Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

Racism is not the same as cheering different sports teams. You are conflating two entirely different mentalities and philosophies. Race is a construct that is comparatively new. Do you know the origins of scientific racism?

I don't disagree that normative values are created(constructed) and become prevalent in society at a very deep level. But it is not natural and biological.

And "YOUR people" are "MY people". I am only happy my charmed upbringing as a privileged white American allowed me to escape your terrible view of humanity.

 

Absolutely shameful and disgusting what is happening right now to Leslie Jones on her twitter feed. Vile pigs.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lesdoggg?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

 

Shane I'm impressed with, if nothing else, your dexterity in dodging the points. Your ability to miss what's being said is second only to the extremely limited set of cultural encounters you've had to underpin your viewpoint. I'm also fairly convinced having read the Wikipedia article on scientific racism is no substitute for broad factual ignorance.

For example, you cannot account for the massive anti-Korean sentiment in Japan and China/Taiwan using the "modern scientific racism" handwave because to do so would be spectacularly ignorant.

I mean, if you look at Chinese racial attitudes, or Japanese racial attitudes, your perspective will shift. I say "if", because it's clear you haven't and also currently looks clear you won't.

People innately other and exploiting that sentiment is not difficult at all. The effort is not to be racist; it's to avoid lazy generalisations and the like. There's a reason the least educated and least intelligent among our populations are also the more racist, Shane.

 

Now you are just plain old factually wrong here bub. Some of the smartest, most well-educated, people in the American colonies were absolute racists. Now you are resorting to making stuff up. Not very clever.

In fact, some of the most well-educated people in the European aristocracies created the ideas underlying scientific racism so they could remain in power. And most of them were very well-educated for their time.

By the way, scientific racism is not modern either. It's been largely discredited.

Here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/new-evidence-that-racism-isnt-natural/263785/

It amazes me that someone purporting to be as liberal as you would believe race is a natural, biological thing.

The above article actually agrees with some of what you suggest(sports teams and grouping, but as I argued earlier, those are society and I agree we gather into groups but not just because of race. Groups and societies are things we build and create) but his conclusion says:

But when it comes to defining this enemy--defining the "out group"--people are very flexible. The out group can be defined by its language, its religion, its skin color, its jersey color. (And jersey color can trump skin color--just watch a brawl between one racially integrated sports team and another.) It all depends on which group we consider (rightly or wrongly) in some sense threatening to our interests.
It's in this sense that race is a "social construct." It's not a category that's inherently correlated with our patterns of fear or mistrust or hatred, though, obviously, it can become one. So it's within our power to construct a society in which race isn't a meaningful construct.

 

This is true, but it doesn't really mean what you seem to imply. Children also innately react to the elderly or those of a dramatically different height. I don't really think any of those are necessarily the "most easily identifiable" difference in phenotype. I'm not even sure how one would make such a determination.

In any case, though, there's a difference between that and rendering someone an "Other." I'm not even convinced that said phenomenon is innate. In any case, though, it certainly isn't the same as the sort of reaction you are describing here, nor is it more particular to race than any other notable difference.

 

Recent studies cited by the author in the article from The Atlantic above suggest those people raised in a more racially diverse group had less of a fear response. Those with the highest level of diversity had virtually none. They also observed similar responses from black and white children to a test subject suggesting that whatever reactions they were getting wasn't based on the skin color of the subjects.

 

Familiarity. Simple enough.

 

Fixed.

By the way, social constructs can work the other way too. As the author points out, you can construct different groups for a variety of reasons that lead to the "other". But, it's not inherently racial. It could go that way. But, it is not currently. There have been examples of course throughout history, but we don't have enough evidence to suggest they are naturally occurring in a real sense. We do have evidence to suggest a number of factors create fear of the other. But they are all things societies have created and built through ideas, religion, education, economic systems, etc.

edit:

More "race as a social construction" via anthropology.net:

https://anthropology.net/2008/10/01/race-as-a-social-construct/

 

Yes, I see the issue here.

Shane, this is what I said and you bolded.

"There's a reason the least educated and least intelligent among our populations are also the more racist, Shane."

Shane, pray tell, what tense of the verb "is" did I use?

The present tense, Shane. Not the past. They are; not, they were. Now notwithstanding the smartest people in the American colonies believed in their own exceptionalism or thought Jefferson was a bloody marvellous sort, it's irrelevant. Historical attitudes to race consistently shift. If you study racial propaganda over time it's very different. You see periods of implied savagery in non-whites, to cultural nationalism, to nowadays economic rationalism.

