Racism and President Obama

[dteowner]

Got a thought fer y'all to ponder.

Assumption- the next president, regardless of Obama/McCain, is inheriting a turd and will probably have a very frustrating (aka few accomplishments, mostly unpopular) term trying to polish said diamond-in-the-roughage.

That assumption may nor may not be true (I tend to think so, but it doesn't matter), but you've got to go with it for the question that follows.

If Obama wins the election, I fully expect the black community will go orgasmic (not without some justification) and shout about it being a huge step against racism. If his presidency then goes in the toilet (even thru no fault of his own), does that end up actually being a net step backwards for the black community? The open racists will obviously trumpet some "told ya dem blacks wuz too stupidlike to run this here country" babble and the politically correct will mumble about America not being ready for "true equality".

So, should the black community be worried? I'm particularly interested in Elkston's thoughts if he happens to swing by.

[blatantninja]

That's something I've been talking about for months. IMO, whoever gets elected in 2008 won't get re-elected in 2012. It doesn't matter who caused what, the American population has ADD and will blame it on the sitting admin. This is one reason I want Obama to win somewhat. If he loses, it will be Clinton in 2012, and she will be virtually guaranteed a win.

The open racists are going to say nasty things regardless. If someone how the economy rebounds and goes on a run, it will be because of Congress, not Obama. If it's in the toilet, it's because Obama wasn't smart enough to fix it. He can't win.

I'd say the only difference in those two scenarios is that in the latter, some of the people that might lean towards the prejudiced attitudes, but have gotten past them in 2008, will be more likely to listen to that rhetoric in 2012. Now will that mean they'll never vote for a black man again? For the majority, I'd say not. Like I said, we have ADD. So I don't think that there will be long term lasting damage to the possibility of another black man becoming President down the line.

But who knows. The mob is finicky.

[Prime Junta]

It's quite easy to polish a turd. Just freeze it first.

Also, I think there's a good chance that the economy will be in full recovery mode by 2012. The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half. I'm fairly certain that you're already about 3-6 months into one; by the inauguration, that'll be 6-9 months. That means that if you just manage to avoid the Japan scenario, things will be looking up by 2010-2011 at the latest.

That's certainly a big "if," because it requires good governance and some rather tough political decisions. If Obama and the Dems win sufficiently big to get significant majorities in both houses of Congress, they will be in a position to pull it off -- they'll have the political power, and they have access to plenty of people who, if anyone, are competent enough to sort it out.

If they don't and the economy is still spinning its wheels in 2012, they deserve to lose.

The same applies to McCain, naturally -- although he'll have a much tougher job of it, since his economic advisers are so uniformly terrible and he's much less likely to have solid support in Congress.

[dteowner]

That's something I've been talking about for months. IMO, whoever gets elected in 2008 won't get re-elected in 2012. It doesn't matter who caused what, the American population has ADD and will blame it on the sitting admin. This is one reason I want Obama to win somewhat. If he loses, it will be Clinton in 2012, and she will be virtually guaranteed a win.You just had to go and molest my thread with mention of the Ice Queen... ;)

edit- @PJ--yada yada yada, now what about the racial question??? ;)

[Prime Junta]

If I had any sense, I wouldn't comment on this question, since I really don't know. This racial stuff is so fraught with deep undercurrents in the American psyche that have to be experienced to be understood, and I have next to no experience of them. So I really shouldn't say anything about it.

But what the hell. I have a feeling you guys will get so used to seeing his smiling mug on the boob tube that most of you will quickly forget the color of his epithelium. AFAICT you have no problems with black people on TV as long as they wear nice suits and don't overdo the gold chains; he'll be just another one of those.

[blatantninja]

Also, I think there's a good chance that the economy will be in full recovery mode by 2012. The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half. I'm fairly certain that you're already about 3-6 months into one; by the inauguration, that'll be 6-9 months. That means that if you just manage to avoid the Japan scenario, things will be looking up by 2010-2011 at the latest.

I hope your right, but given the credit contraction I see happening and still coming, I think at best we will have flat economic growth over the next 4 years. And I think the chance of that are minimal.

