Racial Tension in the U.S.

Wrathe said:

So, it happens. I'd imagine this journalist, perhaps aware of the second half of what you posted to me, decided to withhold the race of the black person in the article (while ironically not withholding the race of the white victim).

So, I guess maybe it's a case of progress getting in the way of the victim complex?

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some folks who will choose to withhold races of people in order to construct or prevent the perpetuation of certain narratives. But that's not the norm; it's far from it.

Moreover, what victim complex? Who are you suggesting suffers from a victim complex?

Wrathe said:

Gouri was saying "White Pride" can't be used due to the phrases history, not that White people can't feel pride. Your quote there seems to say it's wrong to feel pride as a White person? Surely I'm misunderstanding you.

Click to expand...

You're correct in that's what I meant. I do think you're misunderstanding @-Akronite- though. He's not saying that a White person can't feel pride, but that they should know what they're prideful for; i.e., if you're Irish, why are you proud of Italian culture(?), which is a really good point.

I think what @-Akronite- is saying is that "White Pride" is not analogous to "Irish Pride," and in that he's correct. White is a class (so is Black, these two terms have intertwined historical meanings), whereas say 'Irish' is an ethnicity.

White and Black in this case are also not analogous simply because 95% of Black people don't know where they come from due to slavery; they have no roots other than their own state of being Black, which .. isn't an ethnicity. So you might say that Black people cannot really have much "ethnic" pride because .. it's impossible for most of them. They don't really know where they come from other than "Africa" and that's kinda sad because, contrary to what most people think due to our most commonly used system of cartography, Africa is big as fuck.

With that said, Asians are a meta-culture, not an ethnicity; and really the concept of "Asian Pride" kinda doesn't make sense (I say that as someone married to an Asian, and I've also lived in Asia, and speak several Asian languages and studied Asiatic history), but that's another topic. "Asian Pride" is meaningful in the United States, for minorities, but in Asia, the concept is .. well.. not very common.

Latinos are a meta-ethnicity; that we generally consider an ethnic group (but really are a larger group of various ethnicities). Latino Pride has more meaning for historical reasons since it's a more unified group/culture.

This kind of gets back to what "race" means, and really should be a prerequisite discussion since there seems to be a great deal of confusion around the topic.

The tl;dr of this is, is that "(insert race here)" Pride doesn't make as much sense as "(insert ethnicity here)" Pride since one is a class and the other is a people. I also think it's important to note that not all of these terms are interchangeable or have the same meaning; which kind of gets at this assumption of linearity that people are falling prey to... i.e., "White" xyz should be equivalent to "Brown" xyz, when, that's not really the case.

-Akronite- said:

White people have been in power for a while. Whenever there is some pushback, you see an uptick in white pride to try to restore that power. It doesn't take much to understand the difference between historically marginalized and oppressed groups having pride movements versus what in reality has always amounted to white supremacy.

If you want pride in your culture, you're welcome to do so, whether it's Irish or Italian or Jewish or what have you. But there is a clear, contextual, historical reason that white pride isn't condoned.

Click to expand...

the term white people was concocted in the 17th century.

Asians started out as white people.

Spaniards started out as black.

I am not sure why we continue to classify everything under scientific racism.

Black pride or any other color pride to me is pride is pride that people were labeled by skin tone that persist even after Science proved itself false.

Its false pride for a false cause.

I almost always mark other on any form question that asks

Tornicade said:

Black pride or any other color pride to me is pride is pride that people were labeled by skin tone that persist even after Science proved itself false.

Click to expand...

As Gouri said just above, black pride is not really comparable to any other color pride. Most black families came over here on boats against their will and were unable to keep any record of their heritage. Black pride stems from the fact that any identity these people these people might have had is lost. It isn't about science, it's about culture.

I'm not saying that a white person can't feel pride, or even that you can't feel pride AS a white person, I was talking about white pride movements.

i would say ethnic origin is cultural. taking pride in your ethnic origin is fine, as its part of YOUR identity, BUT to be a responsible Citizen in the US, you have to respect other cultural origins, and check your identity at the door when considering governence of our greater selves..

Even Irish have different cultural origins (Protestants vs Cathoilcs for example). Germans came in many waves, some protestants, some Catholic, some Jews, some just looking for a peaceful existance. These groups are not as homogenius as "White Pride" would imply. In fact some of these white culures were killing each other in Europe on a scale that would rival Somalia, back in the day.

Respectful dialog is the main property that we need to cultivate. otherwise we are a house divided, and our enemies will fan the flames of that division to bring us down. We have enough challenges..we dont benefit by fighting amongst ourselves.

Wrathe said:

That's a version of it, if we've learned anything lately, it's that everyone is entitled to their own reality!

Click to expand...

Along those lines, I really hate that current trend of people talking about "you're denying my experience." As if not only their perceptions of the truth are accurate, but that their honestly/lack of bias cannot be questioned when they try to pass their perceptions on to others.

Nobody is entitled to be believed by others about anything.

