Race/Identity Tangent (split from News thread)

[Anteros]

The problem isn't whether or not, however, if they are serious or not.  The problem would exist if they possessed the actual ability and approval of society to act on their particular set of beliefs.  I can believe that the Earth is flat all that I want to, but I'm just a crazy man screaming nonsense in a corner without any way to actually enforce my views on people.  And I say enforce quite literally because there is less than 0% chance of me actually convincing someone through evidence that the world is flat.

That said, if Trump would actually give people like what you describe a pathway to force their beliefs on the rest of America, then there exists a problem.

Of course racism isn't dead.  As long as there are races, distinct in their ethnic identity, there will be racism.  The total elimination of racism is not an ideal goal for a liberal, democratic society because of the necessary policies that would need to be put into place.  The goal should be that institutional racism, racism enforced at the end of a gun or laws or whatever - stuff like Jim Crow - should be eliminated, and that racist ideology should be exposed for the brand of ignorance that it is and shunned on a widespread societal basis.  Goals that have largely been achieved.  The Fox News cry of 'racism is dead b/c we have a black President' is simply something they use to further their political narrative, having no more substance in fact than the idea that the Earth is flat.

In the one case, that is not precisely a great number of people, in the latter...more to come.

Let's say that Trump wins with 50.5% of the vote.  If 16% of his supporters believe that getting rid of slavery was bad, then that means that about 8.1% of the US population believes it, for a total of about 26 million people...a number slightly higher than the population of North Korea (24 million).  This is, of course, almost certainly not true, considering that not every person voting Trump would do so because they wholeheartedly support him.  And that number, I would guess, would be concentrated in certain areas of the country.

The latter is...it can be hard for some people - especially dumb ones - to separate superior race from superior culture.  I may just be thinking naively, but I'm guessing that most of those people aren't saying white people are racially superior, they're culturally superior.  Which is a thing.  Not that white culture is superior to black culture, but that you have certain cultures that are superior to others in general.  Nobody would say that the culture of 8th century France is just as good as the culture of France today.

Racial superiority - in the strictest sense - is difficult to measure.  Race, ethnicity, is basically based upon genetic patterns and selections.  How do you measure the superiority of one set of genes to another?

I'm sorry to say, I find some of your ideas quite disturbing.

First, race is not a genetic or otherise biological concept when applied to modern humanity, but a social one. Associating in anyway race and genetics is both misleading and dangerous.

Second, speaking about racism as an unavoidable and natural phenomenon is ignoring the nature and history of racism. The current  concept of race itself isn't either that old or universal.

Third, limiting the struggle against racism to making some of its expressions illegal is absurd. It's like saying that the fight against violence is won because it's illegal and ignoring the thousands of murders and assaults happening around us.

[ReijiTabibito]

First, race is not a genetic or otherise biological concept when applied to modern humanity, but a social one. Associating in anyway race and genetics is both misleading and dangerous.

You didn't listen to what I was saying.  I said the strictest sense of race.  The online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives, as a definition of race, the following: "any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits."  (It also gives a bunch of other definitions, but those are about things like competitive races or the verbal form of them.)

By that definition, race is absolutely biological/genetic.

The idea that race is a social concept...how often do you hear on TV people talking about 'the American race,' or some other group that has diversity of genetics but uniformity of culture?  It's possible, I'll grant it that, but when you usually hear about race in the US, you are talking about differences caused primarily by genetics.

Second, speaking about racism as an unavoidable and natural phenomenon is ignoring the nature and history of racism. The current  concept of race itself isn't either that old or universal.

Really?  Please, do enlighten me on the nature and history of racism.  My assumption that racism is the pre-judgment of others based on nothing more than their physical characteristics must be off.

And more to the point, people will always seek to find a way to claim superiority to others.  You might say that you have superior virtues, or superior military might, or even something as base as having more money, but people want to claim that they are better and superior to others, and doing so based on physical characteristics is a super-easy one.  After all, it requires you to learn nothing about the other guy's culture and society, just what you can see.

Third, limiting the struggle against racism to making some of its expressions illegal is absurd. It's like saying that the fight against violence is won because it's illegal and ignoring the thousands of murders and assaults happening around us.

What else do we have to do?  I'm in agreement with you that racism is bad, but show me a racist policy, a racist law, some form of organized racism that legitimately oppresses people.  Show me something that requires a unified effort to fight and isn't just ghosts and shadows.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, in the strictest sense, Reiji - and mumbling an apology for intervening as a European here - but surely the word race is often used these days in a way that heavily blurs the line between genetic heritage and cultural allegiances? Being "black" in a US passport or neighbourhood context isn't only about having black parents and grandparents but also about identifiying with black culture and black history, or a black family history anyway. Barack Obama and Halle Berry both have one black and one white parent, but they're always referred to as black, not white. Keith Jarrett has no black ancestors at all, according to himself, but his look (at least how his face used to look) and the tone of his music have so much black to them that many people have always thought the guy came from a part black background.

Hispanic doesn't seem to be super tightly linked to a definite wider race either, Hispanics can be both light-skinned, syrup- or olive coloured and deep brown. With some people it does seem to be as much a cultural identification as a label of what kind of roots their parents and grandparents had.

American race? Never heard anyone saying that either, but I've heard people saying they are ethnically American a few times - meaning they were of the USA. Relates a bit, of course, to how much effectiveness you would grant to the famous melting-pot.

[ReijiTabibito]

Yes, in the strictest sense, Reiji - and mumbling an apology for intervening as a European here - but surely the word race is often used these days in a way that heavily blurs the line between genetic heritage and cultural allegiances?

Absolutely it is.  Much of the research I've done on the subject confirms that race is one of those words that is used interchangeably with other ones of not quite but kind of the same definition/area of study/whatever.  Usually the word race is confused/conflated with the word ethnic or ethnicity, but see below about the potential difference between the two.

Being "black" in a US passport or neighbourhood context isn't only about having black parents and grandparents but also about identifiying with black culture and black history, or a black family history anyway. Barack Obama and Halle Berry both have one black and one white parent, but they're always referred to as black, not white. Keith Jarrett has no black ancestors at all, according to himself, but his look (at least how his face used to look) and the tone of his music have so much black to them that many people have always thought the guy came from a part black background.

Also right.  Generally speaking, anthropologists make two distinct categorizations for people: race and ethnicity.

Race is almost purely physical and genetic.  Consider Germans versus the Finns.  Genetically, they are highly similar to each other, and probably identical if you remove standard variable traits like height, eye and hair color, etc.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is the category used for people who identify with others based on factors like: common language, shared history, social values, common homeland, religion and mythology, etc.

By those definitions, you might have two peoples who are racially the same, but uniquely identifiable because of their ethnicity.  Nobody would confuse a German for a Finn because they don't speak the same language, or have the same history or homeland.

That said, ethnicity usually divides up unto five subgroups.

There's ethno-linguistic, which emphasizes common language or writing form.

There's ethno-national, which emphasizes a shared sense of national identity.

There's ethno-racial, which emphasizes similar physical appearances based on genetic origins.

There's ethno-regional, which emphasizes hailing from a specific geographical area.

And there's ethno-religious, which emphasizes shared religion, whether that is a broad one or a subsect of one particular religion.

Something else you have to consider - I'm going to take your Keith Jarrett example here - is cultural osmosis.  Most people agree that our modern forms of music - jazz, rock and roll, R&B, list goes on - had their genesis in the black community.  And moreover, consider what the people of today are listening to; I knew kids from my substitute days who were whiter than whitebread but would listen to what might be termed 'black' music.  Why?  A: it was popular; B: it was what all their friends were listening to.  Just because you are of a specific genetic background does not tie you into the cultural traditions, the ethnicity, of that background.  Ethnicity trumps race.

