Racism and President Obama

[JDR13]

So your argument for something being right is that people do it?.

Maybe you should read his post again, as you obviously didn't get it.

 

[JemyM]

We have an extremely strong tendency to organize ourselves into communities, both real and imaginary. This tendency is rooted in our biological heritage as social primates, and is, for most of us, impossible to break without deep and permanent psychological damage.

Prove it.

Therefore, attempting to define out-groups out of existence is both counterproductive and morally untenable. Q.E.D.

Your entire post, while thought through, discuss culture rather than race. You have suggested earlier in this thread that race is culture. To me, culture is based on nurture, not nature.

 

[Prime Junta]

Prove it.

What would constitute acceptable proof of this for you? I believe that my statement is pretty consistent with the general understanding of identity in psychology, for whatever that's worth. Along these lines -- just an example from a random source, but I believe you'll find more or less the same if you look up the concept of identity in psychology anywhere:

Components of identity include a sense of personal continuity and of uniqueness from other people. In addition to carving out a personal identity based on the need for uniqueness, people also acquire a social identity based on their membership in various groups-familial, ethnic, occupational, and others.

These group identities, in addition to satisfying the need for affiliation, help people define themselves in the eyes of both others and themselves.

Your entire post, while thought through, discuss culture rather than race. You have suggested earlier in this thread that race is culture. To me, culture is based on nurture, not nature.

That's correct. In this context, I'm only interested in race as a visible cultural marker, like language, dialect, or other, similar markers. The fact that it's based in genetic characteristics is entirely incidental.

I believe I went into this in rather some length a few posts back.

 

[JemyM]

What would constitute acceptable proof of this for you? I believe that my statement is pretty consistent with the general understanding of identity in psychology, for whatever that's worth. Along these lines -- just an example from a random source, but I believe you'll find more or less the same if you look up the concept of identity in psychology anywhere:

There is a direct relation between identity and self-esteem. This doesn't say much about what traits you have to consider to be part of your identity. It also doesn't block a person from downscaling the importance of certain traits over time as new are required.

That's correct. In this context, I'm only interested in race as a visible cultural marker, like language, dialect, or other, similar markers. The fact that it's based in genetic characteristics is entirely incidental.
I believe I went into this in rather some length a few posts back.

And I claim that race as a cultural marker is meaningless since race isn't a social trait, neither does it make you think differently. For instance, a white and a black computer nerd have more in common than a black computer nerd and a black skater. Also a christian arab and a christian finn have more in common than a christian arab and a muslim arab.

 

[Prime Junta]

And I claim that race as a cultural marker is meaningless since race isn't a social trait, neither does it make you think differently.

That's a non sequitur, JemyM. A cultural marker could be anything. It's meaningful if people treat it as meaningful. Race is just one such marker among many; the fact that it's based in genetics is irrelevant.

The fact is that there exist communities, both self-identified, and identified as such by out-groups, that use "racial" characteristics as markers for itself. A "black" community, with a distinct culture, identity, history, politics, and values, exists in the USA, and it explicitly identifies itself as such. Do you wish to deny that such a community exists? If not, would you care to suggest an alternative name for it?

Also a christian arab and a christian finn have more in common than a christian arab and a muslim arab.

Not in my experience. I know lots of Christian and Muslim Lebanese, and they have far more in common with each other than, say, Finnish Christians or Pakistani Muslims.

 

[JemyM]

Do you wish to deny that such a community exists? If not, would you care to suggest an alternative name for it?

I do not disagree that it exist, but I see it as an indicator that there is a problem that have made that cultural distinction important.

Not in my experience. I know lots of Christian and Muslim Lebanese, and they have far more in common with each other than, say, Finnish Christians or Pakistani Muslims.

Right.

 

[Prime Junta]

I do not disagree that it exist, but I see it as an indicator that there is a problem that have made that cultural distinction important.

Why is use of "racial" characteristics as cultural markers more problematic than, say, use of language as a cultural marker?

 

[JemyM]

Why is use of "racial" characteristics as cultural markers more problematic than, say, use of language as a cultural marker?

People who cannot communicate do not share the same language can barely do anything together. They cannot work together, they cannot co-operate, they cannot socialize, they cannot start a business together, they cannot contribute to the society together, they can barely do anything that is required to live together.

Compare this with the cognitive differences between different genders where there are physical and psychological reasons why a person of a specific gender might need to socialize with others of the same gender.

Compare this with the gay community where there are obvious reasons why they might wish to meet up with people who have the same sexuality.