Since phrenology and eugenics hold as much sway today as ear candling or leeching I'm not especially fussed with what people who had only just convinced themselves the earth was round thought about race.

At no point did I suggest this Shane. I said the capacity to other is the root cause of this, and in simple terms racism is no different to any other othering like nationalism. This is crystal clear, and you can tell by the way I said that we create practical distinction by entrenching one form of bias at a systemic level. So at our core we detect difference, but experience and nurturing is what broadly determines if we celebrate it or denigrate it.

Shane.

I said this.

Go back to the post where I talked about how contextualise normal in the form of the majority experience; and abnormal/different/Other in the context of the minority experience.

You'd have to observe anecdotally. But I don't think the notion that we view that which is like us, in a childlike manner, as normal (and therefore anything different as abnormal) is particularly radical.

no but I said as much too. The base reaction is the same; the extent to which we make it worse by, for example, making stupid laws or having our police shoot them for literally no damned reason is where it differs.

My contention, based on experience and observation, is that the place where racism originates is the place where other forms of Othering originates.

The issue is that Shane flipped out because it didn't fit his ridiculously oversimplified narrative.

 

Ender, Shane did not in any way "flip out." It's insulting and nonsensical to suggest that he did.

 

That isn't at all what you said. You said race-ism is innate. "Of course it's innate", you said. That means NATURAL. You said it was innate and grouping based on differences was innate in your opening post. And you said the place racism originates is the place from where other forms of Othering originates. Well, if you believe it's innate then obviously you believe it's all naturally occurring.
Nice backtrack though.
FAIL Ender.

And if race isn't socially constructed then what is it? It would be natural.

 

"Understanding racism as wrong is not served by pretending it's not something linked to our innate need to group and categorise."

Top of the ****ing page.

Inappropriate. But in my defence you're asking for it.

 

Also quoting so you can't edit.

 

Hahah.

You cherry picked.

And yeah, you said racism was innate.

 

You clearly suggested right there in bold that "Of course it's(racism) innate".

I will leave you to this because clearly you said what you said. You gave a biological justification for race/ism. Modern term is race realism.

 

Shane I know I'm asking a lot here.

Firstly look what KW is saying. Closely. Then my post. Then try really hard to follow the conversation.

Secondly, and I know it's unfair because we both know you have no idea - explain racism in Asia.

You can't on either.

I understand why. Your views are woeful, derived wholesale from a pseudo subscription service more concerned with personal image than anything else. It's as intellectually vapid as the people who assume terrorism is motivated by a hatred of freedom - self serving tosh that avoids more difficult conversation because the person saying it can't do the nuance.

Arguing that there's an innate capacity to characterise us v others does allow us to accept that on a primal level we are a terrible species. It's an extension of the age old argument about whether we are inherently good and compelled to do evil; or inherently evil but compelled to do good.

Had you even some experience with this world you'd know racism is everywhere and had you the wherewithal to contemplate it fully you'd probably conclude we're all bastards who need educating.

This is notwithstanding that the line you quote precedes two paragraphs of explanatory text which you ignore because apparently you haven't figured out you're simply not that smart.

What is especially embarrassing for you - assuming of course you eventually discover shame - is that you appear confused. Even you can in part recognise the language in my posts is saying, in Shanespeak, "racism am bad". But you can't quite work out what to call me because I'm not singing from your derivate hymn sheet. It's interesting to watch you teeter between labels. And not hard to imagine as an extension of this, you run into closed doors because you recognise them as doors but forget their purpose.

 

But see, here is where you really far short. In attempting to appear smarter than others, which you obviously can't help but point out that you are, you reveal a whopping insecurity. It's ok. I've seen it here for years from you. You have one of these a day.

I awaited the inevitable post of yours full of invective. I knew it was coming because that's your MO. That's how you roll with everybody at some point.

And you still can't explain away your use of the word innate when responding to my use of the word racism/race. You can't because your intent was that it was a natural occurrence. Just admit you are a racial realist and be done with it! It's the opposite of constructivism. Big whoop! You have a different worldview. Shocking!

By the way, if you knew modern scholarship on this issue, you would know social constructivism and racial realism is distinct from racism. So I'm not saying you specifically are a racist. But you don't know this because you don't know the, what you derogatorily term,"labels".

Now to your suggestion that the less educated and the least intelligent people tend to be more racist than, I assume, the more educated and more intelligent. It's absurd because history shows us entire complex systems devised by brilliant people were racial in nature. And this was even well into the twentieth century. That's only a few generations removed from us. Are you ready to declare racism dead now?

So yes, those plebs you despise so much had their share of racists but they weren't educated enough to construct entire economies and ideologies built around white supremacy. They also didn't have the money and political power to do so.

