Religious parents ...boy wearing dress

Alex99

Rick Chasey wrote:

What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?

Here we go. Are you suggesting that I'm not a Ninja?

tangled_metal

If you were you'd not announce it. Ninjas are secretive assassins, not the sort to announce it on a forum. So you're claim is bunkum.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

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.

I think the biology is a bit more complex than that. I would suggest it's more a legacy of segregationist laws in the 19th and early 20th century US. Plus, at least in Europe, white is the 'default' or 'background', so visible non-white features are more noticeable.

rick_chasey

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?

Here we go. Are you suggesting that I'm not a Ninja?

No it's an honest question. You said it, I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean by it.

Alex99

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?

Here we go. Are you suggesting that I'm not a Ninja?

No it's an honest question. You said it, I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean by it.

Claiming something that is not true. I am not many things. If I claim to be Welsh, Indian, Elvis etc... I would be just taking the p!ss. If go on to claim that I am any of these things, I should expect ridicule in return.

Alex99

Tangled Metal wrote:

If you were you'd not announce it. Ninjas are secretive assassins, not the sort to announce it on a forum. So you're claim is bunkum.

That is so last millennium

rjsterry

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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.

I think the biology is a bit more complex than that. I would suggest it's more a legacy of segregationist laws in the 19th and early 20th century US. Plus, at least in Europe, white is the 'default' or 'background', so visible non-white features are more noticeable.

Here's some further discussion on the genetics behind skin colour.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... cNpbKDTXqA

bianchimoon

HaydenM wrote:

From my non-religious background I like to think I believe things using facts (I'm aware it's not as simple as that). For science to work you believe nothing until it is proven, hence why religion can look ridiculous. I can't believe that a God exists because I have no proof, and it's not really up to a non-believer to prove God doesn't exist.

Exactly, any person making unfalsifiable claims has the duty to prove his claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

rjsterry

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?

Here we go. Are you suggesting that I'm not a Ninja?

No it's an honest question. You said it, I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean by it.

Claiming something that is not true. I am not many things. If I claim to be Welsh, Indian, Elvis etc... I would be just taking the p!ss. If go on to claim that I am any of these things, I should expect ridicule in return.

For starters most people would think of 'ninja' as an occupation rather than a fundamental part of your identity. What you do rather than who you are. A bit like me claiming to be a plumber. Presumably you can talk at length about why being a ninja is so important to you and give a detailed description of how you are living your life as a ninja. I'm not sure posting on here is enough.

Putting the ninja claim to one side, you might not think of yourself as Welsh, but you may have some Welsh ancestry of which you are unaware. Someone with similar heritage might choose to make more of that Welsh connection. We all choose our identity to some extent.

Alex99

rjsterry wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What makes an identity 'credible' Alex, and what do you mean by 'credible'?

Here we go. Are you suggesting that I'm not a Ninja?

No it's an honest question. You said it, I'm just asking you to articulate what you mean by it.

Claiming something that is not true. I am not many things. If I claim to be Welsh, Indian, Elvis etc... I would be just taking the p!ss. If go on to claim that I am any of these things, I should expect ridicule in return.

For starters most people would think of 'ninja' as an occupation rather than a fundamental part of your identity. What you do rather than who you are. A bit like me claiming to be a plumber. Presumably you can talk at length about why being a ninja is so important to you and give a detailed description of how you are living your life as a ninja. I'm not sure posting on here is enough.

Putting the ninja claim to one side, you might not think of yourself as Welsh, but you may have some Welsh ancestry of which you are unaware. Someone with similar heritage might choose to make more of that Welsh connection. We all choose our identity to some extent.

I'm OK with putting my Ninja claims aside for the moment. Although I wonder if you're correct about Ninja being an occupation, rather than an identity. Would Ninja really be a 9-5, 5 days a week type of gig? Doesn't matter really, as I was just using it as a stupid example.

You're right, I might have some distant hereditary Welsh connection. Let's say, if my great, great, great Grandfather was Welsh, what reason would I have to claim to be Welsh? Would you think it's fair enough if I decide that I'm Welsh?

I know this is not a very consequential claim, so you might say what's the point or your right to dispute my Welshness. But, there are some hypothetical facts to hand, and one might wonder why am I claiming to be Welsh?

rjsterry

It's still a choice even if the choice is to completely discount your heritage in your idea of who you are. It's all primarily self-defined.