Compare this with origin where there are obvious reasons why people brought parts of their culture with them that they now wish to keep alive.

Race, however, has no social function that makes people incompatible with eachother. People of different race do not automatically disagree. Race put no limitations to what interests they may have, what jobs they might fulfill, what religion or political ideology they cling on to or even what culture they belong to.

 

[Prime Junta]

People who cannot communicate do not share the same language can barely do anything together. They cannot work together, they cannot co-operate, they cannot socialize, they cannot start a business together, they cannot contribute to the society together, they can barely do anything that is required to live together.

That's not what I meant. For example, in Finland, we have a distinct community, with its own culture, history, values, etc., that is marked primarily by language -- Swedish. Most Swedish-speaking Finns also speak fluent Finnish, so communication is not a problem. Why is this marker inherently less problematic than a "racial" marker?

Compare this with the cognitive differences between different genders where there are physical and psychological reasons why a person of a specific gender might need to socialize with others of the same gender.

Compare this with the gay community where there are obvious reasons why they might wish to meet up with people who have the same sexuality.

Compare this with origin where there are obvious reasons why people brought parts of their culture with them that they now wish to keep alive.

Race, however, has no social function that makes people incompatible with eachother. People of different race do not automatically disagree. Race put no limitations to what interests they may have, what jobs they might fulfill, what religion or political ideology they cling on to or even what culture they belong to.

We're totally talking past one another here. I entirely agree with you that there's nothing inherent in "race" that does any of that. Just like there's nothing inherent in a language.

For example, I speak pretty fluent Swedish, but not idiomatically enough that someone from the Swedish-speaking community would mistake me for one of theirs.

There's nothing inherent in the Swedish language that makes a Swedish-speaking Finn think or identify with the Swedish-speaking community. That community consists of the people that identify with it, their shared values, networks, perceptions, traditions, and history. The particular variants of Swedish they speak serve as markers for the community; there's nothing inherent in Swedish per se that makes you think, belong, or identify with them.

Just like the American black community is defined by the people who identify with it, their shared values, history, culture, traditions, and what not. "Racial" characteristics serve as a marker; there's nothing inherent in them that makes you "think like a black" either.

 

[JemyM]

Maybe I simply do not understand that type of culture. I am intolerant when it comes to minilanguages, I know I am, but I simply cannot see the point. I see the whole practice of wasting your time with minilanguages to be a waste of human potential. Spend that time to learn science instead and begin to contribute with ideas, then one can have something to be proud about. I could even go one step further. If Sweden gave up Swedish for English I would not only be ok with that, I would even assist to promote the change. Language is a barrier. Like many Swedish families we will teach whatever kid we get English along with Swedish to give the child more freedom.

Whenever I see a Swede on a forum rambling about his pride for belonging to the Swedish people, being part of the Swedish "blood" etc I just shake my head. I have almost nothing in common with that guy despite the fact that we live in the same nation. There's parts about Swedens cultural progress that I like, but we didn't even begin to be a productive culture until the 20th century. Prior to that we imported everything. Even if Sweden is a name on the map now, a person who's greatest accomplishment is that they were born have nothing to be proud of. If that's the case, he's useless. More often than not I have found that people like that really have no clue about Sweden to begin with.

I am aware that I sound very harsh now and I lost the subject. I have more studies to do than I have mental capacity for and I am grumpy.

 

[Prime Junta]

Maybe I simply do not understand that type of culture. I am intolerant when it comes to minilanguages, I know I am, but I simply cannot see the point. I see the whole practice of wasting your time with minilanguages to be a waste of human potential. Spend that time to learn science instead and begin to contribute with ideas, then one can have something to be proud about. I could even go one step further. If Sweden gave up Swedish for English I would not only be ok with that, I would even assist to promote the change. Language is a barrier. Like many Swedish families we will teach whatever kid we get English along with Swedish to give the child more freedom.

My goodness.

Whenever I see a Swede on a forum rambling about his pride for belonging to the Swedish people, being part of the Swedish "blood" etc I just shake my head. I have almost nothing in common with that guy despite the fact that we live in the same nation. There's parts about Swedens cultural progress that I like, but we didn't even begin to be a productive culture until the 20th century. Prior to that we imported everything. Even if Sweden is a name on the map now, a person who's greatest accomplishment is that they were born have nothing to be proud of. If that's the case, he's useless. More often than not I have found that people like that really have no clue about Sweden to begin with.

I am aware that I sound very harsh now and I lost the subject. I have more studies to do than I have mental capacity for and I am grumpy.

