What Is Race?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]
Sloth wrote:
What is Race? I don’t know. A superficial obsession of a species that should be intelligent enough to know better?

Big_Boss wrote:
Then why is that we do not? How did we get to to this “superficial obsession?” What caused it? Is it a result of the long list of things that we should know better?? [/quote]

It’s the way our minds have evolved. We naturally group and categorize. Obviously to the cave man, there weren’t many other ways to distinguish other than by appearance (and maybe language).

People want an “us” and a “them.” We’re tribal, as someone else (can’t recall who) recently put it in another thread. See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

But we are smarter than other species, so we should at least be able to manipulate this trait - by doing something like, you know, trying not to emphasize the differences among us and trying to create more “us” identities (like “we’re all Americans, not hyphenated Americans”).*

*Edited for clarity.

22

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Cpl. Mongo wrote:
a group of people gathered together for a common reason, whether it’s geography, persecution, religion and so on. They are given a title then they breed with the others of their group forming a race of people. It can’t be based off skin color because whites would have no identity so it is typically based on physical characteristics. Panamanians are good example we vary from black to white but are all from the same place just gathered together by abandoned slaves, spaniards, indeginous people, and a embedded US military. just the way I look at it, but thats the opinion of the bastard son of a adopted immagrant so like I know anything about even my own race.

Interesting you bring up Panamanians…this makes me think about the people of that region…Brazil…Puerto Rico. Wide range of people especially of African Spanish decent…but yet they don’t classify like we do in the US. Here its African-American…or black…but to them,they are Brazilian…Puerto Rican. And share the same history of slavery…hell,Brazil had more slaves than the US.

Brazil just instituted affirmative action in universities for blacks. There are racial divisions there also. There’s a secessionist movement in southern Brazil.

Interesting…now would you say that its racial divisions are on the same level as it is here in the US??

I don’t know.

oh?..OK.[/quote]

Talking to different family members and friends it seems as if all spanish speaking/latino countries have a discrimination based on color to some extent and definetly on a higher level than the U.S . The lighter skinned always look down on darker skinned people.

23

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Sloth wrote:
What is Race? I don’t know. A superficial obsession of a species that should be intelligent enough to know better?

Big_Boss wrote:
Then why is that we do not? How did we get to to this “superficial obsession?” What caused it? Is it a result of the long list of things that we should know better??

It’s the way our minds have evolved. We naturally group and categorize. Obviously to the cave man, there weren’t many other ways to distinguish other than by appearance (and maybe language).

People want an “us” and a “them.” We’re tribal, as someone else (can’t recall who) recently put it in another thread. See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

But we are smarter than other species, so we should at least be able to manipulate this trait - by doing something like, you know, trying not to emphasize differences and create more “us” identities (like “we’re all Americans, not hyphenated Americans”).[/quote]

I have noticed that the U.S. is one of the only countries that does this. I have never once traveled to Italy, Spain, or Mexico and talked to people who said they where French-Italian or something in that nature. Whether they were mixed or not, dark or light skinned.

24

A four-letter word.

25

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
But we are smarter than other species, so we should at least be able to manipulate this trait - by doing something like, you know, trying not to emphasize differences and create more “us” identities (like “we’re all Americans, not hyphenated Americans”).

I have noticed that the U.S. is one of the only countries that does this. I have never once traveled to Italy, Spain, or Mexico and talked to people who said they where French-Italian or something in that nature. Whether they were mixed or not, dark or light skinned.
[/quote]

Recently I have heard a few PC retards use the ridiculous term “African Australians” to describe African immigrants. I have only heard this term applied to black Africans though.

26

Race is a biological reality and anyone who disagrees is a fool. I don’t know what the definition of the term is but it definitely relates to genetics.

27

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Race is a biological reality and anyone who disagrees is a fool. I don’t know what the definition of the term is but it definitely relates to genetics.[/quote]

That is just it. Earlier this year in my AP human geography class, we were studying ethnicity, nationality, and race. This is the objective definition of race: “Identity with a group of people descended from a common ancestor.”

Basically, this all has to do with biological appearance and nothing based on culture, ethnicity, or nationality. It is a worthless way of describing people.

