PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[gnome]

I had to go with the Planet X option, because I find th epoll question begs the situations in which one would be using such terms, i.e. in what situations would I need to remark on a person's skin colour?

It's useful when giving a physical description, also when discussing demographics, especially in relation to racial issues. To abandon the idea of describing someone's skin color seems to me like deciding to get rid of the terms "blonde" and "brunette" and so forth...

 

[crimresearch]

Q-source writes:
" Hispanic is a term refering to spanish-speaking nations, not to race. There isn't a "hispanic" or latin race."

Hispanic is also a term referring to those of a certain ethnicity, and is defined both legally and in usage as a minority group.
And it's 'Latino', not latin.

Care to share any more 'white power' rhetoric about 'mud people'?

 

[gnome]

btw, based on the poll, we need more black people on the JREF forums.

I'm startled myself so far.

 

[toddjh]

This silly desire to classify people according to their skin colour just shows how people still refuse to recognise that human beings are worth for what they are not because of a physical characteristic.

There are lots of legitimate reasons to classify people by their skin color, in certain contexts. Identification is the biggest one, obviously. Also for medical purposes. And it's not a bad idea to keep track of demographics, for lots of reasons.

To me, trying to pretend that there are no differences between people with different skin colors isn't much better than assigning differences to them that aren't really there.

Jeremy

Edited to correct spelling

 

[RandFan]

Hispanic is a term refering to spanish-speaking nations, not to race. There isn't a "hispanic" or latin race.

There is but one human race. There are no divisions of humans based on biology. Color is simply to inconsequential to be used. We are all basically the same and the notion of races of people is anachronistic and wrong.

 

[Rob Lister]

There is but one human race. There are no divisions of humans based on biology. Color is simply to inconsequential to be used. We are all basically the same and the notion of races of people is anachronistic and wrong.

Is that true? Maybe. I agree that 'color', in and of itself is too inconsequential to be used but is that true for heritage as well? I don't think so.

Consider these two random groups:

European heritage (mostly whitish)

African heritage (mostly blackish)

Can it be reasonably asserted that no statistically significant physiological differences exist between these two arbitrary groups other than those that are (usually) immediately apparent to the casual observer? I don't think so.

 

[fishbob]

The term "black." is descriptive. The other terms are obfuscatory. If people get offended by simple descriptive terms, language is doomed.

There were people from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Spain in my high school many years ago. These folks had distinctly different racial and cultural backgrounds. I find it mentally difficult to lump these people into a single group with the term "Hispanic".

The black people that I grew up with had comparatively similar backgrounds. It does not seem strange to come up with a simple descriptive group name.

On my most recent job application, I found the following choices to the racial background question:

Native American
African-American
Hispanic
Descendent of Northern European
Asian

 

[Q-Source]

There are lots of legitimate reasons to classify people by their skin color, in certain contexts. Identification is the biggest one, obviously. Also for medical purposes. And it's not a bad idea to keep track of demographics, for lots of reasons.

It is not surprising that only in countries with "white" people as majority the colour does matter.
It is true that identification is important in terms of medical or legal reasons, but we know that race identification in our days and societies are quite related to discrimination against certain races.

 

[RandFan]

Is that true? Maybe. I agree that 'color', in and of itself is too inconsequential to be used but is that true for heritage as well? I don't think so.

Consider these two random groups:

European heritage (mostly whitish)

African heritage (mostly blackish)

Can it be reasonably asserted that no statistically significant physiological differences exist between these two arbitrary groups other than those that are (usually) immediately apparent to the casual observer? I don't think so.

It is true. And while race might have some value when talking about variations attributed to geography it is not applicable beyond that. Consider,

The Biology of Race

The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races. Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment. The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases. A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive.

So, genetic variation between races is no more that it is between individuals in any given race.

 

[daenku32]

It is not surprising that only in countries with "white" people as majority the colour does matter.
It is true that identification is important in terms of medical or legal reasons, but we know that race identification in our days and societies are quite related to discrimination against certain races.

In fact, when HR people file applicants files into permanent records, they must remove many potentially discriminatory references. Including race. They can't keep an copy of photo ID.

