Religious parents ...boy wearing dress

12357

Comments

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Some people on here will try to argue black is white :lol:

    Respecting someone's rights in the face of reality.

    Right to have babies

    This transgender issue apparently really stirs the blood of some.

    Hyde Park Rally

    Warning for some of the easily offended, it is a Sunday Mail link. :wink:
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Of course, no such thing as race.

    Why is it funny when Ali G says "is it because I is black?"
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Some people on here will try to argue black is white :lol:

    Respecting someone's rights in the face of reality.

    Right to have babies

    This transgender issue apparently really stirs the blood of some.

    Hyde Park Rally

    Warning for some of the easily offended, it is a Sunday Mail link. :wink:

    "From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta."
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Of course, no such thing as race.

    Why is it funny when Ali G says "is it because I is black?"

    Honest question, why d'ya think it's defined as "black & white" when clearly the skin of people resembles peaches and browns on a fairly continuous scale?
    _
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ack-people

    “Look, I have two black children, you know? I’ve been colorblind my entire life” Steven Spielberg

    Really belongs in the irony thread.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    The history of it helps illuminate the problem.

    Once upon a time, people of African origin were just considered as humans in Europe, just like themselves.

    That was the case throughout the ancient period for example.

    You only really begin to see the classic "black white" Manichaean allegory (reading a whole other meaning into the black white dichotomy, from "savage, civilised", "evil, good", "superstitious, rational" etc) around the time Europeans start thinking about the world as something to colonise. It helps identify your dominance of other parts of the world and the people who live there if you identify yourself as superior in some way (and thus those others inferior), so you go through a process of "othering" where you pay attention to the binary difference.

    Basically, my point being, unlike gender, where for long as we've been recognisably human, we've had genders, racial definitions are a much much more modern construct.

    The point is is that construct is deeply imbedded and part of the discourse (and by discourse I mean the epistemological sense; we 'know' the word in a particular, constructed, way, it's impossible to not) and so the idea a 'white' person, according to the discourse, thinks themselves 'black' is laughable, but had you said that 2000 years ago people would have asked "wtf you mean black?".

    So arguably the whole process is a way, intentionally or not, to show how ludicrous it is.

    The Ali g joke is a bit deeper than just Ali G not having dark skin. The whole bit of Ali G is holding a mirror up to 'white' peoples in how 'white' people perceive 'black' people. The joke only works on the assumption that the discrimination exists, and Ali G mistakenly thinks that the people he is trying to emulate play the racism card to win petty arguments and trivial arguments rather than because they are genuinely on the losing end of racism. By taking out the physical factor, he shows there's more to race than that (culture, language, behaviour) and how ludicrous it is to define people by the physical attributes.

    Anyway, I doubt anyone will actually read this, but fwiw i haven't just made this up; it's a whole academic discipline you can study if you so wish.
    _
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    The history of it helps illuminate the problem.

    Once upon a time, people of African origin were just considered as humans in Europe, just like themselves.

    That was the case throughout the ancient period for example.

    You only really begin to see the classic "black white" Manichaean allegory (reading a whole other meaning into the black white dichotomy, from "savage, civilised", "evil, good", "superstitious, rational" etc) around the time Europeans start thinking about the world as something to colonise. It helps identify your dominance of other parts of the world and the people who live there if you identify yourself as superior in some way (and thus those others inferior), so you go through a process of "othering" where you pay attention to the binary difference.

    Basically, my point being, unlike gender, where for long as we've been recognisably human, we've had genders, racial definitions are a much much more modern construct.

    The point is is that construct is deeply imbedded and part of the discourse (and by discourse I mean the epistemological sense; we 'know' the word in a particular, constructed, way, it's impossible to not) and so the idea a 'white' person, according to the discourse, thinks themselves 'black' is laughable, but had you said that 2000 years ago people would have asked "wtf you mean black?".

    So arguably the whole process is a way, intentionally or not, to show how ludicrous it is.