 

Ender Sai

This is nonsense. It's your choice to spend time here, whether posting or just reading. If you don't have the time for it, don't post. Neither Shane nor anyone else is responsible for your time.

 

Shane, the issue is my time is precious and when people insist on wasting it through stupidity and an inability to comprehend words on a screen. If they're at least aware they don't get it, fine. I can work with that. But if they don't...

Trying to assert

a) I'm any form of racist, or
b) I was advocating racism

is utterly hilarious, and unsupported by fact.

I mean, it's in our nature to want to hit someone if they sufficiently anger us, by I don't know posting stupid things with even stupider signatures about the ROTS novel. We resist it, by building a construct called civilisation that aims to tame our worst aspects through customs, culture and law. It takes effort to rise above what we would be in nature itself, where our tribal mindset uses othering all the time.

I just don't understand how a worldview as superficial and simplistic as yours can exist. You don't seem to want to acknowledge racism exists outside of the white world; nor do you really seem all that interested in understanding how it evolved.

You said: "You can choose to not be racist, but it does take some effort."

This is precisely what I've been saying all along. In your attempt to assure the JC you are a card carrying member of the Non-Racist Club, you took something that largely agreed with your premise but cast a dour light on humanity and used it as the basis for a Quixotic "a HA!" moment. The poor windmills had no idea what hit them!

I just don't know how to explain it to you, in the same way I don't know how to describe the colour blue to a blind person. Suffice to say I have faith that most people in the JC will be able to read what I've said, note how thoroughly you missed my points, and either agree or disagree but in an articulate fashion.

Like, how do you even use a computer mate? Honestly.

Go and take a look at the people who are openly racist today. Are they more from the upper or lower class? Are they more or less educated?

Racism as dead... like, can you stop being obtuse for 10 minutes, and for the love of God stop moving the ****ing goalposts.I very clearly said most people today who are racist are the uneducated, don't you think that tells you something.

It's a simple proposition Shane. Even you ought not struggle with it. And since you do, which is odd because my mousepad just chimed in to say it gets it, is that for the most part we have recognised and continue to recognise the negative effects of racial othering and most people now recognise that the view of white = normal or white = superior etc is just not effing true or valid and they're moving past it. And because as I said in another post which confused you I see, racism tends to evolve* over time in terms of the things which give it fuel. It used to be paternalistic assumptions of superiority. It then became about the savagery of their culture. Then (and now) how that culture would seek to dominate ours; and how on economic grounds they're employment kleptomaniacs.
I mean, you could say 'racism is racism' but you'd be hard pressed to look at the justification for racism towards blacks vs towards muslims vs towards mexicans in your country and go "nah it's all the same". Well you could but you'd be wrong. Because there's worry that Muslims are a threat to security and that they want to impose "their way of life" in the West, and I hear it a lot here. But there's also fear that migrants are taking jobs with cheap labour. Which isn't about preserving cultural homogenity.
Shane I really think you need to PM someone you trust, who's smarter than you, and ask them to read my posts and tell you just how far you were from the point I was actually making. I'll wait.
(* Ironic given how unevolved your average redneck is)

 

KW, you're being very American here, i.e. ultra literal. Don't.

You're confusing me creatively telling Shane he's saying silly things with a literal "THIS IS COSTING ME MONEY, SHANE, DO YOU WANT ME TO BILL YOU" style statement.

Please see also: Satire, irony, hyberbole

 

I'm taking you at your word, which is an entirely normal thing to do. Don't be surprised if people actually read what's in front of them and interpret it accordingly.

Calling something satire or anything else along those lines is not permission to say whatever you'd like. It's just another form of "no offense, but..."

 

I wish he would just take me at my word. Jesus. We're here now because he's ignoring my words as written.

Luxury!

 

I'm not following all the intensity of this discussion, but I'll make one comment. How is "open" racism a good metric of anything? It stopped being acceptable in polite society some decades ago, and since that time people of all socioeconomic statuses have tended to falsify or conceal their actual racial views. The idea that it's somehow only the provenance of poor or uneducated people probably is not well-founded.

 

Oh please. We're here because you rose to J-Rod defense by asserting that racial attitudes were obviously innate("of course it's innate" you said, like it was proven).

So yes, I do take you at your word. You've basically spent the last page suggesting humans are born racists that can overcome that innate racism through education.

People are not born racist. They learn racism through societies and cultures they are raised in. We get these beliefs through ideas passed along from groups, friends, family, religion, etc. You want less racism then construct societies that have less racism in them.

 

White folk be trippin'.