest.


And I don't know about asians being good at math. Well i live in a asiatic island, more like a korean island in the city. Like most of my friends neighboords are asians. And yeah there are some that are good at math, and others who don't but their parents force them to do something math related because it bring money (like the case of a friend who wanted to be chef but he is study economy).

Oh and I the latest even that its making people hate more every jew. A jew just burned a part of Torres del Paine, which is a big sanctuary of nature.

Thank you for clarifying.

If my memory recalls you live in Chile right? I wasn't aware there was a large korean population in any part, curse my ignorance. And you bring up an interesting point. It probably isn't as accurate as it seems to say that asian people are
good at math," since as you've shown more factors into it than that. I suppose it's just that, one way or another, Asian people and math seem to wind up correlating. There's also the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy to consider.

Your final comment is a sad truth of prejudice; it takes just one idiot to destroy a whole village. Unfortunately, the most despicable members of any social group are going to get the most attention usually, and tarnish other group's perception of the whole group. Like you said, not all jews act this way, but when events like this happen with any frequency, people are bound to start blaming ethnicity.

It's a difficult issue. My original point was that logically, for people capable of overcoming the natural tendency towards ingroup favoritism, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or any other irrelevant factor is nonsensical.

ClockHand
01-17-2012, 08:14 PM
The deal is that we can be facing a strong wave of discrimination against jews. The whole thing with the burned forest caused the show of a strong face of discrimination in here, people shout at the guy who burned the forest "jew", as a way of insult.

And the thing is that this is not going to change, this is just going to get worst, because jew community are going to enforce their security, they are going to try to protect themselves, which will create more discrimination, and this wave is gonna be unstoppable just because no one of the groups want to understand the other. If the jew community would have spoked about this event, telling everyone that they are ashame that one jew did such a thing, and they didn't want this to be a prove on how the community is, then probably everything would have been different. But sadly they have a very victimized mentality, where they are always going to be victims, and no mater the reasons why people would hate them is going to be wrong. At the end discrimination is here, because someone chose to be discriminated (not like in other cases).

Fenn
01-17-2012, 08:25 PM
If the jew community would have spoked about this event, telling everyone that they are ashame that one jew did such a thing, and they didn't want this to be a prove on how the community is, then probably everything would have been different. But sadly they have a very victimized mentality, where they are always going to be victims, and no mater the reasons why people would hate them is going to be wrong. At the end discrimination is here, because someone chose to be discriminated (not like in other cases).

This is very important. Anyone care to add to this? I don't have much left to say.

Also off-topic but when you said island I thought you meant an actual island. And I was like, "Is Chile an island now?"

ClockHand
01-17-2012, 08:31 PM
I mean an urban island.

Fenn
01-17-2012, 08:35 PM
I mean an urban island.

Yeah I figured it out just wanted to show off my lack of competence :)