Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Tornicade]

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?

except white is a desigination of "Free"

by that designaton everyone is now White.


My heritage certainly isn't confined to just "white"

 

[David.]

except white is a desigination of "Free"

by that designaton everyone is now White.


My heritage certainly isn't confined to just "white"

Well there were free blacks and enslaved whites. And that may be someone elses definition but i certainly dont have to accept it. Im not telling black people how they have to view themselves or what they are allowed to be proud of.

just as "black americans" have constructed a black anerican race (conceptualy), wr have too. The construct of race and geolation (nationality) only builds upon itself as genes and culture mix and events happen as times pass. Part of your heritage is now white american, or at the verg least american, just as it may be Irish.

There is American culture. If it's argued that biological traits are environmental and diet based, we tend to share those things in america.

Just as Whats colloquially accepted as race today was established, we're reestablishing it. I think "race" is both a construct and has a base in biology and isnt static. Black is just more melanin? Ok. Did your parents happen to have more melanin as well by any chance? Then thats a genetic component of your biology.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't like the whole "cultural appropriation" thing either, as if certain modern hairstyles or clothing should be worn only by people of certain ethnicities. Screw that.

 

[David.]

I don't like the whole "cultural appropriation" thing either, as if certain modern hairstyles or clothing should be worn only by people of certain ethnicities. Screw that.

Its the equivalent of not letting other races drive cars. Or play baseball.

There is a lot of regressive stuff being suggested

 

[Tornicade]

I don't like the whole "cultural appropriation" thing either, as if certain modern hairstyles or clothing should be worn only by people of certain ethnicities. Screw that.

Its allright Q.



You can wear this whenever you want.

 

[gourimoko]

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. :

But Q-Tip, you haven't really countered the argument I've made; you've simply stated that there are many people who are misinformed. I would agree with you that the bolded is 100% factual.

That's why I fucking hate the term "White Privilege." It's such an inherently misunderstandable (and thus divisive) term. It's part of my general critique of Third Wave feminism, and I consider myself a Third Wave feminist, in that, in the effort to combat sexism and do so intersectionally (thereby including racial topics), all of which is a noble cause; terms are used that are designed to elicit visceral responses from listeners .. which, in my view, can cause you to lose a greater percentage of your audience than you would otherwise with terms that are less accusatory.

With that said however; I want to point out that White Privilege has an academic definition that is used in sociology and has a precise etymology. Those who are largely unaware of this definition (probably a majority as you pointed out), will undoubtedly hear the term "White Privilege" and try to derive the meaning from the individual words ... which, won't work in most cases, obviously.

Nonetheless, White Privilege is as I described it, which is as it is described within academia and most famously by Peggy McIntosh. And I think it's important that we can at least understand that.

Why is that important?

Because if someone says "I don't have 'White Privilege,' because I grew up poor." Then they may or may not be talking about the same thing that I am when I use the term correctly. Thus we either define White Privilege correctly, or we simply invent another term. But to suggest that someone who asserts White Privilege exists is asserting that White people enjoy better financial situations that non-Whites .. that simply misses the point. It's a false argument, a straw-man; but one that is not so obvious to see since the term itself, counter-intuitively, implies this false argument.

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

Indeed.

 

[Tornicade]

I believe Classism and Institutional Racism are heavily intertwined throughout government and society.
I also don't think "white" privilege extends exclusively to Caucasians.

I think though that focusing on institutional racism and ignoring classism Alienate certain demographics against each other when they should be working together.

It may even be a different scale f impact but to ignore the impact of one potentially leads to a lack of empathy from the other.

The upper class benefits from this division.

 

[gourimoko]

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

Not really. Race is a class structure; this is why it's called a "construct," because race isn't biological, it's a means of categorizing people into artificial and most importantly arbitrary groupings.

Americans are building a history of their own collective culture. "Races" are mixing.

What does "race" mixing even mean in this context though?

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?

Not really, Dave.

I'm the a perfect example as to why this doesn't really work.

So, my ethnic background is that I'm equal parts White and Black, more Native American than both, and 50% Egyptian (which is a conversation in itself within Egypt given the degree to which you've had Arab migration).

In my life, I have never been considered "White;" I have very very rarely been considered Native American (only by Native Americans in a specific setting with distant relatives, and only when accompanied by my mother); I grew up being classified as "Black" and thus I now "self-identify" as "Black;" and prior to 9/11, no one really cared about my majority Egyptian ancestry which is now considered universally to be "Arab" descent.

So again... "race" is just a construct of what society deems it to be at a given moment. You're attempt to find causation between genes and race, and really it has more to do with history and cultural classifications of those various "aesthetic" genes that you've mentioned (i.e., color of skin, eyes, hair type, etc).