[blatantninja]

But what the hell. I have a feeling you guys will get so used to seeing his smiling mug on the boob tube that most of you will quickly forget the color of his epithelium. AFAICT you have no problems with black people on TV as long as they wear nice suits and don't overdo the gold chains; he'll be just another one of those.

We're ok with the over done gold chains, so long as they rap well.

[magerette]

Interesting thought, dte. I think whether Obama now wins or loses, is a great, abysmal or even non-president, he's already changed the racial dynamic dramatically. My take on the black community (as a white outsider) is that they will not expect the moon of Obama if he wins or be disappointed at criticism of him if he fails in some goals once elected. (Neither will I, though I will be somewhat disappointed by a failure., but let's face it, this is a terrible time to inherit the presidency.) I think just the achievement will be a positive thing. Of course, being a great esteemed leader who fixes this ongoing trainwreck would be icing on the cake.

As for white racism, Obama getting this far has to some extent begun marginilizing it; being elected shoves it further in a corner. Failure? Might cause some "I told you so's." But I don't think it negates what's already happened.

[JemyM]

As a non-American, I do not understand the concept of "black community".

[magerette]

Just a way to refer to African-Americans as a population group separate from other ethnic identities. Emphasizing they share some communal viewpoints, etc. Make sense?

[JemyM]

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

[dteowner]

Perhaps if I localized (http://uk.geocities.com/hashanayobel/s/swederacism.htm) the concept for you a bit? The linked report is a bit dated, but perhaps it will give you a reference point for our backward American culture. :rolleyes:

[blatantninja]

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Sadly it does. Obviously there are black people that identify with other socioeconomic classifications, but as a voting block, there certainly is a bit of a community that represents a large portion of that ethnicity.

[txa1265]

The longest post-war recession was the 1973 to 1975 one, which lasted 17 months -- a year and a half.

I know that is true in econimist terms, but in real 'rubber meets the road' terms they last much longer - and if you are involved in multiple sectors of the economy you feel the pinch for years ... I know I have more than a few times over the last couple decades or so.

[Prime Junta]

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Oh come on, JemyM -- people are separated into groups by ethnicity everywhere. Did you ever see the movie Yalla? That gives a pretty good idea of how Sweden looks from the point of view of someone of Arab origin.

I've noticed one interesting pattern about the "we get along jes' fine" sentiment you're expressing here, by the way. I've only ever heard it expressed by someone from the overwhelmingly dominant ethnicity in a country. Like, a Turk from Turkey about Kurds, a Russian from Russia about Estonians (when referring to the Soviet period), or a Han Chinese from China about Tibetans. Why d'you reckon that is?

[Prime Junta]

I know that is true in econimist terms, but in real 'rubber meets the road' terms they last much longer - and if you are involved in multiple sectors of the economy you feel the pinch for years ... I know I have more than a few times over the last couple decades or so.

That happens if the recovery is a weak one -- the economy never gets any proper traction and stuff like job growth is anemic and so on. That's certainly happened on a quite a few occasions; during Carter due to the inflationary spiral and again during Bush Jr. The Japan scenario is a classic example of this.

Again, I'm not saying by any means that the economy *will* inevitably recover by 2010-2011 -- in fact, I'm more inclined to think it won't, if left to itself and/or if the government takes the path of least resistance as it's so prone to do -- but I think that there is a *good chance* that it will be in recovery by then. As I said, this won't be easy, and it will require some courageous and intelligent economic policy, but if the Dems and Obama win with a strong enough mandate, they will be in a position to give it a try -- and if they fail, it'll be their failure.

I'm also pretty certain that the Republican mantra of lower taxes and less regulation won't cut it. That'll just drive the economy even deeper into debt and prolong the uncertainty that's driving the credit contraction.

[JDR13]

I just find it weird to separate people by ethnicity. Like it means something. It probably does in American culture.

Yes, America is the ONLY country that seperates people by ethnicity. :roll:

[JDR13]

If Obama wins the election, I fully expect the black community will go orgasmic (not without some justification) by.