That's why separation based on race simply does not stand up in the real world.  It is the nature of culture to take in and assimilate and absorb parts of other cultures, especially when you consider a place like the US.   I'm not sure how true this is, but I've heard stories saying that within a couple centuries, there'll be so much intermixing of genetics and culture that there won't be distinct races anymore.

Hispanic doesn't seem to be super tightly linked to a definite wider race either, Hispanics can be both light-skinned, syrup- or olive coloured and deep brown. With some people it does seem to be as much a cultural identification as a label of what kind of roots their parents and grandparents had.

That is certainly true.  Consider this.  Back when I was in HS and looking for a part-time job, they would ask you as part of the application to identify your race.  The list of possible races I remember were: Caucausian (non-Hispanic), African, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic.  There was probably an other, but those were the big ones.

By the time I graduated from college, that question about race had actually been separated into two questions.  One asked for identification of race, and listed four options: Caucasian, African, Asian/Pac Islander, and Other.

Separate from that question was a question about whether or not I identify as Hispanic.  I've run into quite a few such setups in the times that I've been looking for a job search - and this is technically a more correct configuration to handle the question, because being Hispanic, especially in the US, is no longer just a matter of whether or not you have the genetics of someone from the Spanish peninsula.  It's more about whether you ascribe to the language, the culture, things that are not tied to DNA.  So being Hispanic is more a matter of ethnicity than race.

[Anteros]

You didn't listen to what I was saying.  I said the strictest sense of race.  The online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives, as a definition of race, the following: "any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits."  (It also gives a bunch of other definitions, but those are about things like competitive races or the verbal form of them.)

By that definition, race is absolutely biological/genetic.

The idea that race is a social concept...how often do you hear on TV people talking about 'the American race,' or some other group that has diversity of genetics but uniformity of culture?  It's possible, I'll grant it that, but when you usually hear about race in the US, you are talking about differences caused primarily by genetics.

I've never heard anyone talk about the American race before, but I may merely not watch the kind of programs where people would use that phrase.

Quoted from Wikipedia: Sociologists, in general, recognize "race" as a social construct. This means that, though the concepts of race and racism are based in observable biological characteristics, any conclusions drawn about race on the basis of those observations are heavily influenced by cultural ideologies. Racism, as an ideology, exists in a society at both the individual and the institutional level.

Really?  Please, do enlighten me on the nature and history of racism.  My assumption that racism is the pre-judgment of others based on nothing more than their physical characteristics must be off.

And more to the point, people will always seek to find a way to claim superiority to others.  You might say that you have superior virtues, or superior military might, or even something as base as having more money, but people want to claim that they are better and superior to others, and doing so based on physical characteristics is a super-easy one.  After all, it requires you to learn nothing about the other guy's culture and society, just what you can see.

Reducing racism to a mere opinion is just a way to make it appear as if we can't do anything about it, because you can't fight an idea, right? But racism is more than an idea. It is a system. And systems can be dismantled.
Rather than mere prejudice, racism is also the the systemic impostion by thought, word and deed of a social order based of the notion of racial hierarchy. That notion of racial hierachy is an invention of cultures(Arab and European, most prominently) that thrived on the conquest and mass enslavement of given populations of physically different people, who could justify their misdeeds by saying that their victims were inferiors by virtue of their race. It's different from the ethnocentrism and xenophobia that were more common before then.

What else do we have to do?  I'm in agreement with you that racism is bad, but show me a racist policy, a racist law, some form of organized racism that legitimately oppresses people.  Show me something that requires a unified effort to fight and isn't just ghosts and shadows.

You're really asking for proof that racist policies exist?
How about this? Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory Efforts to Disenfranchise, Courts Rule: http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-laws-discriminatory-disenfranchise-485708
Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
Chicago Police Dept. Plagued by Systemic Racism, Task Force Finds http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/us/chicago-police-dept-plagued-by-systemic-racism-task-force-finds.html?_r=0
But as I said earlier, even laws that are actually against racism haven't made it disappear. They just made it less obvious. People are less likely to explicitely mention race as the reason they act. It doesn't change the things they do or why they do them.
What do we have to do, you ask? We have to equalize the racial power dynamics, because racism is a matter of power. And there is the difficulty, because no oppressor ever willingly relinquish their power over those they oppress.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You can't legislate intelligence, tolerance or acceptance.  It's been proven time and again.

Laws can be abolished, amended or enacted but none of that changes the way people think, feel and react. 

[ReijiTabibito]

Quoted from Wikipedia: Sociologists, in general, recognize "race" as a social construct. This means that, though the concepts of race and racism are based in observable biological characteristics, any conclusions drawn about race on the basis of those observations are heavily influenced by cultural ideologies. Racism, as an ideology, exists in a society at both the individual and the institutional level.

A sociologist would define race as a social construct, because a sociologist is trained to look at everything as a social construct.  And you're still ignoring the fact that I said the strictest  sense, that is, in the most narrowly defined sense of race, in the scientific and anthropological conceptions of it.  I'm not talking about race in that never quite the same definition twice sense you get typically in the media, where they imprecisely define and/or outright change the definition of the words they use so they can use it to support whatever stupid talking point they've got this week.

And you're just proving my point for me.  The concepts of race and racism are based in biological - genetically determined - characteristics.  Conclusions drawn upon the basis of those observations are influenced by culture - not genetics.  That is what I've been trying to say; when people say 'the white race is superior,' they don't mean that the actual genes of white people are superior.  They mean that the cultural practices of white people are.  And while you can't say that one set of genes or another is superior, you can say that the culture of one civilization or another is.

Reducing racism to a mere opinion is just a way to make it appear as if we can't do anything about it, because you can't fight an idea, right? But racism is more than an idea. It is a system. And systems can be dismantled.

It is both.  Racism is an idea, and it can be a system if enough people who embrace the idea come together to collectively force their idea onto others.  Illustration.  In the town of Nowhere, Mississippi, there's a population of 500 people.  Of those 500 people, only 75 of them - 15% of the town's population - embrace racism.  All the rest say that there is no superiority based on genetic race.  Now, under most circumstances, those 75 people would just be crazy people screaming in a corner.  Are they embracing an ideology that is harmful to humanity?  Yes, absolutely.  But the beauty of America is that I don't have to give a shit about the opinions of Billy-Bob Junior Senior III Mountain Dew McColonBlow the VIII.  I do not have to listen to his crap, he's just some idiot racist.  Nobody is under the obligation to listen to the opinions of anyone else, though a wise and intelligent person will because the opinions of other people can be enlightening.

Let's say that 50 of those 75, though, occupy positions within the town government.  Critical positions, ones where they can actually enforce their stupidity on the rest of us.  Then racism becomes a system, and something that absolutely needs to be dismantled.  That's why the leadup to the CRA of 1964 was such a huge time of progress - the institutions of racism in the South, primarily segregation, were being dismantled and new opportunities opening up for those who had formerly been disenfranchised.

Rather than mere prejudice, racism is also the the systemic impostion by thought, word and deed of a social order based of the notion of racial hierarchy. That notion of racial hierachy is an invention of cultures(Arab and European, most prominently) that thrived on the conquest and mass enslavement of given populations of physically different people, who could justify their misdeeds by saying that their victims were inferiors by virtue of their race. It's different from the ethnocentrism and xenophobia that were more common before then.

Right, because saying 'anyone not one of us is inferior' is absolutely different from saying 'we're superior to everyone else.'

How about this? Voter ID Laws Are Discriminatory Efforts to Disenfranchise, Courts Rule: http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-laws-discriminatory-disenfranchise-485708

Yes, because it's totally racist to insist that people say who they actually are instead of somebody else.  A lot of the argument against Voter ID laws are essentially attempts to, Game of Thrones-like, shame people into non-objection.  When people come out and say how bad and racist voter ID laws are, and how they would totally disenfranchise voters, look at the people they bring up as examples.  You'll never see a poor white person held up as an example of how voter ID laws would silence them, because that would undermine the whole narrative.  I remember the example that John Oliver used on Last Week Tonight when it discussed voter ID - an elderly black woman.