I understand that races are a concept and a resut of migration.

I think you're confusing ethnicity and "race" here. Just FWIW...

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"?

Believe me, we're not throwing out evolution; we're embracing it. Scientifically, race has no genetic foundation.

You are most definitely confusing "race" and ethnicity.

What we have found, since completing the Human Genome Project, is that race doesn't exist within the human genome. There is not one single racial genetic variant that defines a "race" of people. Not one. Across three billion base pairs of DNA; not one. You can certainly have unique ethnic traits, but ethnicities are FAR FAR FAR more complex and diverse than race. There are hundreds and hundreds of distinct ethnicities on either Africa, Europe or Asia. And when those ethnicities mix, which they've always done, you get a new mixing of genetic traits that continues on.

When you begin to understand how complex real genetic inheritance actually is, you begin to understand why this conversation cannot be had using the term "race." It's.... not just an oversimplification. It's an argument that has no scientific foundation.

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.

Dave, I think you'd definitely agree that coming across a "stat" while engaging in bro-science is not exactly the same thing as understanding and intellectually digesting a sociological study, right? You'd agree with that first and foremost correct? So with that said, you'd also agree that there may be some misunderstanding on your part as to the conclusions of such studies right?

So with that said.. I'm actually aware of the studies that you're referencing.. The part you're missing is that in all of the studies, genetics was not found to have causative association with the higher testosterone levels -- in fact, the author of one such series of studies (ranging over 20 years), suggests that Black "honor culture" that comes from the South in particular, is the primary driving force for higher testosterone -- and not genetics.

This is self-evident in the results, wherein African-American women see no difference in testosterone levels than other races; and African-American males 20-29 and have gone to college are within 1 stdev of their White male college educated counterparts.

This means the strongest correlation here is environmental and not genetic. Here's a graph that sums this up rather succinctly:

Notice that young Blacks and Whites who are college-educated and the same age are both substantially lower than Blacks who have not gone to college? There is a dip for both with the critical point at 45 years of age, however the integral of these curves (if you plotted them as curves) would likely be nearly equivalent.

Mazur (author of most of the studies on this phenomena) suggests this has to do with Black male (Southern) culture as well as socioeconomic conditions; for the aforementioned reasons. This becomes undeniable when comparing Whites to Whites of different education levels, which implies different socioeconomic (environmental) factors are causative here ... not "race."

It's really rather fascinating... don't you think?

Ive heard other statistics cited in non political forum. Maturation rates of some "races" are younger than others.

I think you're referring to the phenomena that Latinos and Asiatic people "mature" faster than Blacks and Whites; which, again, comes from a misunderstanding of what the term "maturation" means in this case.

These measurements are done by analyzing bone structure in a comparative analysis against the Greulich and Pyle Atlas, which is a collection of bone measurements. The problem with the Atlas is that it was originally compiled using upper-class Caucasian children.

Numerous studies have shown that you can get close with this atlas for Whites and Blacks, but not close-enough for useful accuracy with Latinos and Asians.

Much is this is likely due to environment insomuch as it is to do with ethnicity. Remember, Latinos are a meta-ethnicity, not a "race." Asia is a place, not an ethnic group or a race of people.

There are biological fgenetic differences between men and women.

Of course, we have different chromosomes. This is a bit of a non-sequitur.

There are biological genetic similarities within families.

Umm.. of course.. Within families.

Why on earth wouldnt that continue to the concept of race, which is conceptually a vastly extended family?

So, at first I thought you were confusing race and ethnicity; then it became apparent that you were; and now it seems extremely overwhelming that this conversation is dominated by this confusion.

Race != Ethnicity.

Ethnicity != Family.

Let me explain why, going in order.

Race, again, is a social construct. It's not genetic. It's something that we as humans have assigned to arbitrary surface characteristics of people based on how they look and where they come from.

Ethnicity can be genetic, depending upon the context. But it's more complex than most people understand. For example, an Asian-American might be Spanish-Filipino, a common "mix" of ethnicities. But what is "Filipino?" The Filipino people are a mix of many different surrounding ethnic groups including the Malay, the indigenous people of the Philippines (who came from somewhere as well), Indonesian, Chinese, etc. Some cultures are as transparent as this with various dialects that demarcate ethnic boundaries; whereas others, such as ethnic Japanese are far more opaque.