28

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Race is a biological reality and anyone who disagrees is a fool. I don’t know what the definition of the term is but it definitely relates to genetics.[/quote]

Genetics? How can this be? Genes change. The boundaries for defining race genetically are too ambiguous.

Race is not biologically measurable by any standard.

29

[quote]ukrainian wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Race is a biological reality and anyone who disagrees is a fool. I don’t know what the definition of the term is but it definitely relates to genetics.

That is just it. Earlier this year in my AP human geography class, we were studying ethnicity, nationality, and race. This is the objective definition of race: “Identity with a group of people descended from a common ancestor.”

Basically, this all has to do with biological appearance and nothing based on culture, ethnicity, or nationality. It is a worthless way of describing people.[/quote]

Okay, as a geographer let me continue this thought. Your AP instructor has fallen short in a rush to dismiss race.

Race, as a genetic element, does not exist. Race was/is linked to a combination of genetic traits so that one group could justify discrimination against another (also done by Christian churches for those who like that true Christian argument: see savages and nonhumans in 14th to 18th century empire expansion). Skin color is as arbitrary as it is visually obvious. A practice by European whites is the common example, but it is not the only (it is a poor example in that it assumes each ‘white’ is considered the same by other ‘whites’). Race, is a cultural construct, and is important as such. Belligerent, here is your definition.

There are ethnic/race problems everywhere. This includes Europe, South & Central America, Middle East, Asia, Africa etc. It is not a property of the US. The ancient Greeks argued their superiority through their theory of ‘humors’ and how imperfect combinations of these humor explained the perceived failings of other races/cultures–including Arabs, Asians and Gauls (French). In fact, you can trace many ‘modern’ stereotypes back to these discussions.

Place is often more important than race, however. Place is linked tightly with ethnicity, i.e. where you/ancestry is from and the cultural practices associated with it. This gets conflated, especially in urban spaces, when ethnicity is assigned socio-economic standing through the places where groups may, or have, inhabited physically as well as socio-economically (yes, it is circular). Immigrants, does not matter who or where, tend to (initially) hold positions of lower economic and social status. So, lower class (worth) is attached to immigrants by the dominant class/ethnicity. Since immigrant (minority) communities tend to be in places of lowest rent (squatter settlements or inner cities) economic worth is tied to physical location. Hopefully by now you are recognizing a vicious production-reproduction cycle. Start poor, live with the poor, so you kind must be inferior. This gets worse when political and economic structures (ghettoization) perpetuate this. One place this functions a bit differently is in Southeast Asia where ethnic Chinese have considerable economic power as a group. But, look into the history of China and there is considerable conflict between different ethnicity within China, so the idea of singular Chinese fails short.

One way to combat the differences for groups to assume one particular cultural set of norms because these are cultural, not biological, constructs. Once you add in group pride and/or the celebration of diversity, you remove homogenization (see: US policy on assimilation) as a possibility. We have yet to see what replaces it.

And yes, I will teaching a university course on cultural geography in the fall.

30

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Okay, as a geographer let me continue this thought. Your AP instructor has fallen short in a rush to dismiss race.

Race, as a genetic element, does not exist. Race was/is linked to a combination of genetic traits so that one group could justify discrimination against another (also done by Christian churches for those who like that true Christian argument: see savages and nonhumans in 14th to 18th century empire expansion). Skin color is as arbitrary as it is visually obvious. A practice by European whites is the common example, but it is not the only (it is a poor example in that it assumes each ‘white’ is considered the same by other ‘whites’). Race, is a cultural construct, and is important as such. Belligerent, here is your definition.

There are ethnic/race problems everywhere. This includes Europe, South & Central America, Middle East, Asia, Africa etc. It is not a property of the US. The ancient Greeks argued their superiority through their theory of ‘humors’ and how imperfect combinations of these humor explained the perceived failings of other races/cultures–including Arabs, Asians and Gauls (French). In fact, you can trace many ‘modern’ stereotypes back to these discussions.