    The Ali g joke is a bit deeper than just Ali G not having dark skin. The whole bit of Ali G is holding a mirror up to 'white' peoples in how 'white' people perceive 'black' people. The joke only works on the assumption that the discrimination exists, and Ali G mistakenly thinks that the people he is trying to emulate play the racism card to win petty arguments and trivial arguments rather than because they are genuinely on the losing end of racism. By taking out the physical factor, he shows there's more to race than that (culture, language, behaviour) and how ludicrous it is to define people by the physical attributes.

    Anyway, I doubt anyone will actually read this, but fwiw i haven't just made this up; it's a whole academic discipline you can study if you so wish.

    Aw, c'mon. I read every word.

    Can I claim to be a banana? Apparently we share 50% of our genes with a banana and there has only been a distinction made between bananas and people since humans developed language. It's a cultural construction.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,866
    Alex99 wrote:
    Can I claim to be a banana?
    You can't be a banana but you can be bananas. Does that help?
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,996
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    The history of it helps illuminate the problem.

    Once upon a time, people of African origin were just considered as humans in Europe, just like themselves.

    That was the case throughout the ancient period for example.

    You only really begin to see the classic "black white" Manichaean allegory (reading a whole other meaning into the black white dichotomy, from "savage, civilised", "evil, good", "superstitious, rational" etc) around the time Europeans start thinking about the world as something to colonise. It helps identify your dominance of other parts of the world and the people who live there if you identify yourself as superior in some way (and thus those others inferior), so you go through a process of "othering" where you pay attention to the binary difference.

    Basically, my point being, unlike gender, where for long as we've been recognisably human, we've had genders, racial definitions are a much much more modern construct.

    The point is is that construct is deeply imbedded and part of the discourse (and by discourse I mean the epistemological sense; we 'know' the word in a particular, constructed, way, it's impossible to not) and so the idea a 'white' person, according to the discourse, thinks themselves 'black' is laughable, but had you said that 2000 years ago people would have asked "wtf you mean black?".

    So arguably the whole process is a way, intentionally or not, to show how ludicrous it is.

    The Ali g joke is a bit deeper than just Ali G not having dark skin. The whole bit of Ali G is holding a mirror up to 'white' peoples in how 'white' people perceive 'black' people. The joke only works on the assumption that the discrimination exists, and Ali G mistakenly thinks that the people he is trying to emulate play the racism card to win petty arguments and trivial arguments rather than because they are genuinely on the losing end of racism. By taking out the physical factor, he shows there's more to race than that (culture, language, behaviour) and how ludicrous it is to define people by the physical attributes.

    Anyway, I doubt anyone will actually read this, but fwiw i haven't just made this up; it's a whole academic discipline you can study if you so wish.

    Aw, c'mon. I read every word.

    Can I claim to be a banana? Apparently we share 50% of our genes with a banana and there has only been a distinction made between bananas and people since humans developed language. It's a cultural construction.

    If you're a banana, I'm a Dutchman.
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Can I claim to be a banana?
    You can't be a banana but you can be bananas. Does that help?

    That's cultural appropriation. Bananas might be offended.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    The history of it helps illuminate the problem.

    Once upon a time, people of African origin were just considered as humans in Europe, just like themselves.

    That was the case throughout the ancient period for example.

    You only really begin to see the classic "black white" Manichaean allegory (reading a whole other meaning into the black white dichotomy, from "savage, civilised", "evil, good", "superstitious, rational" etc) around the time Europeans start thinking about the world as something to colonise. It helps identify your dominance of other parts of the world and the people who live there if you identify yourself as superior in some way (and thus those others inferior), so you go through a process of "othering" where you pay attention to the binary difference.

    Basically, my point being, unlike gender, where for long as we've been recognisably human, we've had genders, racial definitions are a much much more modern construct.

    The point is is that construct is deeply imbedded and part of the discourse (and by discourse I mean the epistemological sense; we 'know' the word in a particular, constructed, way, it's impossible to not) and so the idea a 'white' person, according to the discourse, thinks themselves 'black' is laughable, but had you said that 2000 years ago people would have asked "wtf you mean black?".

    So arguably the whole process is a way, intentionally or not, to show how ludicrous it is.