Objectively, I have some Irish ancestry, but I don't think of myself as remotely Irish.

Alex99

rjsterry wrote:

It's still a choice even if the choice is to completely discount your heritage in your idea of who you are. It's all primarily self-defined.

Objectively, I have some Irish ancestry, but I don't think of myself as remotely Irish.

OK. I can see that there is a big element of choice. Are we running with different definitions of "identity"? Is identity purely, 'you are what you think you are and what you say you are', or it bounded in any way by objective facts?

To go back the Rachel Dolezal case, would you say that the issue that a lot of people had isn't about whether she really truly identified with African American culture, but a sense that she was lying?

surrey_commuter

we could almost make this cycling related and ask if it is fair for Froome to claim to be British?

Ben6899

Alex99 wrote:

To go back the Rachel Dolezal case, would you say that the issue that a lot of people had isn't about whether she really truly identified with African American culture, but a sense that she was lying?

It's called cultural appropriation. The general consensus was that she has no right to identify as African American (given she has no African American DNA and neither do her parents or parents' parents) because she or her forebearers have not known the struggles of people who are genuinely African American.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion on that though!

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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.

I think the biology is a bit more complex than that. I would suggest it's more a legacy of segregationist laws in the 19th and early 20th century US. Plus, at least in Europe, white is the 'default' or 'background', so visible non-white features are more noticeable.

Here's some further discussion on the genetics behind skin colour.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... cNpbKDTXqA

Interesting link, I'll have to go back to it when I have more time.

I think I'm using a poor comparison for what I'm trying to express though. I guess if you look at it as social genetics in that it is a social view of skin colour. Socially the white parentage takes a back seat to black parentage if there is any degree of colour involved. If the mixed offspring was completely white skinned they're white, if not they're black. If I go much further with my inelegant turn off phrase on this line of thought I fear it could be construed as racist somehow. Besides I'm probably wrong.

Ben6899

Just say what you're thinking. We're open-minded round these parts...

rjsterry

Alex99 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's still a choice even if the choice is to completely discount your heritage in your idea of who you are. It's all primarily self-defined.

Objectively, I have some Irish ancestry, but I don't think of myself as remotely Irish.

OK. I can see that there is a big element of choice. Are we running with different definitions of "identity"? Is identity purely, 'you are what you think you are and what you say you are', or it bounded in any way by objective facts?

To go back the Rachel Dolezal case, would you say that the issue that a lot of people had isn't about whether she really truly identified with African American culture, but a sense that she was lying?

I suppose there is an objective and a subjective element to identity, with the balance between the two varying from individual to individual. Rachel Dolezal is at one end of that spectrum, but if one fully commits to living as one's chosen identity - see the James Barry example I posted earlier - at some point, what you might call the objective identity becomes almost irrelevant. I agree that there are questions of honesty - perhaps if Dolezal had been more open/honest about her origins then there probably wouldn't have been the backlash. Equally, if her parents hadn't called her out in public we'd never know who she was. One interesting thing about the James Barry case is that there were suspicions at various points but his abilities as a surgeon and subsequent connections to the right people meant that things were smoothed over.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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.

I think the biology is a bit more complex than that. I would suggest it's more a legacy of segregationist laws in the 19th and early 20th century US. Plus, at least in Europe, white is the 'default' or 'background', so visible non-white features are more noticeable.

Here's some further discussion on the genetics behind skin colour.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... cNpbKDTXqA

Interesting link, I'll have to go back to it when I have more time.

I think I'm using a poor comparison for what I'm trying to express though. I guess if you look at it as social genetics in that it is a social view of skin colour. Socially the white parentage takes a back seat to black parentage if there is any degree of colour involved. If the mixed offspring was completely white skinned they're white, if not they're black. If I go much further with my inelegant turn off phrase on this line of thought I fear it could be construed as racist somehow. Besides I'm probably wrong.

There's a word for it: hypodescent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodescent

Although discredited, it's an idea with a long shadow.

Alex99

rjsterry wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's still a choice even if the choice is to completely discount your heritage in your idea of who you are. It's all primarily self-defined.