Now, for that example, I was against the difficulties that woman experienced in getting her voter registration, because it was quite obvious that the goalposts were being moved.  She went there on four separate occasions, only to be told the first three times that she was lacking a form of ID needed to obtain voter registration.  Now, I've been guilty of that when I went to get my driver's license renewed, forgetting some important document I might need.  In reality, she should have only had to go twice, because the people at the voter registration office should have laid out for her everything that she needed to be registered after the first time she was rejected.

And lest you think otherwise, this was not in Alabama or Georgia, this was in Pennsylvania, a state that is - depending on your particular bent - either a battleground state or a blue-leaning one.

Solving the question of ID for voting is simple.  Because it's never the question of what sort of ID is acceptable or not.  What you inevitably hear about is the difficulty in obtaining said ID.  Answer: establish, at your local post office, fire station, or police station, a National ID Card handout.  When someone turns 18, they can head down to one or more of those locations, and at no cost obtain a United States ID card, provided they present evidence that they are a citizen.  Renewal of the card follows US Passport policy of once every 10 years.

Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: About the Issue http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

Stop and Frisk was racist, but not because the law itself was actually racist - it was in the implementation of it, and you can't expect to understand with 100% clarity how people will enact a policy.  That said, if a non-racist law is shown as implemented in a totally racist way, the best thing to do is repeal the law, as they did.

But as I said earlier, even laws that are actually against racism haven't made it disappear. They just made it less obvious. People are less likely to explicitely mention race as the reason they act. It doesn't change the things they do or why they do them.

Of course not.  If you wanted to make racism disappear, totally and utterly, you would have to ban the idea of racism.  And that requires an Orwellian-style government that monitors the thoughts and discussions and private conversations of its citizens - an omnipresent surveillance state.  Even then, you won't be able to perfectly get rid of racism, because how do you know what someone is thinking?  (Though I would suppose that Lincoln Powell would be able to help out with that.)

What do we have to do, you ask? We have to equalize the racial power dynamics, because racism is a matter of power. And there is the difficulty, because no oppressor ever willingly relinquish their power over those they oppress.

How do you propose to equalize the racial power dynamics?  From how you make it sound, it sounds like the minute that the people who have gotten the short end of the stick aren't being oppressed anymore, they're just going to turn around and start oppressing the former oppressors.

And if you think racism is about power, that people without power can't be racist, let me ask you this:

Does that mean the group of 5 Neo-Nazis that meets in my apartment building twice a month aren't racist?  'Cause heaven knows they don't have any power.

You can't legislate intelligence, tolerance or acceptance.  It's been proven time and again.

Laws can be abolished, amended or enacted but none of that changes the way people think, feel and react. 

I haven't watched it in forever, but I always remember this quote about racism and racists from Law & Order:

"We're past the separate lunch counters stage, we're past the separate drinking fountains stage.  We're at the hearts and minds stage, and for that there is no quick and easy solution."

You can make racism in practice illegal as the day is long, but Beguile is right, you can't use laws to force how people change think and feel.

[Anteros]

A sociologist would define race as a social construct, because a sociologist is trained to look at everything as a social construct.  And you're still ignoring the fact that I said the strictest  sense, that is, in the most narrowly defined sense of race, in the scientific and anthropological conceptions of it.  I'm not talking about race in that never quite the same definition twice sense you get typically in the media, where they imprecisely define and/or outright change the definition of the words they use so they can use it to support whatever stupid talking point they've got this week.

And you're just proving my point for me.  The concepts of race and racism are based in biological - genetically determined - characteristics.  Conclusions drawn upon the basis of those observations are influenced by culture - not genetics.  That is what I've been trying to say; when people say 'the white race is superior,' they don't mean that the actual genes of white people are superior.  They mean that the cultural practices of white people are.  And while you can't say that one set of genes or another is superior, you can say that the culture of one civilization or another is.

I certainly can't say that  a culture or civilization is superior to another. Who decide of the crrteria to be judged and how to judge them? As for the definition of races, I do not see how I validate your point. While the notion of races is mostly based on observable physical traits, those traits are chosen quite arbitrarily, while others are ignored just as arbitrarily. Saying that red horses are a single taxon for example is based on an observable trait, but it doesn't make it scientfically exact, just as saying that black people are a race doesn't make it biologically true.

It is both. Racism is an idea, and it can be a system if enough people who embrace the idea come together to collectively force their idea onto others.  Illustration.  In the town of Nowhere, Mississippi, there's a population of 500 people.  Of those 500 people, only 75 of them - 15% of the town's population - embrace racism.  All the rest say that there is no superiority based on genetic race.  Now, under most circumstances, those 75 people would just be crazy people screaming in a corner.  Are they embracing an ideology that is harmful to humanity?  Yes, absolutely.  But the beauty of America is that I don't have to give a shit about the opinions of Billy-Bob Junior Senior III Mountain Dew McColonBlow the VIII.  I do not have to listen to his crap, he's just some idiot racist.  Nobody is under the obligation to listen to the opinions of anyone else, though a wise and intelligent person will because the opinions of other people can be enlightening.

Let's say that 50 of those 75, though, occupy positions within the town government.  Critical positions, ones where they can actually enforce their stupidity on the rest of us.  Then racism becomes a system, and something that absolutely needs to be dismantled.  That's why the leadup to the CRA of 1964 was such a huge time of progress - the institutions of racism in the South, primarily segregation, were being dismantled and new opportunities opening up for those who had formerly been disenfranchised.

Just because only a minority identify as racist doesn't mean the others are not. They ofent just won't admit it to themsleves and/or others. But it doesn't matter, because merely participating in the perpetuation of a racist system without challenging it is enough. What is more, that system is already in place, it doesn't need to develop from the local level, because the local situation exist within a greater whole, not in a vacuum. That minority of racists you mention exist within a system that is more lkely to enable and protect them that those victim of their racism.
In short, your entire argument is made by ignoring the fact that racism is part of both US(among many others) institutions and mentality. Want an example? http://aattp.org/new-study-whites-more-likely-to-support-harsher-laws-if-more-blacks-are-arrested/

Right, because saying 'anyone not one of us is inferior' is absolutely different from saying 'we're superior to everyone else.'

There is a difference. Racism implies superiority based on physical differences. That means that there is no chance of acceptation, or even assimilation, unlike cases of ethnic discrimination which are largely based on culture.

Yes, because it's totally racist to insist that people say who they actually are instead of somebody else.  A lot of the argument against Voter ID laws are essentially attempts to, Game of Thrones-like, shame people into non-objection.  When people come out and say how bad and racist voter ID laws are, and how they would totally disenfranchise voters, look at the people they bring up as examples.  You'll never see a poor white person held up as an example of how voter ID laws would silence them, because that would undermine the whole narrative.  I remember the example that John Oliver used on Last Week Tonight when it discussed voter ID - an elderly black woman.

Now, for that example, I was against the difficulties that woman experienced in getting her voter registration, because it was quite obvious that the goalposts were being moved.  She went there on four separate occasions, only to be told the first three times that she was lacking a form of ID needed to obtain voter registration.  Now, I've been guilty of that when I went to get my driver's license renewed, forgetting some important document I might need.  In reality, she should have only had to go twice, because the people at the voter registration office should have laid out for her everything that she needed to be registered after the first time she was rejected.

And lest you think otherwise, this was not in Alabama or Georgia, this was in Pennsylvania, a state that is - depending on your particular bent - either a battleground state or a blue-leaning one.

