Religious parents ...boy wearing dress

Alex99

Chris Bass wrote:

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?

Science doesn't show things to be definitively true. Science 'accepts' that it does not bring certainties, since any theory in principle, can be proven wrong. However, there are many theories that are true for all practical purposes.

I'm not sure about saying that Scientists "believe" in their hypothesis until it's proven wrong. They might design experiments on the assumption that it's true, but that's different to e.g. a theological belief.

john80

Archimedes' principle is one of many scientific theories that have been proven to be mathematically correct and then backed up by countless lab tests. If the mats is right then surely it is definitively true.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Ben's post shows why that idea starts to look shaky: the knowledge of that history is not passed down via DNA, but through cultural exposure. If someone lives fully within a particular group then I think it is difficult to argue that they cannot fully understand what it is to be a member of that group on the basis of their genetic heritage. I can see that more superficial adoption of cultural aspects of another group is more problematic. It implies a lack of interest and respect. I also agree the element of deceit in the Dolezal case is what got people's backs up. But given that some people are so attached to the idea that identity is fixed and react so strongly to someone changing their identity, I can understand why those wanting to make that change opt for subterfuge instead of openness.

darkhairedlord

john80 wrote:

Archimedes' principle is one of many scientific theories that have been proven to be mathematically correct and then backed up by countless lab tests. If the mats is right then surely it is definitively true.

it's not a theory.

Alex99

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.

Skin colour as you say, is more of a continuum, and what is considered black in one place, is white somewhere else. Without studying the history of 'blackness' in detail, I take your point about this being a social construct. I have no interest in splitting the world into black and white and am pretty sure that this definition has no merit and quite probably has a dirty past.

Going back to Rachel Dolezal. She wrote "African American" as her ethnicity on a form. This is not a skin colour claim, although some might be surprised when they meet this pinky coloured person. Is ethnicity a construct? There seems to be at least some elements of ethnicity that are fact-based. But at the same time, ethnicity is somewhat fuzzy, it probably doesn't run into the same problems as race.

This is from Wikipedia
"Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance."

Sure, you can take on some of these things. Some, you can't.

Alex99

darkhairedlord wrote:

john80 wrote:

Archimedes' principle is one of many scientific theories that have been proven to be mathematically correct and then backed up by countless lab tests. If the mats is right then surely it is definitively true.

it's not a theory.

That's where maths differs, right? Mathematics has proofs. The sweet luxury of certainty.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Ben's post shows why that idea starts to look shaky: the knowledge of that history is not passed down via DNA, but through cultural exposure. If someone lives fully within a particular group then I think it is difficult to argue that they cannot fully understand what it is to be a member of that group on the basis of their genetic heritage. I can see that more superficial adoption of cultural aspects of another group is more problematic. It implies a lack of interest and respect. I also agree the element of deceit in the Dolezal case is what got people's backs up. But given that some people are so attached to the idea that identity is fixed and react so strongly to someone changing their identity, I can understand why those wanting to make that change opt for subterfuge instead of openness.

I think we are disagreeing on what Ben means.

Germaine Greer's argument is that is takes more than cutting your knackers off (or leaving them on and wearing a dress) to become a woman. Even if you have lived around women for your entire life you do not know or understand what it means to be a woman.

Ben6899

In all fairness, Germaine Greer is about as narrow-minded as they come.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

Ben's post shows why that idea starts to look shaky: the knowledge of that history is not passed down via DNA, but through cultural exposure. If someone lives fully within a particular group then I think it is difficult to argue that they cannot fully understand what it is to be a member of that group on the basis of their genetic heritage. I can see that more superficial adoption of cultural aspects of another group is more problematic. It implies a lack of interest and respect. I also agree the element of deceit in the Dolezal case is what got people's backs up. But given that some people are so attached to the idea that identity is fixed and react so strongly to someone changing their identity, I can understand why those wanting to make that change opt for subterfuge instead of openness.

I think we are disagreeing on what Ben means.

Germaine Greer's argument is that is takes more than cutting your knackers off (or leaving them on and wearing a dress) to become a woman. Even if you have lived around women for your entire life you do not know or understand what it means to be a woman.

No, I got that. I think she's just flat out wrong.

rick_chasey

Alex99 wrote:

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.