Objectively, I have some Irish ancestry, but I don't think of myself as remotely Irish.

OK. I can see that there is a big element of choice. Are we running with different definitions of "identity"? Is identity purely, 'you are what you think you are and what you say you are', or it bounded in any way by objective facts?

To go back the Rachel Dolezal case, would you say that the issue that a lot of people had isn't about whether she really truly identified with African American culture, but a sense that she was lying?

I suppose there is an objective and a subjective element to identity, with the balance between the two varying from individual to individual. Rachel Dolezal is at one end of that spectrum, but if one fully commits to living as one's chosen identity - see the James Barry example I posted earlier - at some point, what you might call the objective identity becomes almost irrelevant. I agree that there are questions of honesty - perhaps if Dolezal had been more open/honest about her origins then there probably wouldn't have been the backlash. Equally, if her parents hadn't called her out in public we'd never know who she was. One interesting thing about the James Barry case is that there were suspicions at various points but his abilities as a surgeon and subsequent connections to the right people meant that things were smoothed over.

Sounds quite sensible. I'd like to know what Rick thinks about this if he'd like to comment ("objective and a subjective element to identity").

rick_chasey

Within the confines of the arbitrary definitions of race it's easy to rule people in or out according to those rules.

Doesn't mean they ought to be adhered to or that those rules have any merit per se.

So if you take a view that there is merit in using said arbitrary definitions of race, and that the general arbitrary consensus of what it means to be 'black' is used, then you could easily make the case if someone is or isn't.

After all, isn't that the entire point of identity? To examine the differences in others allows you to identify yourself.

I don't readily differentiate between people who have voices for example; too many people have them to make it a differentiating feature.

rjsterry

I'm not sure that's what Alex99 was asking. We were looking at the issue more generally: to what extent is one's identity limited by objective facts? Yes the idea of distinct races is largely a social construction, but I don't think trying to disprove their existence is useful.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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.

I think the biology is a bit more complex than that. I would suggest it's more a legacy of segregationist laws in the 19th and early 20th century US. Plus, at least in Europe, white is the 'default' or 'background', so visible non-white features are more noticeable.

Here's some further discussion on the genetics behind skin colour.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... cNpbKDTXqA

Interesting link, I'll have to go back to it when I have more time.

I think I'm using a poor comparison for what I'm trying to express though. I guess if you look at it as social genetics in that it is a social view of skin colour. Socially the white parentage takes a back seat to black parentage if there is any degree of colour involved. If the mixed offspring was completely white skinned they're white, if not they're black. If I go much further with my inelegant turn off phrase on this line of thought I fear it could be construed as racist somehow. Besides I'm probably wrong.

There's a word for it: hypodescent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodescent

Although discredited, it's an idea with a long shadow.

No that's "at the end of the day"

chris_bass

HaydenM wrote:

From my non-religious background I like to think I believe things using facts (I'm aware it's not as simple as that). For science to work you believe nothing until it is proven, hence why religion can look ridiculous. I can't believe that a God exists because I have no proof, and it's not really up to a non-believer to prove God doesn't exist.

that isnt really how science works. science is built around believing something to be true until there is evidence to prove it isnt the case.

you have a hypothesis, test it, if it works and you cant find a scenario in which it doesnt work it is generally accepted until any counter evidence can be provided.

can you find anything in science that has been proven to be definitely true?

darkhairedlord

Religion is not about proof, it's about faith.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure that's what Alex99 was asking. We were looking at the issue more generally: to what extent is one's identity limited by objective facts? Yes the idea of distinct races is largely a social construction, but I don't think trying to disprove their existence is useful.

I'm not disproving the existence of the constructs.

I just don't think that the constructs per definition are objective.

Within the discourse that shapes and defines the construct sure, but, when it comes to issues like this, I take the Foucault & Said approach, which is that knowledge, particularly in this context, is not and cannot be objective. It's inherently subjective, and they are usually formed in a way to create binary divisions which allow for domination of one side over the other.


So in the context of "we do define races along commonly agreed criteria" then absolutely, you can rule in and rule out people's identity from afar; that's the whole point of having the criteria if you think about it.

I'm just suggesting that one shouldn't necessarily take the criteria and the fact race is commonly defined in society as justification in and of itself for its existence. That's why I originally gave the historic example of an era when racism didn't exist in a recognisable form.