With that said however, as various ethnicities and ethnic groups from different geographic regions intermix (in fact, geography has FAR more importance to genetics than ethnic association) they become largely genetically indistinguishable from each other -- with only their different cultures and languages as well some potential "aesthetic" differences remaining (which, yes, do have a minor genetic signature). (also, save this thought for a moment)

Family, on the other hand; is entirely different. This is a grouping of people with a common set of ancestors. That's not what an ethnicity is. That is not what a race is. You and your siblings and cousins share immediate common ancestors. This is what "family" means.

So it is very important to understand that this is NOT what ethnicity or race mean.

If you have people who have been isolated from one another geographically, then genetic dissimilarity can become apparent, but that doesn't mean that two people within the same ethnicity won't share greater dissimilarity between each of them than they would with someone who is from another ethnicity... In fact, that's extremely common. This fact means that "ethnicity" and "family" are not the same thing, because you will always have more genetic similarity with your relatives than someone who is not related to you.

There are common ancestors for various regions, such as Europe, sub-Sahara Africa, the Middle East, etc. So there exists an ancestry of sorts; but this ancestry, after a certain number of generations, is no longer linear; becoming more "web-like" as generations go on and on. This in turn dilutes discrete, indentifiable genetic traits from any one common ancestor which means the concept of "family" essentially terminates after a certain point in healthy, genetically diverse populations (see: Europe)

..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.

Who is saying there aren't?

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this??? And not many Chinese have lineage tied to Mao...

Does it tie to other genetic differences that arent simply aesthetic?

Like?

It seems like that would make sense unless aesthetic genes are somehow different than non aesthetic genes.

Like what genes?

 

[David.]

The upper class benefits from this division.

How

And which institution is racist and what is your proof

 

[gourimoko]

Just as Whats colloquially accepted as race today was established, we're reestablishing it. I think "race" is both a construct and has a base in biology and isnt static. Black is just more melanin? Ok. Did your parents happen to have more melanin as well by any chance? Then thats a genetic component of your biology.

FWIW, here you're confusing race and ethnicity, again.

"Black" is a race. "Black" is not an ethnicity.

p.s.
White Americans do not share common "White American" genetic history / similarity. "White Americans" as a group, are genetically heterogeneous and the population is very diverse.

 

[Tornicade]

How

And which institution is racist and what is your proof

Institutional Racism as well as classism means that's the system does not work for a certain demographic but works better for another demographic.

The lower the income the more likely criminal behavior will occur. This is basic human survivalist behavior.

Lets say you have two groups of people that live in valleys on the opposite sides of a mountain.

Lets say there is an earthquake that shifts the water table to supply one valley with more water and the other with less water.

Now one valley is unable to grow their crops and the other has more crops.

Which valley is gonna be more dangerous for a Traveler with a wagon of food to traverse through? The Valley where Food is plentiful or the Valley whose food production has collapsed?

Now the Valley is yielding crop. establishing trade route and doing well. Why not take over the other valley and use those people for Labor.

Not only do they do that they move into the family build nice and fancy homes since the land has no agricultural valley and move the former residents into their farmland. making them pay taxes and pay the majority of their labor payments back to them.

Now these laborers have lost their land. They been moved from their homes. and they are working to make other peoples lives easier.

Now what do they do with the people who aren't needed for labor and do not own land.

They establish a system that on the surface appears equal but to be fully protected under the system only the farm owners can actually afford it.

I thnk we have cited multiple examples of institutionalized racism/classism
on this and other threads. I'm not sure what use it would be to repeat them if your gonna continue to ignore them

 

[gourimoko]

Well there were free blacks and enslaved whites.

You mean indentured servants?

 

[David.]

Institutional Racism as well as classism means that's the system does not work for a certain demographic but works better for another demographic.

The lower the income the more likely criminal behavior will occur. This is basic human survivalist behavior.

Lets say you have two groups of people that live in valleys on the opposite sides of a mountain.

Lets say there is an earthquake that shifts the water table to supply one valley with more water and the other with less water.

Now one valley is unable to grow their crops and the other has more crops.

Which valley is gonna be more dangerous for a Traveler with a wagon of food to traverse through? The Valley where Food is plentiful or the Valley whose food production has collapsed?

Now the Valley is yielding crop. establishing trade route and doing well. Why not take over the other valley and use those people for Labor.

Not only do they do that they move into the family build nice and fancy homes since the land has no agricultural valley and move the former residents into their farmland. making them pay taxes and pay the majority of their labor payments back to them.

Now these laborers have lost their land. They been moved from their homes. and they are working to make other peoples lives easier.

Now what do they do with the people who aren't needed for labor and do not own land.

They establish a system that on the surface appears equal but to be fully protected under the system only the farm owners can actually afford it.