Solving the question of ID for voting is simple.  Because it's never the question of what sort of ID is acceptable or not.  What you inevitably hear about is the difficulty in obtaining said ID.  Answer: establish, at your local post office, fire station, or police station, a National ID Card handout.  When someone turns 18, they can head down to one or more of those locations, and at no cost obtain a United States ID card, provided they present evidence that they are a citizen.  Renewal of the card follows US Passport policy of once every 10 years.

Stop and Frisk was racist, but not because the law itself was actually racist - it was in the implementation of it, and you can't expect to understand with 100% clarity how people will enact a policy.  That said, if a non-racist law is shown as implemented in a totally racist way, the best thing to do is repeal the law, as they did.

You do realize that what makes the ID laws racist is their calculated and disproportionate impact on PoC? Nobody said that white people were not also affected, just not in so important proportions.
As for Stop & Frisk, just because it wasn't explicitely aimed at PoC, doesn't mean it wasn't implicitely.

Of course not.  If you wanted to make racism disappear, totally and utterly, you would have to ban the idea of racism.  And that requires an Orwellian-style government that monitors the thoughts and discussions and private conversations of its citizens - an omnipresent surveillance state.  Even then, you won't be able to perfectly get rid of racism, because how do you know what someone is thinking?  (Though I would suppose that Lincoln Powell would be able to help out with that.)

As I repeatedly said, merely making racism illegal doesn't work, anymore than making alcohol illegal worked. People grew up thinking that their racists thoughts and comportments are normal and something they are entitled to. Many enjoy it or benefit from it and often those who suffer from it have integrated it just as much and will try to accomodate the racists rather than denounce them, knowing their racism is an integral part of society and thus supported by it. Even when racism is reported, it's often not believed, or reports are shouted down, the protester is subjected to threats, aggressions or accusations. Just look at Colin Kaepernick.
Still while laws against racist thoughts are useless, appropriate laws in support of people vulnerable to racism could be used to break those patterns. They could allow more access to resources, more protection, more visibility, more credibility to those who need it. If racism is made ineffective, it becomes a waste of energy and is bound to collapse as a system.

How do you propose to equalize the racial power dynamics?  From how you make it sound, it sounds like the minute that the people who have gotten the short end of the stick aren't being oppressed anymore, they're just going to turn around and start oppressing the former oppressors.

And if you think racism is about power, that people without power can't be racist, let me ask you this:

Does that mean the group of 5 Neo-Nazis that meets in my apartment building twice a month aren't racist?  'Cause heaven knows they don't have any power.

I haven't watched it in forever, but I always remember this quote about racism and racists from Law & Order:

"We're past the separate lunch counters stage, we're past the separate drinking fountains stage.  We're at the hearts and minds stage, and for that there is no quick and easy solution."

You can make racism in practice illegal as the day is long, but Beguile is right, you can't use laws to force how people change think and feel.

You keep arguing against an argument I do not make. When did I talk about making laws about thoughts and feelings? :-\
As for equalizing power dynamics, it could start with involving minorities in the creation and enforcement of policies that will affect their communities for example.
A bunch of neo-nazis (people whose whole ideology is about white power and getting rid of Jews & PoC) gather regularly, potentially terrifying whole families and since they keep coming back, they presumably aren't even being bothered. In a country where white supremacists are the greatest terrorist threat, where black and latinx people get accosted by police for standing in front of their own houses.  Doesn't seem like they're powerless to me. White privilege is also a form of power.

PS: If you wish to continue this discussion, creating a thread for it might be better than hijacking this one?

[ReijiTabibito]

This is going to be my last post on this subject, because this is a thread to discuss the election and not to discuss racism, because whatever you believe about racism, I'm of the notion that you can have two people and three different opinions on racism.

I certainly can't say that  a culture or civilization is superior to another. Who decide of the crrteria to be judged and how to judge them? As for the definition of races, I do not see how I validate your point. While the notion of races is mostly based on observable physical traits, those traits are chosen quite arbitrarily, while others are ignored just as arbitrarily. Saying that red horses are a single taxon for example is based on an observable trait, but it doesn't make it scientfically exact, just as saying that black people are a race doesn't make it biologically true.

My point is this: people use the words race and ethnicity interchangeably, to mean the same thing, when in fact that they are not the same thing.  Moreover, when people talk about racial superiority, they are not talking about superiority based on race, they are talking about it based on ethnicity.  In short, people are dumb and imprecise and their stupidity should be accounted for.

Just because only a minority identify as racist doesn't mean the others are not. They ofent just won't admit it to themsleves and/or others. But it doesn't matter, because merely participating in the perpetuation of a racist system without challenging it is enough. What is more, that system is already in place, it doesn't need to develop from the local level, because the local situation exist within a greater whole, not in a vacuum. That minority of racists you mention exist within a system that is more lkely to enable and protect them that those victim of their racism.

In short, your entire argument is made by ignoring the fact that racism is part of both US(among many others) institutions and mentality. Want an example? http://aattp.org/new-study-whites-more-likely-to-support-harsher-laws-if-more-blacks-are-arrested/

So, if you can be racist without even actually knowing that you are, doesn't that technically mean that everyone can be racist?  And if you can be racist by simply failing to challenge a racist system, then doesn't that change the definition of what racism actually is?  Because if you can be non-racist except for failing to overturn systems that are, then again, everyone can be racist.  The Supreme Court overturned portions of the Voting Rights Act a few years ago which sparked a discussion on racism in America because the moment that happened, state governments started moving to disenfranchise.  Does that make the SCOTUS racist?

I would like to ask: what's the solution here?  Tear down all the institutions that participated in racism because they might be still be carrying racist portions of their structure and operation?  The vast majority of institutions that exist in the United States today - local government, state governments, federal ones - were conceived of in an era were racism existed.  Or have some of those institutions somehow purged themselves of that legacy and now operate free and clear?  And, here's the big one: how do you tell which ones have and which ones haven't?  What are the criteria that need to be met for that?

As for your article, two things.  One, I would actually like to see the study paper itself and read it, instead of the commentaries that are offered on it by non-academic outlets, before I make a call.  Two, by the general setup of both scenarios - showing the mugshots of people arrested and in prison because of policies like Stop and Frisk - you at least would not have gotten me to agree to the petition in either case.  Forget white vs black, if all those people are criminals, I don't want them back out on the street where they can do more harm to the community, I want them in jail.  Now, if the study were to show that you had a higher rate of false incarceration for minorities - say that 1/3rd of blacks compared to 1/10th of whites - then that would be something worth combating. 

Also, one last thing on this.  From the Stanford source: "Stanford psychology researchers Rebecca Hetey and Jennifer Eberhardt found that when white people were told about these racial disparities, they reported being more afraid of crime and more likely to support the kinds of punitive policies that exacerbate the racial disparities."

In short, if people are told that black people are more likely to commit crimes and break the law, then the more they want to lock up black people.  That's not because they are black, that's because of the notion, the perception, that they are criminals.  It's like feminists going around screaming that all men are potential rapists.  If you believe that all men are potential rapists, then you aren't going to want men to be around, are you?

You do realize that what makes the ID laws racist is their calculated and disproportionate impact on PoC? Nobody said that white people were not also affected, just not in so important proportions.

As for Stop & Frisk, just because it wasn't explicitely aimed at PoC, doesn't mean it wasn't implicitely.

Show me your numbers for that.  Show me the data that shows that a higher percentage of minorities are denied access to voting because of voter ID efforts.  And I will remind you that, in quite a similar fashion to the drug war (done by that dirty, dirty communist Richard Nixon), racial crackdown is not the goal.  The goal of voter ID laws is the political disenfranchisement of the people who are trying to replace you - and in a nation where political office is seen as a career and not a service, where the highest goal is not service but endless re-election, corruption aimed at enhancing these goals is inevitable.