 

[Michael Redman]

It is not surprising that only in countries with "white" people as majority the colour does matter.

That's only because, historically, the whites got around in large numbers earlier than everyone else. If you're Japanese, and only see other asians, you're only racist against other asians. (At least, until the tall ships arrive with whites for you to consider inferior.) Whites went out and found people of different pigment density to dislike, and invented "colors". Just because other cultures may not have though of color-based xenophobia doesn't mean they wouldn't kill a stranger at the first available opportunity.

Ironically, racism is one of those universal characteristics that convinces me we're all really quite the same.

 

[BillyTK]

Is that true? Maybe. I agree that 'color', in and of itself is too inconsequential to be used but is that true for heritage as well? I don't think so.

Consider these two random groups:

European heritage (mostly whitish)

African heritage (mostly blackish)

Can it be reasonably asserted that no statistically significant physiological differences exist between these two arbitrary groups other than those that are (usually) immediately apparent to the casual observer? I don't think so.

Keenan Malik has written an informative essay on the subject of racism and sports. One of the things he notes is that there is a greater difference in athletic ability between East and West Africans than there is between either and white Europeans. Furthermore, Australian Aborigines, whoa re typically lumped together with Africans on the basis of their skin colour, are more genetically distinctive compared to Africans than any other population.

 

[Rob Lister]

It is true. And while race might have some value when talking about variations attributed to geography it is not applicable beyond that. Consider,

So, genetic variation between races is no more that it is between individuals in any given race.

What is it that you are saying 'is true'?

Is there is an official name for the logical fallacy contained in your last sentence (in its 'thread' context)? I'm almost certain of it. Were I less lazy I'd look it up. Let me state my concern: Assuming your last sentence is true (and I accept that it is), it does not refute the claim (fact?) that the genetic simularities common to individual races* are not scientifically significant.


*The term 'race' needs debate clarification. I alluded (well, implied, really) to one possible clarification in my original post of this thread.

 

[BillyTK]

It is not surprising that only in countries with "white" people as majority the colour does matter.
It is true that identification is important in terms of medical or legal reasons, but we know that race identification in our days and societies are quite related to discrimination against certain races.

I wish I could find the links for the following, but I recall a couple of articles of significance here. One was a study of potential immigrants to the US who would identify themselves as white on their application forms because of what they perceived to be the importance of skin colour in the US, in the hope of being treated more favourably. The other was about a conflict on a US university campus resulting from African students who refused to join Black student groups because they didn't see skin colour as particularly significant to their identity.

 

[crimresearch]

That's only because, historically, the whites got around in large numbers earlier than everyone else. If you're Japanese, and only see other asians, you're only racist against other asians. (At least, until the tall ships arrive with whites for you to consider inferior.) Whites went out and found people of different pigment density to dislike, and invented "colors". Just because other cultures may not have though of color-based xenophobia doesn't mean they wouldn't kill a stranger at the first available opportunity.

Ironically, racism is one of those universal characteristics that convinces me we're all really quite the same.

Yep.

I have a friend who was born in Beijing. His mother and father were born in Beijing (she was Red Guard). 3 out of 4 of his grandparents were born in China.

He told me that when he walks down the street in Beijing, people passing by look at him and see a 'Korean'.

Just as Ungandans born there with black skin look at Ugandans born there with light brown skin and see a 'Pakistani'

Just as when I fill out an application, people look at my name and see 'Hispanic'.

So the notion that only white people care about skin colour is just another racist myth.

 

[Michael Redman]

The other was about a conflict on a US university campus resulting from African students who refused to join Black student groups because they didn't see skin colour as particularly significant to their identity.

How would someone not joining an organization cause conflict? Why such a choice be characterized as a refusal? Was someone implying joing such organizations was mandatory? This soundss like an urban myth.

 

[toddjh]

How would someone not joining an organization cause conflict? Why such a choice be characterized as a refusal? Was someone implying joing such organizations was mandatory? This soundss like an urban myth.