Yes, you do. Here's clearly another area where we differ markedly -- I see human diversity, cultural and biological, linguistic, religious, culinary, and what have you, as the most precious thing we have. Nor is it an obstacle to communication. The solution is simple, and has been proven many times over during the course of history -- trade languages for communication, universally applied laws for conflict resolution, and curiosity and understanding for the exchange of goods and ideas.

If you really feel the way you say you do -- that diversity is something to be eradicated rather than encouraged -- then we really won't be able to find much common ground on this topic. I would really urge you to get to know your multicultural friends a bit better and a bit more deeply, perhaps even learn a minority language or two. You might find that it'll change your perspective.

 

[JemyM]

Yes, you do. Here's clearly another area where we differ markedly -- I see human diversity, cultural and biological, linguistic, religious, culinary, and what have you, as the most precious thing we have. Nor is it an obstacle to communication. The solution is simple, and has been proven many times over during the course of history -- trade languages for communication, universally applied laws for conflict resolution, and curiosity and understanding for the exchange of goods and ideas.
If you really feel the way you say you do -- that diversity is something to be eradicated rather than encouraged -- then we really won't be able to find much common ground on this topic. I would really urge you to get to know your multicultural friends a bit better and a bit more deeply, perhaps even learn a minority language or two. You might find that it'll change your perspective.

Do not get me wrong here. I am interested in cultures, so much that I have even considered to study cultural antropology. I embrace diversity. I find humanity and amazing and everything that they can come up with or already came up with. I am always interested in what my foreign friends brought with them to make the geographical area in which I happened to be born a richer place to live in.

That doesn't include language nor anything else that keeps people apart or provoke hostility or interfere with freedom. Also I do not eat pickled herring to preserve the memory of my ancestors. I eat it because it's good. The stuff that contributes to humanity preserve itself. The stuff that doesn't can as well die out.

 

[Prime Junta]

But *anything* can do that! Language can build walls between people, but it can also build bridges. Football can cause people to kill each other, or get a Turkish minister to visit Armenia.

Language *is* culture: _Under The North Star_ is not the same experience in Swedish or English or German as it is in Finnish, and Smultronstället is not the same film if you can't understand the original soundtrack. You can't just draw some arbitrary line and say that language is bad but regional cooking is good! The Soviet Union did that, more or less, and look how well *that* worked out!

 

[JemyM]

But *anything* can do that! Language can build walls between people, but it can also build bridges. Football can cause people to kill each other, or get a Turkish minister to visit Armenia.

I hate football, but I can appreciate it's power to bring countries together. How can different language bring people together?

Language *is* culture: _Under The North Star_ is not the same experience in Swedish or English or German as it is in Finnish, and Smultronstället is not the same film if you can't understand the original soundtrack. You can't just draw some arbitrary line and say that language is bad but regional cooking is good! The Soviet Union did that, more or less, and look how well *that* worked out!

These songs were written in their original language. The fact that they ended up good isn't because of their language but because they ended up good. I can appreciate folk music because it really do sound different, but many songs are good because they have good lyrics, which you cannot appreciate if you do not understand the language. There are a couple of Swedish songs that I would really had preferred to have been produced in English because they are so good.

 

[Prime Junta]

I hate football, but I can appreciate it's power to bring countries together. How can different language bring people together?

They don't. That's not their function. Shared languages bring people together.

The function of small languages is to maintain the cultural diversity that gives us our shared human cultural capital. We need both if we're not to become a global monoculture. A culture that loses its language will end up with its traditions impoverished and eventually melts into the majority.

These songs were written in their original language. The fact that they ended up good isn't because of their language but because they ended up good. I can appreciate folk music because it really do sound different, but many songs are good because they have good lyrics, which you cannot appreciate if you do not understand the language.

_Under The North Star_ is a novel by Väinö Linna, and Smultronstället is a film by Ingmar Bergman.

 

[JemyM]

The function of small languages is to maintain the cultural diversity that gives us our shared human cultural capital. We need both if we're not to become a global monoculture. A culture that loses its language will end up with its traditions impoverished and eventually melts into the majority.

If 6.5 billion people could contribute to a culture, do you really think it can become a monoculture? Culture have melted together for a long time now and this isn't neccessary a bad thing. When cultures mix, new cultures are formed.

_Under The North Star_ is a novel by Väinö Linna, and Smultronstället is a film by Ingmar Bergman.

Ah. I confused "Under the North Star" with a song.