The black community is already orgasmic in some parts. You should see all the Obama t-shirts, hats, and buttons in Detroit. I have no problem with it, except for the fact that a lot of the people I've talked to don't seem to know anything about politics other than "a black man is running for president!".

Don't really understand the justification comment either. Was a black candidate previously cheated in some way?

[JemyM]

Oh come on, JemyM -- people are separated into groups by ethnicity everywhere. Did you ever see the movie Yalla? That gives a pretty good idea of how Sweden looks from the point of view of someone of Arab origin.

Jalla Jalla is about an immigrant and deals with culture conflict, not about a "arabic community". While Sweden have had problems with integrating the recent flood of arab immigrants, it is debated in Sweden as a major problem, a topic discussed in media, an important question in politics, researched by universities etc. The common idea is that strong concentration of ethnic groups in isolated places (suburbs) is a failure that needs to be solved. Even the right-wing party have invested money in dealing with that problem.

Sweden we do not refer to ethnic subgroups as "communities". The only event where immigrants are discussed as a group of voters is when people want to keep the right-wing extremists "The Swedish Democrats" out of the government.

Having said that; strong immigration of arab origin is a recent thing. The US have been multi ethnic since the land was founded.

[Prime Junta]

Sweden we do not refer to ethnic subgroups as "communities". The only event where immigrants are discussed as a group of voters is when people want to keep the right-wing extremists "The Swedish Democrats" out of the government.

I know, you don't. Neither do the French. Nor did the Soviets.

There's an interesting paradox there. On the face of it, refusing to categorize people by race, religion, or creed seems like a great idea. Equality, fraternity, and all that commotion. However, in practice it almost always simply means that any problems caused by friction between groups with different races, religions, or creeds become impossible to address -- if you can't even speak of them, then how can you possibly try to fix them?

The practical upshot is that it makes it even easier for the dominant ethnicity to marginalize the minority ones. I know from people who live there that this is very much the reality in Sweden; what drives them particularly up the wall is precisely that Swedish discourse makes it impossible for them to even express their concerns, let alone address them. If there is no "Finnish community" or "Arab community," then what possible problems could such a community have?

There's an old Soviet wisecrack about this that expresses it rather well. The USSR, you'll remember, was officially completely internationalist -- even the country name had no reference to geography or ethnicity; just the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that welcomes all and sundry:

Q: "What are you if you speak two languages?"
A: "A nationalist."
Q: "Fine. So, what are you if you speak three languages?"
A: "A Zionist."
Q: "What about if you speak one language?"
A: "An internationalist."

I studied Russian from a Soviet-era textbook, and it quite cheerfully referred to it as "the language of international communication."

[Benedict]

I have no problem with it, except for the fact that a lot of the people I've talked to don't seem to know anything about politics other than "a black man is running for president!".


Outrageous. Thank god there aren't any ignorant, ill informed types rushing to support McCain simply because his opponent is black.

At least there's one side we can trust eh?

[Benedict]

That's certainly a big "if," because it requires good governance and some rather tough political decisions. If Obama and the Dems win sufficiently big to get significant majorities in both houses of Congress, they will be in a position to pull it off -- they'll have the political power, and they have access to plenty of people who, if anyone, are competent enough to sort it out.
.

Fingers crossed the win is going to be relatively dramatic, if he gets in with a strong mandate for change then I think he'll inherit the presidency at a good time. He can ram home the message that the world is already knee deep in shit of his opponents making and shift a lot of the blame for things being bad to start with while being well positioned to take the credit for things getting better.

And if the economy's not hugely better in 2012 than it is now the re-election of Obama will be the last thing on all our minds as we're scrabbling in the dirt for cockroaches to eat.

[dteowner]

Don't really understand the justification comment either. Was a black candidate previously cheated in some way?"Firsts" always generate special emotion. I'm not equating "justify" with "vindicate", ala OJ getting off because Rodney King got beat up. Obama's the first black candidate, so it's understandable that it resonates with blacks.

[dteowner]

Outrageous. Thank god there aren't any ignorant, ill informed types rushing to support McCain simply because his opponent is black.