CleveRocks said:

i would say ethnic origin is cultural. taking pride in your ethnic origin is fine, as its part of YOUR identity, BUT to be a responsible Citizen in the US, you have to respect other cultural origins, and check your identity at the door when considering governence of our greater selves.

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what is meant by the part I bolded. Do you mean that we have to agree that every cultural is of equal value/worth, or that we as a body politic cannot prefer some culturess and cultural values to others?

gourimoko said:

That's not what White Privilege means or entails.. That might be how some reactionary folks want to characterize the term; in an effort to stoke White resentment and get validation in their own White resentment... But that's not what White privilege means.

Click to expand...

That may not be what it means to you, and may not be the meaning you'd prefer to attach to it. But it is unquestionable a very common (I'd argue most common) meaning ascribed to it by many others. :

My point is essentially the same point you made upthread about "white pride."

gourimoko said:

"White Pride" is a term that is used mostly by neo-Nazis. Call it a bastardization if you will of something that should be innocuous... but again, a fucking frog/toad is now used as a symbol by hate groups.

That's reality. Whether or not we like it.

Click to expand...

-Akronite- said:

As Gouri said just above, black pride is not really comparable to any other color pride.

Most black families came over here on boats against their will and were unable to keep any record of their heritage. Black pride stems from the fact that any identity these people these people might have had is lost. It isn't about science, it's about culture.

Click to expand...

You are equating culture with race, as if there is some uniform, common culture shared by all black people. That simply is not the case. That is true with not only with respect to African Americans descended from slaves -- whose "culture" may vary widely depending on a ton of socio-economic and geographic factors, but even more so when current immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, or elsewhere are added into the mix. The cultures, even the ethnicities, to some extent, are actually different.

Every black person does not share in the same urban hip-hop cultural affiliation that the media jams down our throats. That's a stereotype.

I'm not saying that a white person can't feel pride, or even that you can't feel pride AS a white person, I was talking about white pride movements.

Click to expand...

Of course, that exact same criticism applies to "white pride". Given that white people don't all have the same culture, that term also devolves into meaning nothing other than pure race. Both terms amount to having pride in a skin color, which is something over which none of us have a shred of control. It's racist at its core. The term is probably more pernicious than "black pride", but we're just talking degrees of racism at this point.

Race and culture are not inextricably linked. There are is some correlation, but that correlation is continually weakening over time, as it should.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Most black families came over here on boats against their will and were unable to keep any record of their heritage. Black pride stems from the fact that any identity these people these people might have had is lost. It isn't about science, it's about culture.

You are equating culture with race, as if there is some uniform, common culture shared by all black people. That simply is not the case. That is true with not only with respect to African Americans descended from slaves -- whose "culture" may vary widely depending on a ton of socio-economic and geographic factors, but even more so when current immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, or elsewhere are added into the mix. The cultures, even the ethnicities, to some extent, are actually different.

Every black person does not share in the same urban hip-hop cultural affiliation that the media jams down our throats. That's a stereotype.



Of course, that exact same criticism applies to "white pride". Given that white people don't all have the same culture, that term also devolves into meaning nothing other than pure race. Both terms amount to having pride in a skin color, which is something over which none of us have a shred of control. It's racist at its core -- I would agree. The term is probably more pernicious than "black pride", but we're just talking degrees of racism at this point.

Race and culture are not inextricably linked. There are is some correlation, but that correlation is continually weakening over time, as it should.

Click to expand...

But doesnt this just strengthen (the concept of) "race" towards another direction?

Americans are building a history of their own collective culture. "Races" are mixing. Aesthetic genes, and all other genes biologists are saying are a result mainly of atmosphere and geolocation will subsequently mix. Doesnt this create a new "race" as we currently believe is a social construct?

I understand that races are a concept and a resut of migration. But doesnt that leavr us with actual genetic and cultural differences all the same? And how are we not throwinf out the theory of evolution and heredity by saying there are no biological elements whatsoever to "race"?

Researching steroids years ago was when i came across a stat that said black youths have 13% more testosterone. Thats acaedmic research. And a significant difference. Ive heard other statistics cited in non political forum. Maturation rates of some "races" are younger than others. There are biological fgenetic differences between men and women. There are biological genetic similarities within families. Why on earth wouldnt that continue to the concept of race, which is conceptually a vastly extended family?

..and just.. To look at a white person and then an asian person and say there arent at tge very least AESTHETIC biological differences is illogical to me. And it should go without saying, a European american white person who is a descendant of thomas jefferson and a chinese person with lineage tied to mao. Does it tie to other genetic differences that arent simply aesthetic? It seems like that would make sense unless aesthetic genes are somehow different than non aesthetic genes.

I don't understand in the least why anyone would take pride in the color of their skin or even their race.
I get taking pride in what those above or below you on your family tree have accomplished or endured.
I even get being proud of what your culture has accomplished or endured.
But skin color or race? You might as well take pride in your hairy back or the length of your nipples.

David. said:

But doesnt this just strengthen (the concept of) "race" towards another direction?