I thnk we have cited multiple examples of institutionalized racism/classism
on this and other threads. I'm not sure what use it would be to repeat them if your gonna continue to ignore them

Listen, i asked you for proof because you cant just go around implicating an entire country as racist with literally no hard evidence and just a concept as ammunition. Can you.

As for all of the evidence that I'VE seen, it can be explained with reason. Normally its that variables have not been accounted for, and that someone is pushing the idea is that if equal outcome is not achieved, it MUST MEAN there is racism. But even if there WERE EQUAL OUTCOMES, it wouldn't even mean racism isnt a factor of this result. What if blacks are better than whites at xyz? Then it wouldn't be a meritocracy if everyone was simply represented evenly. Unequal outcomes do not mean "therefore, racism". You have to prove it. Equality =/= equity.

If a black person makes more money than me, or gets a lighter sentence for the same crime, are you calling that racist? Thats just immediately your answer? Switch races. Now Whats your answer? You can keep it to yourself, did you shine a light on a blind spot?

Black married couples for example earn roughly as much as white married couples. Are you suggesting this intangible unprovable racism only targets some black people and also catches white people in the cross-hairs as well? That institution sure is shitty at being racist. What an awfully designed institution. Black couples are making as much as white couples. If that's true, it cant be systemic racism against blacks.

Most discrepancies between outcomes can be explained with marriage and births out of wedlock. That seems to be the core issue that results on many, many other issues. If you can come up with how racism is making people not get married, id entertain the thought. But to imply there's widespread racism with no evidence is tenuous.

You'll need to look at every case of crime etc individually because they are individual cases, not collective cases. All with their own variables and explanations. Take a survey of why people arent getting married and figure out why they arent, if you can. You still wont even be able to, likely, but thats going to give you a lot more detail than SIMPLY looking at the color of someone's skin and somehow deeming that better than a fucking aggregate of data with nuance. IRONICALLY, the answer AGAIN, is to NOT SIMPLY LOOK AT THE COLOR OF ONE'S SKIN.

The best person to objectively look at data is going to be someone who is skeptical of the conclusion. I would like to see your data.

Cleveland shooter was an instance of black on black crime gun violence. you think that data point is equal to other data points? what story does that data point tell you? is it representative of the other data points? probably not, is it. no. so not all data is equal. so you cant just be a myopic fuck, Tornicade.



I dont mean to challenge you, but you made the claim that everyone's racist. Where is your evidence? Or are we ghost hunting?

Are you conceding the point on how specifically damning whites with white privilege helps the upper class or do you have a line of thought, and if so, what is your evidence?

 

[Tornicade]

Another example of Classism. Colonials called themselves Christians or Englishmen and used indentured servants of multiple ethnicities.
What happened was as these indentured servants became free either by putting in their time or converting to Christianity. Colonial owners became concerned about property distribution and the land office began putting freezes on granting property ownership.

This riled up the newly freed indentured servants who went on to burn down Jamestown in protest.

This led to outright slavery to the point one just didn't become a slave on was born a slave with he children property of a slave-owner.

Africans at this time were then traded an sold at a scale never seen before as the colonial landowners no longer had to worry about setting a stake for their servants .

as the industrial age took over and Company Owners found it not viable to maintain a labor force of freed and slave nor could they rely solely on a slave force Slavery was no longer viable for most industries except agricultural.

 

[Tornicade]

Listen, i asked you for proof because you cant just go around implicating an entire country as racist with literally no hard evidence and just a concept as ammunition. Can you.

As for all of the evidence that I'VE seen, it can be explained with reason. Normally that variables have not been accounted for, and the concept that equal outcome doesnt even mean racism doesnt exist and non equal outcomes do not mean "therefore, racism". You have to prove it.

Black married couples for example earn roughly as much as white married couples. Are you suggesting this intangible unprovable racism only targets some black people and also catchrs white people in the crosshairs as well? That institution sure is shitty as being racist. If black couples are making as much as white couples. If thats true, it cant be systemic racis against blacks.

Most discrepencies can be explained with marriage and births out of wedlock. If you can come up with how racism is making people not get married, id entertain the thought. But to imply theres widespread racism with no evidence is tenuous.

Youll need to look at every case of crime etc individually because they are individual cases, not collective cases. All with their own variables and explanations. Take a survey of why peoplr arent getting married and figure out why they arent.

I have given multiple examples of proof and it is clear you don't understand what institutional racism/Classism is

Your talking about income and marriage.

We are talking about Education, Crime, Real estate, the Justice system .Congress, Taxes, Banking Lending practices, Insurance ,Voting , Stock Market and health care.

its in our laws, rules and infrastructure.