At least there's one side we can trust eh?I'm pretty sure that wasn't his point, Benedict, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

[magerette]

It's really interesting to see how people react to Obama/McCain depending on where they are and who surrounds them. Both Squeek and I have made the point that our votes won't count because our state is 90% leaning the opposite way; I think this makes us more vehement supporters of our candidates. Obama polls higher among whites in states with low black populations, or in highly urban, west coast/east coast states with younger populations, and in areas with a history of racial division ( including the South) or older populations, he polls lowest. So many factors in this election are tied to race and racial perceptions.

Still, on the "so many black people are just voting for him because he's black" point, I don't think that's any different than someone carrying their home state, or pro life soccer moms voting for Palin because she's Jo Six Pack. As we've talked about before, the vast majority of voters tend to vote for who they identify with and feel most comfortable with, not necessarily on who has the best platform.

[JDR13]

Outrageous. Thank god there aren't any ignorant, ill informed types rushing to support McCain simply because his opponent is black.

At least there's one side we can trust eh?

Brilliant, I guess that would explain why over 85% of blacks are voting for Obama, while whites are approximately 50-50.

[JemyM]

There's an interesting paradox there. On the face of it, refusing to categorize people by race, religion, or creed seems like a great idea. Equality, fraternity, and all that commotion. However, in practice it almost always simply means that any problems caused by friction between groups with different races, religions, or creeds become impossible to address -- if you can't even speak of them, then how can you possibly try to fix them?

Your suggestion folds itself. If a group isn't recognized, it can also not recognize itself to have specific problems.

There are special problems related to being a foreigner, but the only specific issue related to be an arabic foreigner is that you might require an arabic translator. There are also problems related to being unemployed, maybe even an umemployed foreigner, but yet again, the specific etnicity of that person is in pretty much every case useless information. In each case groups are recognized by their social status, not their race.

The practical upshot is that it makes it even easier for the dominant ethnicity to marginalize the minority ones. I know from people who live there that this is very much the reality in Sweden; what drives them particularly up the wall is precisely that Swedish discourse makes it impossible for them to even express their concerns, let alone address them. If there is no "Finnish community" or "Arab community," then what possible problems could such a community have?

What you are suggesting here is counter productive. Racism and xenophobia exists indeed, but racists are not a respected group. Human rights is recognized as a core value, it is part of the constitution, it is taught in school and it is expected by government officials as well as press, tv, media etc. There are also many instances within the Swedish society that works against racism and recognize racism as a problem. Thing is; these counter groups are not ethnically exclusive. Having a group with arabs only fighting racism is as dumb as it gets as it pretty much increase the problem rather than fighting it.

It's actually easier to simply go on the agenda to say "do not discriminate people by etnicity", rather than "we arabs do not want you to discriminate us because we are arabs".

[Prime Junta]

Brilliant, I guess that would explain why over 85% of blacks are voting for Obama, while whites are approximately 50-50.

Blacks have been voting 80-90% Democrat since LBJ. Obama is polling lower among them than Gore or Kerry in 2000 and 2004.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Black%20Vote/Black_Vote_Pres.jpg

[ http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html ]

[magerette]

No thread on racism and Obama would be complete without this example of the Ay-rab Buh-rock Who-sane factor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs

As one commentor put it, "This makes me ashamed to be a multi-celled organism."

You'll note that even Ms Toothless scorns the racial argument, focusing instead on that Ay-rab thing which is more socially acceptable and/or patriotic. ;)

[Zaleukos]

JemyM: There are plenty of ethnic "communities" in Sweden though, "recognized" or not... Living in Södertälje which is something close to the world capital of the Assyrian people makes that rather obvious:p

[Prime Junta]

Your suggestion folds itself. If a group isn't recognized, it can also not recognize itself to have specific problems.

The point is that groups *do* recognize themselves. Problems happen if the dominant discourse fails to recognize them -- as is the case in Sweden or France. Finns in Sweden are quite conscious of their separate identity, for example.

Your attitude is exactly the same as that of the Turk who refuses to acknowledge that a Kurdish community even exists, calling them "mountain Turks" instead. To address problems you have to start by recognizing the existence of the community experiencing the problems.