Maybe, but I think it's possible. Some gay activists get very angry when people say they don't really want to be in the march/parade/group/etc., because they don't view their sexual preference as a major part of their identity. There's sort of a traitor complex assigned to people who don't want to stand up and be counted as part of a particular group, especially when that group perceives itself as the object of oppression.

Jeremy

 

[varwoche]

Q-source writes:
" Hispanic is a term refering to spanish-speaking nations, not to race. There isn't a "hispanic" or latin race."

Hispanic is also a term referring to those of a certain ethnicity, and is defined both legally and in usage as a minority group.
And it's 'Latino', not latin.

Care to share any more 'white power' rhetoric about 'mud people'?

It's easy to misinterpret the written word in this medium. In general, it seems you are quick to assume that posters are espousing racist beliefs.

 

[RandFan]

What is it that you are saying 'is true'?

My original statement. The one you refered to whey you asked "is it true?"

My statement:

RandFan
There is but one human race. There are no divisions of humans based on biology. Color is simply to inconsequential to be used. We are all basically the same and the notion of races of people is anachronistic and wrong.

Rob Lister
Is there is an official name for the logical fallacy contained in your last sentence (in its 'thread' context)?

I don't know what "thread context" means. I was reapeating the scientific basis for discontinuing the use of race as it applies to humans.

Rob Lister
Let me state my concern: Assuming your last sentence is true (and I accept that it is), it does not refute the claim (fact?) that the genetic simularities common to individual races* are not scientifically significant.

Well, let's think about it for a moment.

Genetic variation between groups of people no greater than 6%

Genetic variation between individuals of a given group is as much as 6%.

If genetic variation is no greater between groups than it is between individuals then of what value is the variation as it applies to groups?

*The term 'race' needs debate clarification. I alluded (well, implied, really) to one possible clarification in my original post of this thread.

I don't know what you are talking about but I can assure you that Biologists, Anthropoligists and science in general no longer views race as any significance when it comes to humans beyond the race of humans itself.

Did you go to the link and read the material?

Biology of Race

Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”

You are free to believe anything you want but there really is nothing to debate as far as the issue of race and human biology is concerned.

 

[crimresearch]

It's easy to misinterpret the written word in this medium. In general, it seems you are quick to assume that posters are espousing racist beliefs.

Yes after decades of hearing that sort of smarmy, patronizing, for lack of a better analogy, 'passive aggressive' racism, I am quick to call it out into the open.
I have little tolerance for anyone who uses clever sophistry and semantic quibbling to make sure that the basic ideas demeaning minorities get promoted.
And given the responses I've gotten on this list, including that poster going on to repeat some more racist stereotypes, I am not wrong.

IMHO it serves no good purpose to let such closet racism go unchallenged. There is no 'good' racism...people who espouse the views that certain groups are lesser in any way have had ample opportunity to prove their assertions (as in the recent posts on race causing crime), and have failed miserably.

So for them to come onto a skeptical and supposedly freethinking and enlightened forum and expect to get away with such myths through clever debating tactics and dodging responsibility for their words may be fun for them, but it shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged.

Silence and complicity may make those who hold patronizing beliefs about minorities feel better about themselves, but it shouldn't be *expected* that others support them.

For that matter, we shouldn't still be living in a world where people are taken to task for pointing out such things, or where it would be preferrable if no one brought it up, but obviously we are.

So just as quickly as people post things insinuating that any minority who makes a skeptical observation about something sacred to the left 'must be' a right wing pawn (or vice versa),
or that blacks 'must be' committing more crimes, or that Hispanics aren't real minorities, or that only certain people can be racist,
expect me (and precious few others) to point it out for what it is...disguised, or closet, or unconscious, or 'clever', it is still racism.

So the question isn't why am I overly sensitive and too quick to react to racism, the questions is why are so many others willing to be complicit through overlooking or even buying into it?

Maybe there should be a JREF poll: "Does the forum think it is racist?"
An overwhelming and self congratulatry 'No' result from the majority would of course be utterly conclusive proof that minorities don't know what they are talking about when it comes to seeing racism...they need white people to 'splain it to them...


Dick Gregory said it far better than I...
'If anything I have said here has offended anyone, maybe that was the point'