Race ends up becoming a major portion of the complaint, however, because minorities tend to vote Democrat, and the people trying to institute these laws are largely Republicans.  If the Democrats were behind a similar effort, you would not see them target minorities because those are the people who largely vote for them - you would instead see Democrats attempt to suppress the votes of the highly wealthy, Christian groups, and the elderly, because those are all groups who trend towards voting Republican.

In short, is race a part of it?  Yes, but only insomuch as the fact that it dovetails into a general political aim.

S&F: That's kind of what I'm saying.  The law itself did not explicitly state that it was to be targeted against minorities, but when it was put into effect and enforced, it ended up targeting them more than others.  Also, it's worth pointing out that the data usually used to decry Stop and Frisk as a totally racist policy were the records of arrests that came about as a result, and those records showed that the majority of persons arrested under the law were of minority status.  I would also point out, however, that every person who was arrested under Stop & Frisk was also committing a crime.  This ends up being one of the idiot moments of our nation when it comes to law enforcement, because somehow we've got this idea that you shouldn't arrest people out of proportion to their portion of the population.  Which either means you need to have either Precrime, or simply stop arresting people after you hit that population proportion, which means letting criminals continue their work unmatched.

As I repeatedly said, merely making racism illegal doesn't work, anymore than making alcohol illegal worked. People grew up thinking that their racists thoughts and comportments are normal and something they are entitled to.

I won't make measure about whether or not racist thoughts are 'normal,' because what normalcy is is not something easily defined, but I will say that they are absolutely entitled to think whatever they like, as long as it is thought.  Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  Is it wrong?  Sure, but people are allowed to be wrong.

Just look at Colin Kaepernick.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-zJL9JuOLQ

Still while laws against racist thoughts are useless, appropriate laws in support of people vulnerable to racism could be used to break those patterns. They could allow more access to resources, more protection, more visibility, more credibility to those who need it. If racism is made ineffective, it becomes a waste of energy and is bound to collapse as a system.

You mean things like the social safety net, or affirmative action, or the Community Re-Investment Act, or Executive Order 10925, or Head Start, or body/dash cameras for cops?

I will say this much.  Access means nothing if you haven't the drive to go for it.  I have Internet access that allows me to peruse the entire WWW.  But for some strange reason, despite the fact that I have access to Fox News Online, I don't make regular use of it.

In a country where white supremacists are the greatest terrorist threat, where black and latinx people get accosted by police for standing in front of their own houses.  Doesn't seem like they're powerless to me.

Name to me five massacres of people caused by white supremacists - and I'll be generous and say within the Western, developed world in the last 25 years - without using Google.

White supremacists are a problem.  But the number one terrorist threat?



...and that's that.  No more of this, this is a thread for talking about how terrible the two candidates are.

Well, unless you want to talk about this:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slx95WBB6M0

Because THAT is frickin' hilarious.

[TheGlyphstone]

Idly curious, but is there any specific reason you upped the threshold from three to five massacres? It seems like even one massacre would be a bad thing.

[ReijiTabibito]

Agreed that one massacre is a bad thing.

But I can think of at least two massacres (or at least, what I would term massacre) by white supremacists in the last 25 years in the developed world.  There may be another one out there lurking around that I'm not aware of - but the specific number isn't the point.

The point I want to make with that statement is saying that white supremacy is the number one terror threat in the US, or the West, or even the whole world is not correct.  Perhaps I should have simply said that.

[gaggedLouise]

I suppose you're counting in Breivik's butchery at Utöya as one of the legit White Sup massacres? Most of the people he killed were immigrants or children of immigrants, and one of the key reasons for his act was that he felt Norway had been accepting too many Asian, African and Latin American immigrants and refugees.

Overall I would agree with you - Jihadist terrorism is a more alarming and more dangerous problem today than white supremacist terrorism. And it's more difficult to detect and fight - partly due to the language barrier. It's easier to gather intelligence about terrorists and madmen who are speaking the same language as the police, or a language close to theirs.

[Sabre]

Name to me five massacres of people caused by white supremacists - and I'll be generous and say within the Western, developed world in the last 25 years - without using Google.

White supremacists are a problem.  But the number one terrorist threat?

The problem with that challenge is that it equates notoriety with threat ranking. White supremacists, nativist militias, and various other fringe groups are in fact a major threat, and the argument could be made that they're number one on the list for federal law enforcement. The issue is Jihadists are several degrees harder for the federal government to track and expose in time, while in the past 25 years the FBI has gotten infiltration, subversion, and ultimate dismantling of these fringe American movements down to an art form.

In this election, the very question of what is the number one security threat cuts to the heart of the great divide in the country. For many of Trump's supporters, it's the Jihadists who are the most dangerous given their invisibility, and far right domestic terrorists are less of a concern as many of them share core fundamental values they agree with. Meanwhile for Hillary's supporters Jihadists are not as big a threat as the far right since, even with their visible success, a Jihadist is not someone who poses a threat to their values and beliefs, while the fringe militia groups do.

The outcome of this election I think hinges on which fringe groups who have the ear of the two candidates, whether real or imagined, undecided voters and centrist leaning Republicans and Democrats are comfortable with.

[gaggedLouise]

This is going to be my last post on this subject, because this is a thread to discuss the election and not to discuss racism, because whatever you believe about racism, I'm of the notion that you can have two people and three different opinions on racism.

+100. This discussion about racism, ethniciity and identity politics does need to get broken out into its own thread.

[Blythe]

Topic split/given it's own thread, peoples, since it was starting to derail the News thread.

[Lustful Bride]

The problem with that challenge is that it equates notoriety with threat ranking. White supremacists, nativist militias, and various other fringe groups are in fact a major threat, and the argument could be made that they're number one on the list for federal law enforcement. The issue is Jihadists are several degrees harder for the federal government to track and expose in time, while in the past 25 years the FBI has gotten infiltration, subversion, and ultimate dismantling of these fringe American movements down to an art form.

+1

It seems to me less that the problem lies with one specific group/ideal/etc (though one group rising to too much power presents a clear and present danger, as was seen with the rise of groups like I.S. and Boko Haram.) but the true threat lies with what creates these extremists (OF all types, races, faiths,etc)  and compels them to go around killing as many people as they can and causing destruction in the name of their goals.

Part of the problem too I feel is a lack of proper understanding and education. I remember encountering quite a few people that felt and said that religion was solely the reason for Terrorism.....as if they forgot that groups like the IRA exist.

While I will admit that the protestant/catholic thing is one part of the IRA and its goals and hostilities, I feel most would agree with me that their goals were always much more politically based.

And the reasons for people joining the ranks of such groups ranges to everything from "I hate group Y with all of my heart and want to see them dead" to "Im in it because they pay me/give me food/water." or "I did it just because I like killing" or some just don't know any better.

Its a very complex thing and there is sadly no one right answer.


As for the whole topic of race. I think it is the physical traits that are applied to Humans as a result of evolution, breeding and adaptation over time. That is it.

Mental, social, emotional, intellectual characteristics are a product of nature and nurture, our environment and parents as well as that which is around us to shape our personality and such as we age. Race has nothing to do with the mindset, culture and family upbringing has more to do with it, with some of the person's own personal choices sprinkled in as well.

At our cores Human beings are all the same. We are all Saints and Sinners, all heroes and villains. Race is only skin deep. And if we want to ever reach our greatest potential we need to do away with all of the Isms that hold us back. the Racism, Sexism, Classism, Ableism, Etc Etc.

If we want to survive and thrive into the future we can only do it together.

Almost makes me wish for an alien invasion :P  Nothing gets humans working together like a Big Bad to collectively beat up together and rally behind.

[TheGlyphstone]

Only in fiction. A real-life alien invasion would just guarantee our doom, they'd wipe us out before we finished arguing over whose military was in charge.