I don't feel like having this discussion right now, though; I'm too preoccupied with the Wall Street / Washington DC carnival. Perhaps we can get back to it some other time.

[JDR13]

Blacks have been voting 80-90% Democrat since LBJ. Obama is polling lower among them than Gore or Kerry in 2000 and 2004.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/Black%20Vote/Black_Vote_Pres.jpg

[ http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html ]


Ok, now show me the same chart detailing whites....

My point being that if even more blacks voted for Gore and Kerry and yet they still lost, what does that tell us about Obama's lead in the polls?

[Prime Junta]

Ok, now show me the same chart detailing whites...

It took me all of three minutes to find that one. Why don't you try doing some homework for a change?

My point being that if even more blacks voted for Gore and Kerry and yet they still lost, what does that tell us about Obama's lead in the polls?

Oh? Silly me, here I was thinking that your point was that blacks vote for Obama because he's black and not, for example, because he's a Democrat.

[JDR13]

It took me all of three minutes to find that one. Why don't you try doing some homework for a change?

Because I know this means more to you than it does to me.


Oh? Silly me, here I was thinking that your point was that blacks vote for Obama because he's black and not, for example, because he's a Democrat.

No, silly you for only seeing the point that you wanted to see, not that it comes as a surprise. ;)

I never said anything about blacks in general or their voting, it was Benedict who blew my original statement a wee bit out of proportion. I will admit to being surprised about the black Democratic statistic though. I knew more blacks were Democrats, but I had no idea it was that large a percentage.

[Benedict]

I never said anything about blacks in general or their voting, it was Benedict who blew my original statement a wee bit out of proportion. I will admit to being surprised about the black Democratic statistic though. I knew more blacks were Democrats, but I had no idea it was that large a percentage.

:lol:

Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so ready to believe that black people are voting just because he's black while white people are voting because of candidates policies.

Or for that matter why you're so ready to believe that black people don't know anything about politics. I bet you think they have smaller brains too?

I call HATE CRIME!

;)

[JDR13]

:lol:
Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so ready to believe that black people are voting just because he's black while white people are voting because of candidates policies.


Gee I don't know, maybe because that's what the data supports at first glance?



Or for that matter why you're so ready to believe that black people don't know anything about politics. I bet you think they have smaller brains too?

Wow..... speaking of smaller brains. :roll:

[Benedict]

:lol

I had stopped being serious (not that you tend to pick up on that, in spite of the winking smiley), but seriously, what data is this that supports your view at first glance?

I submit it to you, sir, that there was in fact no data, and the data indeed contradicts your views, views, I put it to the jury, founded on nothing more than simple RACE HATE.*

*(I've stopped being serious again now. Thought it best to be unequivocal)

[JemyM]

what data is this that supports your view at first glance?

first glance

[JDR13]

Pay a lot of attention to what's going on do you? How about the polls shown by the media that detail black-white voting? Or have you not turned on a television lately? Also, it's not "my views", I'm just telling what I've seen.

The constant and unnecessary use of the race card is getting old real fast. The only thing unequivocal here is your obvious ignorance.

[JemyM]

The point is that groups *do* recognize themselves. Problems happen if the dominant discourse fails to recognize them -- as is the case in Sweden or France. Finns in Sweden are quite conscious of their separate identity, for example.

I am not blind to the fact that even non-whites are racists. Recognizing your own group is promoting racism. You must see "race" as important to do so. In every situation recognizing race as a "group" beyond modern medicine and maybe identifying a suspect, is a pathway to racism.

Your attitude is exactly the same as that of the Turk who refuses to acknowledge that a Kurdish community even exists, calling them "mountain Turks" instead. To address problems you have to start by recognizing the existence of the community experiencing the problems.

I can see why a groups geographical or social situation needs to be recognized but I see no reason whatsoever to recognize their ethnicity. Since they are living in Turkey, they are turks by the sense that they are humans living in the geographical region of Turkey for all administrative purposes. Custom traditions are allowed in a free secular democracy unless they interfere with others freedoms and by that regard any group may express their local traditions and culture. Politically, if you ignore the aspect that Turkey isn't as free politically as Finland, how is the "kurdish community" different from the "Kuopio community" or any other city or geographical area?