I have grown up with the Swedish language, but if I lived up with English and then read Natives of Hemsö (August Strindberg), The Long Ships (Frans Gunnar Bengtsson) or The Emigrants (Vilhelm Moberg) I doubt I would have missed out. A Swede who now lives in the US and cannot speak Swedish but still seek their Swedish heritage would probably be able to enjoy each one of them. The Long Ships is entertaining even for one who aren't interested in Sweden but is still interested in an European modern take on the Odyssey. I know I enjoy the tale about King Arthur or Beowulf. I do not think culture or heritage is less interesting just because it's delivered in English. If I ever got around to read Kalevala, I would read it in Swedish or English and I wouldn't cry for not being able to understand the Finnish version. I have two translations of the Bible, two Swedish translations of the Qur'an, a Swedish translation of Dammapada and a Swedish Bhagavad Gita. The fact that I have them in Swedish (or English) means that I can enjoy thoughts of another culture that I wouldn't be able to enjoy if I had to learn languages like Arabic just to get it.

 

[vanedor]

It’s funny how this discussion evolved from a discussion about racism to one about the importance of languages and I find this very interesting.

Language in a very important concern here in Quebec simple because we are the only french speaking place with about 6-7 millions French-speaking people in North-America surrounded by over 300 millions English speaking people. We consider French as a very important tool to keep our culture and uniqueness alive. So we have laws. Laws about the labels, laws about the street signs, laws about the songs on the radio stations… someone arriving from the rest of Canada can have the impression to arrive in a different country (and I certainly have that impression when I go over there) and it’s basically true. And so far, these laws succeeded and even the English speaking community agree (up to a point) with most of them.
Yep, it’s expensive but we have example of place in North-America where French people have been assimilated and their culture is not really alive anymore. It’s just part of the Folklore. Louisiana, Manitoba… hopefully, it won’t happen here. It would mean losing an important part of our identity.

 

[JDR13]

It’s funny how this discussion evolved from a discussion about racism to one about the importance of languages and I find this very interesting.

Actually, it's more about 2 people who don't know when to quite, trying to outdo one another.

 

[JemyM]

Actually, it's more about 2 people who don't know when to quite, trying to outdo one another.

I do not see a debate as a competition anymore. I see it as a way to testing ones opinions and an opportunity to learn more.

 

[elkston]

Let's assume that the economic/political deck is stacked against the next president so badly that the Galactic Spaghetti Monster of Doom couldn't accomplish anything, let alone mere mortals like McCain or Obama. If Obama gets elected and fails, do you worry that the failure will be chalked up to Obama being black rather than attributed to an unwinnable situation? That would clearly be a huge step backwards for racial relations.

My prediction is that an Obama win will create some degree of racial resentment from the outset. In the warped minds of some racists, his victory would be some kind of proof that true equality had been achieved, and that they are now justified to ignore legitimate racial injustices and disparities. I have no idea how big this sentiment would be. We'll just have to wait.

Addressing your scenario specifically:

If Obama screws up his first term in a very visible and unambiguous manner, then it is conceivable that another black politician will not be elected President (let alone win the nomination) for eons. It is absolutely not fair, but it goes right back to what I stated earlier: Negative actions of blacks in the public eye become the ownership of *all* blacks in America. Like it or not, this is the cornerstone of white privilege: if you have the majority and the power, you get to define the public perception of the "other" people. This makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for blacks to distinguish themselves as individuals rather than being branded with a racial blueprint.

Exepct quite a few mean spirited rants in the vein of: "We gave your guy a chance and he blew it! Now you know why we don't trust you!". But expect many more subtle losses in confidence that will be reflected in the voting booths of the future. Races will still be cordial to each other, but privately there will be a setback.

That being said, there are many whites (and non blacks) who are still able to treat people as individuals first. They would blame Obama's failures on Obama, and not some core defect of black people in general. That is what I hope for.

But of course, Obama's not going to fail us! Times may be hard, but he's going to provide the steady and hopeful outlook that will see us through it. And the truly fair voters out there are going to be able to distinguish which failures were beyond his control, and which he could have steered us clear of.

As a side note in response to JemyM, I think it's very telling that Elkston uses the phrase, "black community". If that instinctive tribalism was bad in and of itself, I wouldn't think Elkston would use the phrase. Certainly, some people use those dividing lines for ill purpose, but claiming they don't exist is just silly.

Even though my posts may seem to indicate otherwise, I am not fond of the "us versus them" finger pointing. I really DO wish race would just be incidental.