[Lustful Bride]

Only in fiction. A real-life alien invasion would just guarantee our doom, they'd wipe us out before we finished arguing over whose military was in charge.

Spoil sport :P

[ReijiTabibito]

The problem with that challenge is that it equates notoriety with threat ranking. White supremacists, nativist militias, and various other fringe groups are in fact a major threat, and the argument could be made that they're number one on the list for federal law enforcement. The issue is Jihadists are several degrees harder for the federal government to track and expose in time, while in the past 25 years the FBI has gotten infiltration, subversion, and ultimate dismantling of these fringe American movements down to an art form.

If your argument, Sabre, is that the FBI can infiltrate, subvert, and dismantle fringe American movements like some people can make coffee, then wouldn't it be fair to say that while they are a presence, they really aren't that much of a threat?  These groups exist, I will definitely grant you that, and like the Marauders, they have sworn that they are up to no good.  But if the FBI and ATF and whatever other three letter organizations you can think of have the ability to do what you are saying, then how much of a threat can they pose to public safety?

In this election, the very question of what is the number one security threat cuts to the heart of the great divide in the country. For many of Trump's supporters, it's the Jihadists who are the most dangerous given their invisibility, and far right domestic terrorists are less of a concern as many of them share core fundamental values they agree with. Meanwhile for Hillary's supporters Jihadists are not as big a threat as the far right since, even with their visible success, a Jihadist is not someone who poses a threat to their values and beliefs, while the fringe militia groups do.

Which echoes someone I listen to on a semi-semi-regular basis.  Ask a Democrat and a Republican who is the greatest threat to prosperity in America.

The Republican will probably say something like Iran or ISIS or Russia or China.

The Democrat will say a Republican.

(This particular speaker's own view is that Republicans should stop saying foreigners are the biggest threat to America and start saying the political, regressive, militant left - and those Democrats who support them - are the biggest threat.  I'm of the opinion that regressives are a problem, but the problem with politicians is that they're all self-centered dicks who just want the gravy train to continue.  So not in total agreement.)


@LB:  The thing that creates extremism - which I agree in all forms is bad.  Doesn't matter what tag you put before it.  The thing that makes it is basically insistence that everyone and everything talk, act, and behave the way that you do.  I love my references, which is why I absorb so much media.  I'm actually reminded of Assassin's Creed Unity - not exactly a worthwhile title to have entered the family, but the protagonist of the story, Arno Dorian, says this: "Ideals too easily give way to dogma.  Dogma becomes fanaticism."  You'll never catch me saying I'm a fan, but one of our presidential candidates said that America's greatest strength is its diversity.  Which is true, but not in the sense that they were using for diversity.  The real beauty of our society is that no one is required to subscribe to or even listen to the opinions of others.  I can say that plain old cheese pizza is the best kind of pizza there is, and others are free to disagree.

Extremists can't tolerate dissension.  Everything has to be exactly the way that they want it to be.

[Sabre]

The key phrase there is 'to public safety.' This is a certain qualifier some people mean when they say threat, but there are others. The kind of threat fundamentalist, anti-federalist, or nativist movements pose isn't with public mayhem, though this is certainly possible, but through subversion of the political process and social contract. It's the subtle difference between highlighting what is a threat to America versus a threat to Americans, with all the identity politics that goes into defining one or the other. What concerns people about far right groups that doesn't concern them about Jihadists is that, while people can die, in great numbers even, from a Jihadist attack, the nation and its popular principles goes on. There aren't that many Muslims in America to be concerned about them breaking off from society as a whole in rebellion against American principles and democracy, though this may be a greater issue in Europe and South Asia. But if a far right threat carries out a successful attack, one after another, and ends up energizing a large swathe of the population against the rest of the country, the situation becomes almost existential.

The definitions people use, and the qualifiers they don't say when asked to define something, are today closely tied to one's political and social identity. In America, race is that shorthand word people on both sides use to refer to racialization of their in-group opposed to their out-group. Everything else tends to be superficial aspects highlighted after the fact. Thus for many supporting Trump these days, when asked who is the greatest threat they'd answer with some foreign entity, but with asterisks are targeting this assertion at their political opponents who may not only disagree, but who they feel are aiding and abetting them. In the shortest possible terms, they're against Hillary, and ranking threats according to what they perceive to be her allies and supporters has more to do with attacking her camp than it does the threat itself. Similarly for many Hillary supporters, the nearest but slightly different enemy is who they are targeting when they focus on 'Republicans' or whatever they feel they represent.

[RedRose]

White supremacists nowadays will paint a swastika on a wall or at "worst" beat up someone... Granted, it happens rather often in some countries and I'm happy guns are illegal where I am. That's awful, but as a European, the crazies planting bombs in train stations, running over school kids or Christmas fair goers with cars, slaughtering priests during mass or shooting mall shoppers are much more worrying to me. Unfortunately it took a lot for Europe to wake up. And many Americans still haven't smelled the coffee. FTR many people, when they finally get it, become much too violent and racist themselves... sigh

As for race, I think the fear/mistrust of the Other is as old as humanity, and actually people are getting much better about it!

[Blythe]

White supremacists nowadays will paint a swastika on a wall or at "worst" beat up someone... Granted, it happens rather often in some countries and I'm happy guns are illegal where I am. That's awful, but as a European,

Here in the USA, unfortunately, that's not the worst they do. The massacre involving the shooter Dylan Roof in Charleston, NC is a pretty good example (albeit a very extreme one) of things that people generally fear about what white supremacists can/will do.

[Warlock]

Although not necessarily from white supremacist groups, but within similar circles, we've had a high number of cases of arson in various asylum accomodations in Sweden. Meanwhile our Islamists terrorists haven't really had the impact, with mostly failed bombing attempts, which have been seen in the rest of Europe.

Should also note a shift, at least on our end, where race is a lesser aspect and with national identity taking a more prominent role as a motivating factor. At least from my own understanding. So, not quite comfortable speaking in terms of ''white supremacism'' since it doesn't fully capture it, or is even misleading, and precision on these issues are quite important as to not weaken ourselves.

[CopperLily]

White supremacists nowadays will paint a swastika on a wall or at "worst" beat up someone... Granted, it happens rather often in some countries and I'm happy guns are illegal where I am. That's awful, but as a European, the crazies planting bombs in train stations, running over school kids or Christmas fair goers with cars, slaughtering priests during mass or shooting mall shoppers are much more worrying to me. Unfortunately it took a lot for Europe to wake up. And many Americans still haven't smelled the coffee. FTR many people, when they finally get it, become much too violent and racist themselves... sigh

As for race, I think the fear/mistrust of the Other is as old as humanity, and actually people are getting much better about it!

Anders Breivik was what, 5.5 years ago? That's a very narrow definition of "nowadays".

[TheOscan]

Anders Breivik was what, 5.5 years ago? That's a very narrow definition of "nowadays".

Breivik is always the only argument people are able to bring up - and that was five years ago. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of people dead in France alone and over here in Germany, we had Würzburg, where people were attacked with an axe in a train, Ansbach, where an asylum seeker tried to kill people with a suicide vest (luckily he only killed himself) and only yesterday we had an islamist twelve-year-old (!) arrested for two failed attempts to kill people with nail bombs.

Meanwhile, "white supremacists" (I don't think they exist in Germany anymore, like Warlock said, it's shifting towards national identity instead of race) have burned down a number of empty buildings. Very scary  ::)   Also, the majority of suspects in these cases also have never been involved with far right politics before.

[HannibalBarca]

I tend to feel like the fallacy of false dichotomy pops up in discussions like this.  As if there can only be focus on one threat--Islamic terrorism or white supremacist terrorism.  It's much like how my ex used to say that money was being wasted on a space program that could better be spent on feeding and housing the homeless.  Actually, both can and do have money spent on them, along with hundreds if not thousands of other pressing matters.