I don't feel like having this discussion right now, though; I'm too preoccupied with the Wall Street / Washington DC carnival. Perhaps we can get back to it some other time.

I'll would be interested by your perspective. You have a different perspective on cultural identity than I have.

[Benedict]

Pay a lot of attention to what's going on do you? How about the polls shown by the media that detail black-white voting? Or have you not turned on a television lately? Also, it's not "my views", I'm just telling what I've seen.

The constant and unnecessary use of the race card is getting old real fast. The only thing unequivocal here is your obvious ignorance.

And what you've seen isn't in any way influenced by the views you already hold?

A remarkable achievement :) I know my related views of the voting behaviour of white republicans are influenced by the fact I already think they're all a pack of cunts. Is that the right collective noun? Never been sure of that one.

And btw - I've not seriously played the race card at all. I thought it was fairly clear from the fact that when I have I've done it in a hugely over the top manner drawing on all the cliches of inappropriate and reactionary use of the race card. Plus I used smileys. Plus I've said specifically that it's not a serious use of the race card.

Although the more you react like this the more curious I am. What are these polls shown by the media (and seen by all except those of my unequivocal and obvious ignorance) that detail black / white voting patterns that also spell out that the black people are voting for obama just because he's black and they don't actually know anything about politics. I've not seen any of them when I turn on my television. I do see the sort of data that PJ has posted that suggests that black support is no higher than it is for any democrat (fair play to your black population, if only the rest of the country were so smart). They might be a bit more excited about a black democrat than a white one but why shouldn't they be? It's a big milestone in history, of course they're excited.

I think we've seen the same things (polls showing blacks overwhelmingly supporting obama) when we turn on our television, we've just brought different interpretations to what we're seeing, interpretations influenced by our (conscious or subconscious) views. Unless you've seen (& can post) some stats showing that black obama supporters are less able to answer questions on their chosen candidates policies than white mcCain supporters, in which case I will happily back down with full apologies :)

[Prime Junta]

I am not blind to the fact that even non-whites are racists. Recognizing your own group is promoting racism.

No, it isn't.

Not recognizing your own group is willful blindness to a basic human social behavior. Sometimes (often) "race" is the marker; mostly the markers are cultural. But the groups are real, and people hang all kinds of values onto the markers. People identify with them, which causes all kinds of behaviors, some constructive, others destructive.

You must see "race" as important to do so. In every situation recognizing race as a "group" beyond modern medicine and maybe identifying a suspect, is a pathway to racism.

Not exactly: for me, personally, "race" is entirely unimportant (or, to be perfectly honest, I do my level best to make it as unimportant as I possibly can). This is relatively easy for me, since I'm a light-skinned, blond-haired Finnish-speaking Finn living in a country where this represents the "racial" norm. It's somewhat more difficult for my wife, because she doesn't quite "look like a Finn," and a lot more difficult for my salsa teacher who doesn't "look like a Finn" at all.

But: race is an important identifying marker for many minority communities. That means that refusing to acknowledge its importance almost inevitably morphs into refusing to acknowledge the very existence of the community that uses it as a marker. That makes it impossible to even admit of the possibility that said community might have particular concerns that need to be addressed.

So, in Cuba, where race is relatively unimportant as a community marker, it *is* irrelevant. But in the USA, race is relatively important as a community marker -- so much so that Barack Obama, who has no blood relatives in the black American community whatsoever, and was raised by a white single mother in a mostly white community, is treated as a bro from the ghet-to with his ho in tow by pretty much everybody, including many good folks on this thread.

I agree that it *shouldn't* be relevant. But it is. And pretending that it isn't relevant won't make it any easier to *make* it less relevant.

I can see why a groups geographical or social situation needs to be recognized but I see no reason whatsoever to recognize their ethnicity.

Like it or not, ethnicity is a very important factor in identity. I for one don't particularly like it -- but if I want to change it, that is, make ethnic identity more inclusive, I still have to start by recognizing that it exists.

