h a l f b a k e r yThere's no money in it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I grew up in Ohio. There are no Asian people in Ohio. Okay,
that's not true, there was one Asian guy at my highschool (out
4500) So not until I went to university did I mentally notice
that some people are from China and others from Japan. Soon
I learned (much to my surprise) that China had different
regions, and that there were different kinds of Japanese folk.
I can't say that I truly became less prejudiced until this all
started to sink in.
In contrast: with white people I knew there were all kinds:
Italians, Irish, midwestern mutts, new englanders ...
And with black people there were: Southerners, Creoles,
Cowboys, islanders, indians(not native americans...)
Now that I'm in new york I'm catching up on all the Hispanic
people...
So my point is we should start describing people with more
specific terms from the start. For example a new caster might
say:
"A young girl is missing she is a 5'3" 17 year old black indian
with short hair ..."
The point being to make people try to look at people as
smaller (and smaller and smaller) groups until it gets silly and
we stop doing that.
History of racism
http://www3.sympati...e/HistoryRacism.htm
A wide-ranging essay that looks at the origins of racism and all the factors that contributed to its development. [PotatoStew, Jul 08 2001]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
*If* you have your ironic hat on, and *if* the idea is reductio ad absurdam, then croissant, but I fear that most people will see this as it appears superficially, ie, characterising people solely by their ethnic origin, in which case, fishbone. I thus remain neutral. |
|
| |
Besides, it's already silly. |
|
| |
Of course it is. Besides, I could challenge you ([futurebird]) to identify *my* ethnic/racial origin from my appearance. How far back would you expect to go? My father is British, but some his of ancestors were Hugenot French. My mother is also British, but some of her distant ancestors were Norse. Me, I'm just British. |
|
| |
Alongside the other discussions about hyphen-Americans, this seems quite mild. I have no interest in my ancestry - well, that's not entirely true, I would have an interest in knowing what chequered past my family has over the generations. What I mean is that it has absolutely no bearing on my 'identity'. That is purely determined by my experiences to date, and to some extent by the type of people there are in my family - but that only extends two generations back. And I would contend that my family have as little influence on my 'identity' as the large number of friends I have known over these 22 years.
However, I know what you're going to say - perhaps it's the fact that there is no significant identity struggle in my white English background that makes my identity less important to me. If I was the daughter of immigrant Polish Jews, then yes I would feel that my identity was important... but it is a transitory thing - I feel that you can only control your future by being comfortable with yourself, and if your identity is something you struggle with, or rebel against, or continually use as an excuse for failure or rejection, it's doing you more harm than good. |
|
| |
Since when are Indians black? Most I know self-identify as Asian. (Unless you're referring to folks from the West Indies, but I've only heard them referred to as Jamaican, Trinidadian, etc.) |
|
| |
The reality is, this idea has scientific merit. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the notion of "race" as we know it. This is well established. If we need to identify origins for any genetic reason, it is more accurate to define someone as either "Kenyan" or "Nigerian" than "black". Likewise "German" or "Latvian" than "white". With respect to significant physical features -- head shape, facial structure, etc. -- there is not one aspect that can positively identify one as a member of what we have traditionally called a race. The only factor, the one that has been used all along, is skin color, and that is scientifically insignificant, not to mention iffy in itself. So if we really want to do this, [futurebird] is saying (well, she's obviously saying let's not and say we did, but, you know...) let's do it legitimately. |
|
| |
Wait! No! Don't do away with "races"!!!! I need them! |
|
| |
horse race....terrier race....rat race..... |
|
| |
Until we actually meet up with intelligent extra-terrestrials, when, unless they are perfectly happy accepting the appelation of "human", we will need to further de-specify the term. I don't know, "Universal race?" |
|
| |
Someone rightly said (something like) the evolution of morality is an ever-expanding understanding of what people constitute the term "us". |
|
| |