Personally, I lean towards what Christopher Hitchens once said--that Islamic fundamentalism is the most dangerous threat to world peace and safety, at this moment.  This threat is often focused on the largest fear, which is Islamic terrorists acquiring a nuclear device or some other weapon of mass destruction.  But notice what I said up there, two sentences earlier--the most dangerous threat to world peace and safety.  It isn't the most pressing threat to the peace and stability of every region of the world.  The United States, in particular, does not suffer more deaths and destruction from Islamic terror right now than other forms of terror.  Attacks specifically directed by Islamic terrorists are much fewer in number here than white supremacists.  9/11 was the largest terror attack on U.S. soil, but that was also 15 years ago, and an outlier compared to what happened before and after.  We have many more Dylan Roofs committing terror here than Osama bin Ladens.

Some of the reason we have fewer Islamic terror attacks is that our security apparatus is geared more towards them, so they are prevented and foiled more often if they are planned or attempted.  Homegrown Islamic terror attacks (San Bernardino, Boston Marathon) slip by more than attacks from outside the nation.  But they are still outnumbered by white supremacist attacks.  There are more white supremacist organizations and individuals here, for one thing.  There is also a majority of the nation that is white, and many of those citizens may very well downplay white terrorists compared to non-white terrorists.

What priority you give something and where it happens is important.  Far, far more people die in the United States from drunk driving than airline crashes...but when an airliner crashes, it gets top priority in the media.  Terror attacks from outsiders get much more attention than homegrown attacks.  It feeds into the narrative that our nation is beset on all sides from hordes of foreign threats.

Europe has its own problems with immigration and terror, and it's a different mix than the United States.  Years ago homegrown terror was the priority, with communist-based groups in places like Greece or the Basque homeland killing people.  Now there are attacks from Muslim extremists to include.  That doesn't get rid of white supremacist terror, nor should it be ignored in favor of the newer threats.  I'm sure law enforcement and security are working to stop both.

[CopperLily]

Breivik is always the only argument people are able to bring up - and that was five years ago.

I'm not saying other things aren't happening. Just that by the same logic that discounts Breivik as not "nowadays", Americans should totally not be concerned about that whole 9/11 thing.

It's a false dichotomy. More than one thing can be threatening at a time, and a modern nation should be capable of addressing more than one threat. I'd suggest that in the U.S. at least, part of the reason "white nationalist" terrorists don't register is the very, very active campaign to portray them as lone wolves and isolated loners.

[Kythia]

You didn't listen to what I was saying.  I said the strictest sense of race.  The online Merriam-Webster dictionary gives, as a definition of race, the following: "any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits."  (It also gives a bunch of other definitions, but those are about things like competitive races or the verbal form of them.)

You've accidentally scrolled down half the page past several suitable definitions to find one that agrees with your point in a section entitled "Race defined for kids".  It's an easy mistake to make, but generally anything labelled specifically for kids is not the strictest scientific definition possible.  The (relevant) one it actually gives is:

a :  a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
b :  a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

(although even that isn't the strictest one.  The strictest one is definition one - "a breeding stock of animals").  However, that pretty clearly supports the sociological construct as equal to to any other and, depending on how "stock" is defined, the predominant one.

Edit: provably worth mentioning that merriam Webster is a proudly descriptivist dictionary. They don't say what words mean, they say how people use them. Using it as an authority on what words mean is kind of circular. If that's a route you want to pursue, use a different dictionary. And remember: don't just look at the kids' section!

[Clown without Clothes]

Race is a very real thing and there are obvious differences between races. In fact there are even differences between people who most would lump into a broader race category. It truly is fascinating too, to explore it all, the history and cultures.

As far as racism goes, well that is just a word certain people like to use to try and silence others when they hear something they don't like. A way to dumb things down and repress truth and freedom of speech.

But things are changing.

[Noisekick]

Actually the race divide in the sense of black, white, asian is not backed by science. In genetics you have haplogroups which means that there are a whole lot of different ethnicities even within groups seen as white, black or asian. Sub-saharan Africans are completely different from Austronesians despite both being of darker skin color.

Science gives a basis that says that people who differentiated based on pigmentation are ultimately uneducated and irrational.

On basis on culture, there is not inherently black or white culture, but the culture is based on multiple circumstances such as where you grew up and you life situation. For example there are white Namibians who embrace Namibian culture despite 90% of the Namibian population being black African. In Namibia people don't look down on that because for most of them it represents unity and reconciliation. There are plenty of Americans of European descent who grew up in black neighborhoods or even were adopted into a predominantly black family and therefore the culture there is their culture because they don't know anything else. That is why I think people arguing about cultural appropriation don't have any clue what they are talking about.

In Japan for example, people appreciate foreigners participating in their culture as long as they are doing it right.


In regards to using the word "racist", I think it is a bad approach to just call someone that as it does not provide a solution, it just shows that you are willing to ignore a problem by not handling it. If you come across someone who is racially prejudiced, you just need to challenge them and maybe, gradually they will change. Also emotional arguments are moot. A lot of people do not care if you are offended or are about to cry because they dont agree with your worldview. To get to them you need to argue rationally, be able to give reasons and evidence or be comprehensive. Arguments are like gears, they need to interlock so that there is traction. If your counterarguments do not address the opposing arguments given, the discussion will go nowhere.

[Blythe]

As far as racism goes, well that is just a word certain people like to use to try and silence others when they hear something they don't like. A way to dumb things down and repress truth and freedom of speech.

To clear this up before it becomes a major talking point for the thread:

No. Racism is real. It is not just a word used to silence people.

Example: Dylann Roof killed innocent people, motivated by a racist ideology.

It is not just a word.

It is a reality.

[la dame en noir]

Actually the race divide in the sense of black, white, asian is not backed by science. In genetics you have haplogroups which means that there are a whole lot of different ethnicities even within groups seen as white, black or asian. Sub-saharan Africans are completely different from Austronesians despite both being of darker skin color.

Science gives a basis that says that people who differentiated based on pigmentation are ultimately uneducated and irrational.

On basis on culture, there is not inherently black or white culture, but the culture is based on multiple circumstances such as where you grew up and you life situation. For example there are white Namibians who embrace Namibian culture despite 90% of the Namibian population being black African. In Namibia people don't look down on that because for most of them it represents unity and reconciliation. There are plenty of Americans of European descent who grew up in black neighborhoods or even were adopted into a predominantly black family and therefore the culture there is their culture because they don't know anything else. That is why I think people arguing about cultural appropriation don't have any clue what they are talking about.

In Japan for example, people appreciate foreigners participating in their culture as long as they are doing it right.


In regards to using the word "racist", I think it is a bad approach to just call someone that as it does not provide a solution, it just shows that you are willing to ignore a problem by not handling it. If you come across someone who is racially prejudiced, you just need to challenge them and maybe, gradually they will change. Also emotional arguments are moot. A lot of people do not care if you are offended or are about to cry because they dont agree with your worldview. To get to them you need to argue rationally, be able to give reasons and evidence or be comprehensive. Arguments are like gears, they need to interlock so that there is traction. If your counterarguments do not address the opposing arguments given, the discussion will go nowhere.

cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation are two different things. Appropriation is when someone takes and uses something from another culture, to their advantage, and completely ignore it's context, use, and origins.

Aka: black people are seen as ghetto if they wear heir hair in cornrows, but when white people do it.. it's trendy and takes on a different name completely.

[Lustful Bride]

cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation are two different things. Appropriation is when someone takes and uses something from another culture, to their advantage, and completely ignore it's context, use, and origins.

Aka: black people are seen as ghetto if they wear heir hair in cornrows, but when white people do it.. it's trendy and takes on a different name completely.