Since they are living in Turkey, they are turks by the sense that they are humans living in the geographical region of Turkey for all administrative purposes. Custom traditions are allowed in a free secular democracy unless they interfere with others freedoms and by that regard any group may express their local traditions and culture. Politically, if you ignore the aspect that Turkey isn't as free politically as Finland, how is the "kurdish community" different from the "Kuopio community" or any other city or geographical area?

Why don't you ask a Kurd? I'm sure you can find one near where you live. He -- or, even better, she -- will be able to give you a much better answer than I can. Trust me, you will get pretty concrete answers.

I'll would be interested by your perspective. You have a different perspective on cultural identity than I have.

Perhaps. I get a feeling that you want to use terminology based on how you'd like the world to be (e.g., where racial characteristics are entirely unimportant as community identifiers, or to determine how people treat each other), whereas I try to use terminology that describes the world as it actually exists as precisely as possible.

Some people could accuse use of typical lefty liberal PC-speak, and me of typical conservative crypto-Nazi pseudo-hate-speech. Which would be kinda interesting if it happened, actually.

[Benedict]

Some people could accuse use of typical lefty liberal PC-speak, and me of typical conservative crypto-Nazi pseudo-hate-speech. Which would be kinda interesting if it happened, actually.

RACIST!

Sickened.

Hmmmm, probably not as interesting as you'd hoped. And not as much fun as saying the same to JDR13.

I too think ignoring race issues is madness. People are heavily influenced by their early cultural conditioning, and although we are (hopefully) moving towards a more homogeneous ethnic melting pot where influences merge and communities become more integrated, there are still a lot of inherited values and perspectives and forms of behaviour that have strong correlations with racial origin.

Saying that's the case is not racism. Racism is saying that one such set of inherited social traits is in some way better than another set (I for one, I have to admit, find it pretty well impossible not to feel like that about the prevalent misogyny correlated with many muslim backgrounds, try as I might to avoid value judgements. Plus I think republican voters are mostly arseholes, but that's okay).

I'd much rather we could have sensible recognition of cultural factors and try and work with them rather than ignoring them for fear of being racist.

[JDR13]

And what you've seen isn't in any way influenced by the views you already hold?

This seems to be your main problem, you have no idea what other people's views are, you simply have a tendency to assume.


Although the more you react like this the more curious I am. What are these polls shown by the media (and seen by all except those of my unequivocal and obvious ignorance) that detail black / white voting patterns that also spell out that the black people are voting for obama just because he's black and they don't actually know anything about politics. I've not seen any of them when I turn on my television. I do see the sort of data that PJ has posted that suggests that black support is no higher than it is for any democrat (fair play to your black population, if only the rest of the country were so smart). They might be a bit more excited about a black democrat than a white one but why shouldn't they be? It's a big milestone in history, of course they're excited.?

I don't pretend to know what you've seen on your television, of course you're seeing whatever is being shown over there. When I see a poll showing the % of who blacks and whites are voting for, the media sometimes likes to conveniently leave out details such as party affiliations. I thought I already made this quite clear. Have you read all my posts in this thread? Perhaps the term "at first glance" holds a different definition in London?


Unless you've seen (& can post) some stats showing that black obama supporters are less able to answer questions on their chosen candidates policies than white mcCain supporters, in which case I will happily back down with full apologies :)

Unless you've seen (& can quote) where I ever indicated that opinion of blacks in general, you only look quite foolish with statements like that. :)

[Prime Junta]

Unless you've seen (& can quote) where I ever indicated that opinion of blacks in general, you only look quite foolish with statements like that. :)

Can I?

The black community is already orgasmic in some parts. You should see all the Obama t-shirts, hats, and buttons in Detroit. I have no problem with it, except for the fact that a lot of the people I've talked to don't seem to know anything about politics other than "a black man is running for president!".

On first glance, this sure reads a lot like that. But, naturally, we're simply reading our own biases into it and you actually meant something completely different -- such as... let me think... you only talk to stupid and ignorant black people, but nevertheless believe that the rest of them are intelligent and well-informed? Or something?