Place is often more important than race, however. Place is linked tightly with ethnicity, i.e. where you/ancestry is from and the cultural practices associated with it. This gets conflated, especially in urban spaces, when ethnicity is assigned socio-economic standing through the places where groups may, or have, inhabited physically as well as socio-economically (yes, it is circular). Immigrants, does not matter who or where, tend to (initially) hold positions of lower economic and social status. So, lower class (worth) is attached to immigrants by the dominant class/ethnicity. Since immigrant (minority) communities tend to be in places of lowest rent (squatter settlements or inner cities) economic worth is tied to physical location. Hopefully by now you are recognizing a vicious production-reproduction cycle. Start poor, live with the poor, so you kind must be inferior. This gets worse when political and economic structures (ghettoization) perpetuate this. One place this functions a bit differently is in Southeast Asia where ethnic Chinese have considerable economic power as a group. But, look into the history of China and there is considerable conflict between different ethnicity within China, so the idea of singular Chinese fails short.

One way to combat the differences for groups to assume one particular cultural set of norms because these are cultural, not biological, constructs. Once you add in group pride and/or the celebration of diversity, you remove homogenization (see: US policy on assimilation) as a possibility. We have yet to see what replaces it.

And yes, I will teaching a university course on cultural geography in the fall.[/quote]

Wha’chew talkin bout “in the fall?” That’s a pretty good lesson right there. Nice post.

31

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

Wha’chew talkin bout “in the fall?” That’s a pretty good lesson right there. Nice post.
[/quote]

For riz-eal.

32

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:

Wha’chew talkin bout “in the fall?” That’s a pretty good lesson right there. Nice post.

For riz-eal.[/quote]

Thanks.

“in the fall” means you have to pay tuition and come to class to get the expanded version come August.

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Race is not biologically measurable by any standard.[/quote]

A freakin’ men…
Now if Cherise Theron becomes a naturalized citizen, can she claim African-american status?

34

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Race is a biological reality and anyone who disagrees is a fool. I don’t know what the definition of the term is but it definitely relates to genetics.

That is just it. Earlier this year in my AP human geography class, we were studying ethnicity, nationality, and race. This is the objective definition of race: “Identity with a group of people descended from a common ancestor.”

Basically, this all has to do with biological appearance and nothing based on culture, ethnicity, or nationality. It is a worthless way of describing people.

Okay, as a geographer let me continue this thought. Your AP instructor has fallen short in a rush to dismiss race.

Race, as a genetic element, does not exist. Race was/is linked to a combination of genetic traits so that one group could justify discrimination against another (also done by Christian churches for those who like that true Christian argument: see savages and nonhumans in 14th to 18th century empire expansion). Skin color is as arbitrary as it is visually obvious. A practice by European whites is the common example, but it is not the only (it is a poor example in that it assumes each ‘white’ is considered the same by other ‘whites’). Race, is a cultural construct, and is important as such. Belligerent, here is your definition.

There are ethnic/race problems everywhere. This includes Europe, South & Central America, Middle East, Asia, Africa etc. It is not a property of the US. The ancient Greeks argued their superiority through their theory of ‘humors’ and how imperfect combinations of these humor explained the perceived failings of other races/cultures–including Arabs, Asians and Gauls (French). In fact, you can trace many ‘modern’ stereotypes back to these discussions.

Place is often more important than race, however. Place is linked tightly with ethnicity, i.e. where you/ancestry is from and the cultural practices associated with it. This gets conflated, especially in urban spaces, when ethnicity is assigned socio-economic standing through the places where groups may, or have, inhabited physically as well as socio-economically (yes, it is circular). Immigrants, does not matter who or where, tend to (initially) hold positions of lower economic and social status. So, lower class (worth) is attached to immigrants by the dominant class/ethnicity. Since immigrant (minority) communities tend to be in places of lowest rent (squatter settlements or inner cities) economic worth is tied to physical location. Hopefully by now you are recognizing a vicious production-reproduction cycle. Start poor, live with the poor, so you kind must be inferior. This gets worse when political and economic structures (ghettoization) perpetuate this. One place this functions a bit differently is in Southeast Asia where ethnic Chinese have considerable economic power as a group. But, look into the history of China and there is considerable conflict between different ethnicity within China, so the idea of singular Chinese fails short.

One way to combat the differences for groups to assume one particular cultural set of norms because these are cultural, not biological, constructs. Once you add in group pride and/or the celebration of diversity, you remove homogenization (see: US policy on assimilation) as a possibility. We have yet to see what replaces it.