But then wouldn't that become Assimilation and make it part of the culture as a whole if more people do it? If everyone does it then it becomes normalized and more accepted by everyone rather than just being seen as something only those in the ghettos do.

Edit:for example: Rap Music was considered something only people of color listened to, but once it got taken into the world at large more people listened to it and made their own songs and it become more accepted and shared all around, something for everyone to have together and come together on.

As for appropriation: We live in such an interconnected world now and people are becoming increasingly racially and culturally mixed that we all technically have something from some other culture or interact with it everyday without realizing it.

And at a certain point intent and actions also come into play.

There is a difference between a white person wearing a sombrero because its hot outside and the sombrero provides the most shade form the Sun, and a white person wearing a sombrero while holding tequila and talking to Hispanics in a mocking accented voice.

There's a difference between someone in Japan just dyeing their hair blonde and...this X3 (which i find more funny than insulting but I can see why some people would be offended since it is a stereotype of westerners having big noses...)

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Though then of course there are just people who are assholes and the idiot factor for people who act racist in minor ways and are literally too dumb to realize the problem with their actions.

[la dame en noir]

But then wouldn't that become Assimilation and make it part of the culture as a whole if more people do it? If everyone does it then it becomes normalized and more accepted by everyone rather than just being seen as something only those in the ghettos do.

Edit:for example: Rap Music was considered something only people of color listened to, but once it got taken into the world at large more people listened to it and made their own songs and it become more accepted and shared all around, something for everyone to have together and come together on.

As for appropriation: We live in such an interconnected world now and people are becoming increasingly racially and culturally mixed that we all technically have something from some other culture or interact with it everyday without realizing it.

And at a certain point intent and actions also come into play.

There is a difference between a white person wearing a sombrero because its hot outside and the sombrero provides the most shade form the Sun, and a white person wearing a sombrero while holding tequila and talking to Hispanics in a mocking accented voice.

There's a difference between someone in Japan just dyeing their hair blonde and...this X3 (which i find more funny than insulting but I can see why some people would be offended since it is a stereotype of westerners having big noses...)

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Though then of course there are just people who are assholes and the idiot factor for people who act racist in minor ways and are literally too dumb to realize the problem with their actions.

that has nothing to do with what I said I'm not arguing with you about it.

[la dame en noir]

And blonde hair is a genetic trait, not a culture.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8470092

www.google.com/search?q=cultural+assimilation+vs+cultural+appropriation&oq=cultural+assimilation+vs&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.13494j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile

[Lustful Bride]

Alright, sorry.

[Silk]

Intrincally hair colour isn't a culture, however were in the world which hair isn't limited to what it is naturally thanks to dyes, and as a result can be used as a sign of culture. E.g Goths/Emo/etc generally having black hair with some kind of highlight. Strong impactful colours being punk. Or dare I say it, blondes and the aryans. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean a culture can't adapt a haircolour into it.

[la dame en noir]

Intrincally hair colour isn't a culture, however were in the world which hair isn't limited to what it is naturally thanks to dyes, and as a result can be used as a sign of culture. E.g Goths/Emo/etc generally having black hair with some kind of highlight. Strong impactful colours being punk. Or dare I say it, blondes and the aryans. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean a culture can't adapt a haircolour into it.

that doesn't make any sense. Because it's a genetic trait that's even found in parts of the Polynesian islands.

[Scott]

I'm pretty fly for a white guy.

[Silk]

that doesn't make any sense. Because it's a genetic trait that's even found in parts of the Polynesian islands.

You said that hair colour can't be a part of culture, I used a few examples, like Goth culture, which having a specific hair colour is often very much a sign of that culture. In this case, dyed black hair. I mean, unless you think all of those goths just happened to be born with black hair.

[Lustful Bride]

I think by this point this thread is gonna degrade into just hurt feelings and everyone getting upset at eachother.

[rekhaiyer]

Yeah, heading towards the 'can of worms' territory now.

[la dame en noir]

You said that hair colour can't be a part of culture, I used a few examples, like Goth culture, which having a specific hair colour is often very much a sign of that culture. In this case, dyed black hair. I mean, unless you think all of those goths just happened to be born with black hair.

You specifically said Blonde hair which you equated to a group of people who harmed another group based off of looks and religion. That doesn't make any sense. In that case, blonde hair is apart of Swedish culture. Talking about an alternative culture in the context I was going does not make sense.

So I'm not going to argue about that, because thats silly. It's a genetic trait.

[Sabre]

By that definition, race is absolutely biological/genetic.

The irony is that the definition is far from strict, being vague as it is to the point where race is neither a complete social construction but neither is it a biological reality. There's far more genetic variation between individuals of one 'race' as there are between two 'races,' to the point where arguing that race is a biological reality is dependent on just 5% of our DNA. Then you have the issue where there are no strict divisions between groups like 'white' or 'black' but rather there's a lot of gradation and overlap, which means there are no pure races, just mongrels of arbitrary categories or fuzzy sets that we define with very little scientific rigor.

However, there is sufficient data where a computer can pick out distinct populations that align with common racial categories. The problem there however is that it requires us telling the computer exactly how much it should discriminate in the first place. Test for enough genes and you can find statistical differences between people of two neighboring cities. The same argument that says there is a 'white' and a 'black' race is just as applicable to saying there is a 'Pisan' and 'Florentine' race. One can argue that the continental definition is best, but by then the distinction is almost meaningless and certainly not biologically useful. Genetically there's not so much a divide between continents as there is between Subsaharan Africans and everyone else, and within Subsaharan Africans you have an absurd amount of genetic variety. So where should the computer data be divided? And what makes that division any better or meaningful than any other? Race becomes almost meaningless if you can describe both the entire human population of Eurasia AND the British royal family as distinct races.

It's funny, race scientists in the past somehow knew the significance of race, but couldn't find any meaningful way to define them. Today, we can clearly find differences between two populations, but have no clear way of determining the significance. Race becomes valid only if we're willing to be as vague and uncommitted as possible to what makes up a race, and what are the differences between them. We certainly can't scientifically classify them, as race breaks nearly every rule.

So race is a social construct that can have biological consequences. It can never be one nor the other due to how vague it really is, and at best it can be useful for developing drugs targeting a population that has a certain degree of relatedness though not much else. At that point it's just a proxy for biological relatedness, and the medical field can most certainly do away with the social categories altogether. So race isn't a natural distinction at all, but rather a socially defined population or identity arbitrarily based on various degrees of biological relatedness.

[aouser626]

Race can be "distinguished" according to the social definition of race, not according to the scientific definition. For example, through forensic science in DNA profiling, through the analysis of the allele frequencies after a sequence of techniques from PCR to that of electrophoresis, various phenotypical traits can be inferred.

For example, the subject should have "brown eyes". The comprehensive list of the commonly recognized phenotypical traits of which constitutes the social definition of a "race" is then thus utilized in communication with the public, the layman.

For perspective, consider that a mathematician of the East Asian's layman's set of phenotypical features would have more in common with that of the "Caucasian", than a "Caucasian" mathematician with a "Caucasian", say, professional rugby player, depending on the specific alleles of which you are discriminating for.

Children and teens internationally competing in the International Mathematics Olympiad have significantly more similarities (e.g. OCD etc.) than they do with the majority of their peers back home. If we discriminate for these specific traits (e.g. alleles suspected to be responsible for their neurological architecture and thus their affinity for mathematics etc.) instead, then the social definition of "race" would be significantly more distinguishable, as, you see, they would all be significantly more intelligent than other potential "races", whereby, for example, the variance and thus standard deviation of their I.Q. points would be minimized, and hence, we can more confidently say that such is a "racial trait".

That is of course a perspective for the layman, not a statistical analysis of allele frequency distributions.

Currently, there is still yet a concrete, scientific definition of race that utilizes mathematical definitions. Thus, biologically, there is no such thing as race, it is a social science definition.