    The Ali g joke is a bit deeper than just Ali G not having dark skin. The whole bit of Ali G is holding a mirror up to 'white' peoples in how 'white' people perceive 'black' people. The joke only works on the assumption that the discrimination exists, and Ali G mistakenly thinks that the people he is trying to emulate play the racism card to win petty arguments and trivial arguments rather than because they are genuinely on the losing end of racism. By taking out the physical factor, he shows there's more to race than that (culture, language, behaviour) and how ludicrous it is to define people by the physical attributes.

    Anyway, I doubt anyone will actually read this, but fwiw i haven't just made this up; it's a whole academic discipline you can study if you so wish.

    I think you (as the personification of correctness) have jumped the shark
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Of course, no such thing as race.

    Why is it funny when Ali G says "is it because I is black?"

    Honest question, why d'ya think it's defined as "black & white" when clearly the skin of people resembles peaches and browns on a fairly continuous scale?
    Yes, it is almost entirely a social construction but it is so deeply embedded in the way people see the world and that I'm not sure it's helpful to just say it doesn't really exist. It was never a rational scientific argument in the first place so trying to counter raacism by rational scientific means won't work.

    Going back to Bally's earlier point Rachel Dolezal is an extreme example which gives a very simplistic view of the issue: you can't be something you don't appear to be. On that basis a person with a mixed racial background must see themselves as belonging to whichever ethnicity they most physically resemble. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see why this might be a problem.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation

    :) I agree. I was referring back to comments earlier that respecting someones gender according to how they self-identify as being basic manners and politeness. Their biological sex being irrelevant. I was just pointing to something that seemed a little inconsistent.
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?

    I'd imagine that this person would call themselves Norweigan. Woudn't you? But if they spoke about their African American roots or herritage, they wouldn't be making it up on a whim. Also, if they referred to themselves as black, it wouldn't raise many eyebrows.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Alex99 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?

    I'd imagine that this person would call themselves Norweigan. Woudn't you? But if they spoke about their African American roots or herritage, they wouldn't be making it up on a whim. Also, if they referred to themselves as black, it wouldn't raise many eyebrows.
    Exactly: they are to some extent choosing to identify as one or the other or neither. Or more likely the mother is choosing the identity for them until they get to an age where they might decide to change that identity.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    They're Norwegian surely? They're not American. I always think of you're from anywhere other than America and of black or mixed black / white origin you'd be called Afro-Caribbean. African/American is a unique term for American black. If you've never lived in America and don't hold American citizenship you can't exactly claim American in anything. Just my opinion.

    Why does American black need to put American in their racial status? Mind you thinking again afro-caribbean is doing the same. Perhaps afro-Norwegian would be better for the hypothetical person.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?

    That is too obvious. Make the dad Norwegian with mum being Norwegian and grown up in Hammerfest.

    Are you going to respect their right to identify as African American?
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    rjsterry wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?

    I'd imagine that this person would call themselves Norweigan. Woudn't you? But if they spoke about their African American roots or herritage, they wouldn't be making it up on a whim. Also, if they referred to themselves as black, it wouldn't raise many eyebrows.
    Exactly: they are to some extent choosing to identify as one or the other or neither. Or more likely the mother is choosing the identity for them until they get to an age where they might decide to change that identity.

    I agree, there is a choice in this scenario. But, it's bounded by reality. They do have an African American parent. They do have a Norwegian parent. They do not have a Japanese parent.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Alex99 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Alex99 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    So Rachel Dolezal reckoned she is black, her white parents beg to differ...
    I assume some on here would accept her as being black although biology says differently.

    So, some related food for thought.

    Not a rhetorical question, but why do you think the distinction is black & white rather than the actual colour of their skin?

    Because it's more of a social construct than a biological one. That's why it's binary; it makes it a useful way to identify oneself by 'othering'.

    We're all more or less mongrels, so why is there a distinction at all?

    Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?

    Not necessarily.

    It's probably a comparable make up of physical traits and social constructs to gender, only it tends to be acceptable to be defined by the group/observer rather than the individual.

    I mean, you could take he view that the person who was born male and has a penis but feels they're a woman has as much right to say that as this Caucasian lady has to say she's not.

    One is more socially acceptable than the other, as the reactions demonstrate.