And yes, I will teaching a university course on cultural geography in the fall.[/quote]

Pretty good…for an Aggie :wink:

35

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

Pretty good…for an Aggie ;)[/quote]

Quit being a placist.

(By the way, it supports my idea that place is more important than race.)

On another note:
One thing I have ran into here is the idea that racism is a Southern thing and it is not a problem in the North. This must be so since the other day on the news they reported on an incident at a local college where racial slurs were spray painted on the walls-for the second time. The administrator they interviewed responded in a tired dismissive tone ‘Someone spray painted racial slurs and I guess somebody got upset by it’. Yep, no problems. Between that and the noose they found in another nearby city’s administration building. They must have worked it all out.

36

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:

Pretty good…for an Aggie :wink:

Quit being a placist.

(By the way, it supports my idea that place is more important than race.)

On another note:
One thing I have ran into here is the idea that racism is a Southern thing and it is not a problem in the North. This must be so since the other day on the news they reported on an incident at a local college where racial slurs were spray painted on the walls-for the second time. The administrator they interviewed responded in a tired dismissive tone ‘Someone spray painted racial slurs and I guess somebody got upset by it’. Yep, no problems. Between that and the noose they found in another nearby city’s administration building. They must have worked it all out.[/quote]

Well excuse me…your sig is “Tex Ag” after all…and it was a joke. “Labeling” negates your idea that place is more important.

37

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Tex Ag wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:

Pretty good…for an Aggie :wink:

Quit being a placist.

(By the way, it supports my idea that place is more important than race.)

On another note:
One thing I have ran into here is the idea that racism is a Southern thing and it is not a problem in the North. This must be so since the other day on the news they reported on an incident at a local college where racial slurs were spray painted on the walls-for the second time. The administrator they interviewed responded in a tired dismissive tone ‘Someone spray painted racial slurs and I guess somebody got upset by it’. Yep, no problems. Between that and the noose they found in another nearby city’s administration building. They must have worked it all out.

Well excuse me…your sig is “Tex Ag” after all…and it was a joke.[/quote]

I got the joke.

Apparently my witty reply lacked wit.

well hell, now I have to start all over…

38

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Tex Ag wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:

Pretty good…for an Aggie :wink:

Quit being a placist.

(By the way, it supports my idea that place is more important than race.)

On another note:
One thing I have ran into here is the idea that racism is a Southern thing and it is not a problem in the North. This must be so since the other day on the news they reported on an incident at a local college where racial slurs were spray painted on the walls-for the second time. The administrator they interviewed responded in a tired dismissive tone ‘Someone spray painted racial slurs and I guess somebody got upset by it’. Yep, no problems. Between that and the noose they found in another nearby city’s administration building. They must have worked it all out.

Well excuse me…your sig is “Tex Ag” after all…and it was a joke.

I got the joke.

Apparently my witty reply lacked wit.

“Labeling” negates your idea that place is more important.

well hell, now I have to start all over…[/quote]

thats the response I was hoping for…lol…seriously though,
labeling is part of it…doesn’t necessarily negate it…but just the human factor of people “labeling” and categorizing another group of people…don’t know if I got that out right…but just a thought.

39

Collective identity forces an individual to categorize him or herself within a group under the common circumstance shared by that group. This common circumstance under which this particular individual comes to be known is nothing more than an identifier to him – it is no better than a name – yet it means nothing.

Labeling and naming is a nominal measurement. It allows for the process of categorization. It is the simplest form of understanding one can have. It is purely analytic. Nothing more can come from naming other than serving as a means to identify something for future reference.

Labels serve the process of identification but they cannot necessarily serve as a means to imply or infer any intrinsic values held by the object they identify – this is the fallacy that collective identity falls under. It is a trap.

We can understand this by the notion of “guilt by association”.

40

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
…
One way to combat the differences for groups to assume one particular cultural set of norms because these are cultural, not biological, constructs. Once you add in group pride and/or the celebration of diversity, you remove homogenization (see: US policy on assimilation) as a possibility. We have yet to see what replaces it.
…[/quote]

Exactly.