Skin colour as you say, is more of a continuum, and what is considered black in one place, is white somewhere else. Without studying the history of 'blackness' in detail, I take your point about this being a social construct. I have no interest in splitting the world into black and white and am pretty sure that this definition has no merit and quite probably has a dirty past.

Going back to Rachel Dolezal. She wrote "African American" as her ethnicity on a form. This is not a skin colour claim, although some might be surprised when they meet this pinky coloured person. Is ethnicity a construct? There seems to be at least some elements of ethnicity that are fact-based. But at the same time, ethnicity is somewhat fuzzy, it probably doesn't run into the same problems as race.

This is from Wikipedia
"Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance."

Sure, you can take on some of these things. Some, you can't.

It's more what you pick and chose.

We don't define and group people by their hair or eye colour for example. Why do you think we use some physical appearances but not others?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

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

Remember having to deconstruct a load of reports from 17th Centurty explorers and they're not really going for the racial inferiority/savage/evil angle when referring to Africans.

Nor does it refer to them in ways that would suggest they are there to be conquered, rather than just they are there.

rjsterry

Yes, I'm aware of those earlier writings and some later ones that went against the prevailing view. My point was, notwithstanding that it didn't immediately occur on European contact with the New World and sub-saharan Africa, this wasn't the first occurrence of what we would now refer to as racism.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

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.

Skin colour as you say, is more of a continuum, and what is considered black in one place, is white somewhere else. Without studying the history of 'blackness' in detail, I take your point about this being a social construct. I have no interest in splitting the world into black and white and am pretty sure that this definition has no merit and quite probably has a dirty past.

Going back to Rachel Dolezal. She wrote "African American" as her ethnicity on a form. This is not a skin colour claim, although some might be surprised when they meet this pinky coloured person. Is ethnicity a construct? There seems to be at least some elements of ethnicity that are fact-based. But at the same time, ethnicity is somewhat fuzzy, it probably doesn't run into the same problems as race.

This is from Wikipedia
"Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance."

Sure, you can take on some of these things. Some, you can't.

It's more what you pick and chose.

We don't define and group people by their hair or eye colour for example. Why do you think we use some physical appearances but not others?

We do. Pale skin used to be a sign of wealth and belonging to the upper classes. More recently it's flipped the other way. Blonde hair is seen as an ideal to aspire to and despite 'bottle blonde' being slightly derogatory thousands of people go to great expense to be part of that group.

rick_chasey

Sure but I think we both agree being blonde or brown eyed isn't as big a cultural decider as whether you have dark skin or not.

I can go on and list various differences; balding, big thumbs, hairy, long neck, long eyelashes etc.

They're all differences. Think you're dodging the real question as to why you think Europeans defined the world between black and white, good and evil, savage and civilised, and used criteria we now know as race to do so?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sure but I think we both agree being blonde or brown eyed isn't as big a cultural decider as whether you have dark skin or not.

I can go on and list various differences; balding, big thumbs, hairy, long neck, long eyelashes etc.

They're all differences. Think you're dodging the real question as to why you think Europeans defined the world between black and white, good and evil, savage and civilised, and used criteria we now know as race to do so?

The initiator was competition for and control of resources. The Spanish and Portuguese wanted to break the control of trade from Asia that the Venetians had through their dominance of the eastern Mediterranean. They went looking for a way to cut out the middle men rather than exploration for the sake of it. In the process they bumped into the New World and found a route round Africa to the Indian Ocean. Having worked out that they could exploit the New World for its vast reserves of silver and plenty besides, the various European nations needed a workforce (having killed off the native Americans with smallpox and TB) and West Africa - a staging post on the way to both the Americas and the Indian Ocean - provided a ready supply.

In order to pile people into ships as slaves on an industrial scale and still kid yourself you are a good person, you need to think of them as not being people, hence the emergence of that idea. Skin colour is just the most obvious identifier, particularly from the point of view of a 17th century European. It's not just white and black, it's white and everyone else.

Just as an aside, the idea of skin colour indicating membership of a particular caste in India far predates 17th century Europe's version.

rick_chasey

I can't comment on anything like that that isn't Europeans in Africa since I've never looked at it.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can't comment on anything like that that isn't Europeans in Africa since I've never looked at it.

As opposed to colonisation the Americas?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I can't comment on anything like that that isn't Europeans in Africa since I've never looked at it.

As opposed to colonisation the Americas?

Did read a bit on that yeah.

It's the European bit I was really focused on.