But futurebird's reductio ad absurdum is great: since in genetic terms there is less variablity between races than between individuals, and since humans can interbreed freely (and generally promiscuously) across all boundaries, let's define a single race for each individual human on the planet. And so, yes, "...look at people as smaller (and smaller and smaller) groups until it gets silly and we stop doing that." Excellent! |
|
| |
That should cut it down a bit. Abolish the meaning of race as it applies to ethnic groupings. Few animals can successfully interbreed across species boundaries. |
|
| |
Something I've always wondered..... within the species of dogs, for example, we have breeds ----Jack Russells and a bunch of other ones that I can't stand ---- then, within the species of horses, we have breeds such as Thoroughbreds, Quarter Horses, Arabians, Trakehners, Standardbreds, Welsh, on and on..... |
|
| |
All breeds are distinctive due to selective breeding by mankind yet the breeds can interbreed if someone so chooses.... (a plea I make often for the Thoroughbreds to bring some hybrid vigor into the breed). |
|
| |
Yet, in humans....we don't have "breeds" we have "races" (not that I condone the concept). My question is why are Jack Russells not considered a "race" of dogs..... why are Thoroughbreds not a "race" of horses (yes, inherent pun as they are "race horses"....) but, you see my question.... |
|
| |
Of course, I've always wondered why human birth certificates are not as extensive as registration certificates for horses and dogs. I know every ancestor of my Thoroughbreds back to the 1700's.... including where they were born, what colour they were, and when they died. I think human birth certificates should list a full five generation pedigree. |
|
| |
I think the most important issue here is a way to effectively describe peoples' appearance rather than define races. [futurebird]'s hypothetical missing young girl would need to be found and an accurate description would probably assist in this matter. |
|
| |
waug: It may not be WIBNI... see the link I posted. The
author of the essay says that racism didn't always exist,
and since there was a begining to it, there could also be
an end to it. |
|
| |
This idea had more to do with reading the "southern
heritage program" idea and remembering that there is a
cultural divide between northern blacks, southern blacks,
mixed blacks, former cowboys, 'indians' (black people who
lived with/ like amarican indians to avoid being slaves),
sons of freedmen, creoles, recent emigrants, buppies and
about a dozen other groups I can't think of right now. |
|
| |
Then I felt vague annoyance that most people don't even
know about these differences and just think of "black
people" like this giant lump. Then I remembered how this
kid explained to me the difference between being a
Japanese person who was "peasant stock" and
"aristocratic stock" and how the people in Japan weren't
all one race ... then thinking we could stand to know
more about how people identify *themselves* instead of
how people get identified by outside parties ... |
|
| |
Mephista: [more races] many of my ancestors were pirates,so can i have 'piratical' as a race ? |
|
| |
technobadger: If you have any Scottish ancestry, you're, by default, "piratical". The term "Scot" comes from the Latin "Scottii", I think, meaning just exactly that. Hell, even if you don't have any blood-ties, yer welcome into the clan. Actually... there's a point. Couldn't we all just get ourselves adopted into whichever race(s) we want to belong to? Any Italian / Thai couples want to adopt a bouncing 29yo? (I like the food). Then they, in turn, could get themselves adopted so I can inherit their new ethnic identities. |
|
| |
I agree with you on that last point, PeterSealy. I often
hear people say to me something like, "I was at
[such-and-such a place], and there was a [black/hispanic]
man there
who [did such-and-such a thing]." I always look for the
connection between what I'm being told about the
interaction and the fact that the subject was black or
hispanic or whatever, but
there never seems to be any connection, so I'm always
left wondering "why did you tell me the person was
[black/hispanic]?" |
|
| |
Well, knowing the race of some one can help paint a
(slightly) clearer picture of where they might be coming
from. |
|
| |
<rasta accent>
// where they might be coming from. //, mon.
</rasta accent> |
|
| |
<slight aside> I have a friend, of white British parents, who grew up in Kenya among the locals. After returning to UK, still a youth, he needed to describe to his mother a particular boy at school, and spent several fruitless minutes referring to the boy's height, build, etc. Eventually, he spotted the boy in the street and pointed him out. He was, of course, a black African, and my friend had simply not considered this to be significant. </slight aside> |
|
| |