Just because it has its own logic doesn't mean it is necessarily truthful. Fine, the woman defines herself in a way that the criterea says is wrong. But why does that criteria exist at all?

I find the whole PC debate misses this step.

Unless you think about the definitions people use in the first place and why they exist, the internal logic of the pervading discourse will of course make political correctness seem ludicrous. It's the all pervading power of the dominator side of the equation to have its own internal logic to justify their domination. With the passage of time and a few historical techniques you can pull that way of knowing the world apart and examine how they shaped the power structures, and then apply those findings to the current day; that's the basis of political correctness.

That's why, if you think about it, people make a distinction between the word "n!gger" and the phrase "African American". If you're being "objective" they both describe the same thing, but one is used in the context of one side dominating another, the other isn't. The aim of replacing the former with the latter is to try and break that hegemony.

Just saying x is offensive because the word carries y connotations isn't convincing.

pblakeney

Why is wearing a dress so definitive? It is just clothing that has been worn by men under different guises since men started wearing clothes. Less so here and now, but still...

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I'm not sure that's what Alex99 was asking. We were looking at the issue more generally: to what extent is one's identity limited by objective facts? Yes the idea of distinct races is largely a social construction, but I don't think trying to disprove their existence is useful.

I'm not disproving the existence of the constructs.

I just don't think that the constructs per definition are objective.

Within the discourse that shapes and defines the construct sure, but, when it comes to issues like this, I take the Foucault & Said approach, which is that knowledge, particularly in this context, is not and cannot be objective. It's inherently subjective, and they are usually formed in a way to create binary divisions which allow for domination of one side over the other.


So in the context of "we do define races along commonly agreed criteria" then absolutely, you can rule in and rule out people's identity from afar; that's the whole point of having the criteria if you think about it.

I'm just suggesting that one shouldn't necessarily take the criteria and the fact race is commonly defined in society as justification in and of itself for its existence. That's why I originally gave the historic example of an era when racism didn't exist in a recognisable form.

Just because it has its own logic doesn't mean it is necessarily truthful. Fine, the woman defines herself in a way that the criterea says is wrong. But why does that criteria exist at all?

I find the whole PC debate misses this step.

Unless you think about the definitions people use in the first place and why they exist, the internal logic of the pervading discourse will of course make political correctness seem ludicrous. It's the all pervading power of the dominator side of the equation to have its own internal logic to justify their domination. With the passage of time and a few historical techniques you can pull that way of knowing the world apart and examine how they shaped the power structures, and then apply those findings to the current day; that's the basis of political correctness.

That's why, if you think about it, people make a distinction between the word "n!gger" and the phrase "African American". If you're being "objective" they both describe the same thing, but one is used in the context of one side dominating another, the other isn't. The aim of replacing the former with the latter is to try and break that hegemony.

Just saying x is offensive because the word carries y connotations isn't convincing.

Existence was the wrong word perhaps. I think I understand your argument and my point was that the objective (or pseudo objective if you prefer) aspects of one's identity are less important anyway. However I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that there was an era before racism. It might have taken a different form or been based on criteria other than skin colour but I would guess that 'them' and 'us' and most importantly 'us' being superior to 'them' is an idea as old as mankind. Usually as a justification for why 'we' should have control of a resource and 'they' shouldn't. There are certainly examples in Classical antiquity.

rick_chasey

Try some of the literature of the early 17th Century.

Is really very different.

(Too long ago to remember which pieces unfortunately)

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Try some of the literature of the early 17th Century.

Is really very different.

(Too long ago to remember which pieces unfortunately)

Different from what? Just had a quick Google and on the face of it it doesn't look that different from, for example this from On Airs, Waters and Places by Hippocrates of Kos.

https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... ent-greece

surrey_commuter

Ben6899 wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

To go back the Rachel Dolezal case, would you say that the issue that a lot of people had isn't about whether she really truly identified with African American culture, but a sense that she was lying?

It's called cultural appropriation. The general consensus was that she has no right to identify as African American (given she has no African American DNA and neither do her parents or parents' parents) because she or her forebearers have not known the struggles of people who are genuinely African American.

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion on that though!

This is Germaine Greer's argument on whether a man can become a woman.