Americans are building a history of their own collective culture. "Races" are mixing. Aesthetic genes, and all other genes biologists are saying are a result mainly of atmosphere and geolocation will subsequently mix. Doesnt this create a new "race" as we currently believe is a social construct?

I understand that races are a concept and a resut of migration. But doesnt that leavr us with actual genetic and cultural differences all the same? And how are we not throwinf out the theory of evolution and hereditary by saying there are no biological elements whatsoever to "race"?

Researching steroids years ago was when i came across a stat that said black youths have 13% more testosterone. Thats acaedmic research. And a significant difference. Ive heard other statistics cited in non political forum. Maturation rates of some "races" are younger than others. There are biological fgenetic differences between men and women. There are biological genetic similarities within families. Why on earth wouldnt that continue to the concept of race, which is conceptually a vastly extended family?

..and just.. To look at a white person and then an asian person and say there arent at tge very least AESTHETIC biological differences is illogical to me. And it should go without saying, a European american white person who is a descendant of thomas jefferson and a chinese person with lineage tied to mao. Does it tie to other genetic differences that arent simply aesthetic? It seems like that would make sense unless aesthetic genes are somehow different than non aesthetic genes.

Click to expand...

That actually was not mine - i messed up the quote function on my phone. I'll fix it....

I agree with your point.

David. said:

But doesnt this just strengthen (the concept of) "race" towards another direction?

Americans are building a history of their own collective culture. "Races" are mixing. Aesthetic genes, and all other genes biologists are saying are a result mainly of atmosphere and geolocation will subsequently mix. Doesnt this create a new "race" as we currently believe is a social construct?

I understand that races are a concept and a resut of migration. But doesnt that leavr us with actual genetic and cultural differences all the same? And how are we not throwinf out the theory of evolution and hereditary by saying there are no biological elements whatsoever to "race"?

Researching steroids years ago was when i came across a stat that said black youths have 13% more testosterone. Thats acaedmic research. And a significant difference. Ive heard other statistics cited in non political forum. Maturation rates of some "races" are younger than others. There are biological fgenetic differences between men and women. There are biological genetic similarities within families. Why on earth wouldnt that continue to the concept of race, which is conceptually a vastly extended family?

..and just.. To look at a white person and then an asian person and say there arent at tge very least AESTHETIC biological differences is illogical to me. And it should go without saying, a European american white person who is a descendant of thomas jefferson and an Asian person with lineage to the continent tied to mao. Does it tie to other genetic differences that arent simply aesthetic? It seems like that would make sense unless aesthetic genes are somehow different than non aesthetic genes.

Click to expand...

Race in terms of skin color as I mentioned before is a 400 Year old practice that was established once countries in Africa began exporting out Blacks as slaves. That means the race designations was completely a product of Black slavery.

Since its been over 100 years since Slavery was abolished Globally as a practice. The referencing of people as White, Black, Yellow etc has no purpose to divide people not by culture or Ethnicity but by a manufactured race that has been scientifically refuted.
Black for 300 years meant nothing but Slave.

The problem is we continued to call people black ( or worse) after the end of Slavery and failed the former slaves during reconstruction.


Black pride is a culture of the ancestors of slavery saying. hey we are not ashamed of heritage and if we cant get rid of the label we will take ownership of it.


If there was such as thing as White pride it would be. to denounce the labels society has placed on its people as a product of slavery and racism.

Caucasion, Anglo sacon, Etc. those are ethnicities.. White is just a term developed to distinguish freed men from slaves when Africa and Spain began exporting people as property.

Whittaker said:

I don't understand in the least why anyone would take pride in the color of their skin or even their race.
I get taking pride in what those above or below you on your family tree have accomplished or endured.
I even get being proud of what your culture has accomplished or endured.
But skin color or race? You might as well take pride in your hairy back or the length of your nipples.

Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of concepts and where you're coming from. Im proud of mybheritage and as a consequence of american culture telling me i suck for being a white male Id Like to be able to say something, but its bad optics for me. Which is a double standard. If i can't have my input respected bc my race and sex isn't yours, who are you to decide what my race and sex means by the logic youve laid out?

Tornicade said:

Race in terms of skin color as I mentioned before is a 400 Year old practice that was established once countries in Africa began exporting out Blacks as slaves. That means the race designations was completely a product of Black slavery.

Since its been over 100 years since Slavery was abolished Globally as a practice. The referencing of people as White, Black, Yellow etc has no purpose to divide people not by culture or Ethnicity but by a manufactured race that has been scientifically refuted.
Black for 300 years meant nothing but Slave.

The problem is we continued to call people black ( or worse) after the end of Slavery and failed the former slaves during reconstruction.


Black pride is a culture of the ancestors of slavery saying. hey we are not ashamed of heritage and if we cant get rid of the label we will take ownership of it.


If there was such as thing as White pride it would be. to denounce the labels society has placed on its people as a product of slavery and racism.

Caucasion, Anglo sacon, Etc. those are ethnicities.. White is just a term developed to distinguish freed men from slaves when Africa and Spain began exporting people as property.

Click to expand...

I understand all of that and i specified that in my post.

Id actually be more than happy if you wanted to mq this.