    You tend to see that on issues like this the West is more open minded re gender than race. Same goes for more mundane day to day workplace diversity.

    "Are you saying you respect her right to claim (identify) as African American?"

    "Not necessarily."

    Isn't is basic politeness?

    No - somebody is either African American or not. You can play along with somebody to avoid confrontation
    What if this person's dad is African American and their mum is Norwegian? Which are they? They'll still look a bit African American, but what if they've grown up in Hammerfest with little or no contact with dad?

    I'd imagine that this person would call themselves Norweigan. Woudn't you? But if they spoke about their African American roots or herritage, they wouldn't be making it up on a whim. Also, if they referred to themselves as black, it wouldn't raise many eyebrows.
    Exactly: they are to some extent choosing to identify as one or the other or neither. Or more likely the mother is choosing the identity for them until they get to an age where they might decide to change that identity.

    I agree, there is a choice in this scenario. But, it's bounded by reality. They do have an African American parent. They do have a Norwegian parent. They do not have a Japanese parent.

    Sure, but it's nowhere near as neatly defined as SC suggests. History is full of people who have 'passed' as a member of some other group to which they might not objectively belong.

    After Irish woman Margaret Ann Bulkley had been practicing as Scottish army surgeon James Barry for 50-odd years, rising to a very senior rank, it begs the question what limits reality actually sets.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barry_(surgeon)
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Surrey Commuter wrote:


    I think you (as the personification of correctness) have jumped the shark


    I had similar reservations to you. Then by accident I ended up studying a type of history which is the academic basis on which PC is based on.

    When you look at it from the ground up as I had to, it eventually becomes quite compelling.
    _
  • Tashman
    Tashman Posts: 3,497
    I'm genuinely interested to know why people of mixed race where "white" is a part of the mix always seem to designate themselves as having stronger links to the "black/asian" element of their heritage. I have no stats just personal observation for this. Also wouldn't it be great if we all did just see a person!
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Tashman wrote:
    I'm genuinely interested to know why people of mixed race where "white" is a part of the mix always seem to designate themselves as having stronger links to the "black/asian" element of their heritage. I have no stats just personal observation for this. Also wouldn't it be great if we all did just see a person!

    I think there's a general trend for linking one's identity to the more 'interesting' parts of one's heritage, and of wanting to take pride in that heritage. Given the history you can see why some might be less interested in their white European ancestry.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    Tashman wrote:
    I'm genuinely interested to know why people of mixed race where "white" is a part of the mix always seem to designate themselves as having stronger links to the "black/asian" element of their heritage. I have no stats just personal observation for this. Also wouldn't it be great if we all did just see a person!
    People are fickle. How many become Irish on St. Patrick's Day when the closest they've come is sitting next to a pint of Guinness?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Alex99
    Alex99 Posts: 1,407
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Tashman wrote:
    I'm genuinely interested to know why people of mixed race where "white" is a part of the mix always seem to designate themselves as having stronger links to the "black/asian" element of their heritage. I have no stats just personal observation for this. Also wouldn't it be great if we all did just see a person!
    People are fickle. How many become Irish on St. Patrick's Day when the closest they've come is sitting next to a pint of Guinness?

    I guess people like to 'craft' an identity and will take parts from whatever they like, often stretching credibility. It makes me wonder, if I have unwittingly taken random stuff into my identity. I'll have to ask my pals at Pirate-Ninja club this evening.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?
    _
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    I'm quarter American, less if you split that quarter into American and Swedish. Fortunately for deciding my race all my ancestry appears to be white. That's only fortunate in that I don't have to choose to be of one ethnicity.

    Of course my hair has texture of black, African which may be Moorish blood mixed into a suspected Spanish ancestry.

    The black / white parents always described as producing offspring who are mixed race but they're viewed as black. It's like it's a dominant ethnicity. The way of look at it is it's similar to recessive genes. By that I mean (if my gcse biology is remembered correctly) white ethnicity is recessive, black is dominant. If you're born to a parents who are black and white the white ethnicity gives way to the black ethnicity. Not sure if that's right but it sometimes reminds me of that idea.

Categories