[Benedict]

This seems to be your main problem, you have no idea what other people's views are, you simply have a tendency to assume.


We all have to make assumptions, I've read enough posts from most people on this forum to have a reasonably good guess at what most people's views are, and I'm sure most people could have a reasonably good guess at what my views are and I wouldn't begrudge them for trying or be offended if they were off the mark (to my conscious assessment of myself anyway, who knows what lurks in the subconscious).


I don't pretend to know what you've seen on your television, of course you're seeing whatever is being shown over there. When I see a poll showing the % of who blacks and whites are voting for, the media sometimes likes to conveniently leave out details such as party affiliations. I thought I already made this quite clear. Have you read all my posts in this thread? Perhaps the term "at first glance" holds a different definition in London?


I'm sure we've seen the same polls of black / white voting patterns, information's pretty global these days, and my media didn't spoonfeed me a history of past voting affiliations either (although I tend to research a bit myself). And first glance means the same in London as it does anywhere else. I'm merely commenting on the interpretations that you bring to things when only giving them a first glance.


Unless you've seen (& can quote) where I ever indicated that opinion of blacks in general, you only look quite foolish with statements like that. :)


I infered it from your comment of "I guess that would explain why over 85% of blacks are voting for Obama, while whites are approximately 50-50.", in the context of your earlier post talking about specific examples of black people voting without clear political insight and analysis. It seemed to me, not unreasonably I think, that you were suggesting that (at least a material proportion of) the 85% of black people voting obama (i.e. black people in general) were doing so simply because "a black man is running for president", whether as a generalisation of your personal experiences talking to individual black people in detroit or simply because that's the interpretation you'd bring to those statistics.

Personally I think the vast majority of voters on both sides are probably total idiots voting for all the wrong reasons, not just race. But then you are all americans ;)

[Benedict]

On first glance, this sure reads a lot like that. But, naturally, we're simply reading our own biases into it and you actually meant something completely different -- such as... let me think... you only talk to stupid and ignorant black people, but nevertheless believe that the rest of them are intelligent and well-informed? Or something?

:lol:

My turn to thank you for putting what I said in a big essay far more pithily.

[JDR13]

On first glance, this sure reads a lot like that. But, naturally, we're simply reading our own biases into it and you actually meant something completely different -- such as... let me think... you only talk to stupid and ignorant black people, but nevertheless believe that the rest of them are intelligent and well-informed? Or something?

C'mon PJ, even for an instigator such as yourself, that was completely pathetic. I would have absolutely no problem saying "blacks" rather than "people" if that were the case. However, since not all the people I was refering to were black, that is exactly why I said "people" to begin with. Of course I understand you would love to believe otherwise. Someone as opinionated as myself has no need to mince words.

[Benedict]

BTW - just to clarify, I am in no way claiming objectivity or lack of MASSIVE prejudice myself.

By way of example, the "white people voting 50-50 obama / mccain" data you take as evidence of a lack of racism I interpret entirely differently, and assume it'd be at least 60-40 if there weren't loads of racists. And at least 100-0 if there weren't loads of barely sentient fucknuts for some reason entitled to vote ;)

Those are my prejudices, and I'm happy to hold my hands up to them :)

[Benedict]

C'mon PJ, even for an instigator such as yourself, that was completely pathetic. I would have absolutely no problem saying "blacks" rather than "people" if that were the case. However, since not all the people I was refering to were black, that is exactly why I said "people" to begin with. Of course I understand you would love to believe otherwise. Someone as opinionated as myself has no need to mince words.

In fairness you didn't specify black people, you did start talking about the black community and then just made a generalised reference to people, which does lend itself to the inference that you were talking about people from the black community, again it's all about inferences :)

[JDR13]

I infered it from your comment of "I guess that would explain why over 85% of blacks are voting for Obama, while whites are approximately 50-50.", in the context of your earlier post talking about specific examples of black people voting without clear political insight and analysis. It seemed to me, not unreasonably I think, that you were suggesting that (at least a material proportion of) the 85% of black people voting obama (i.e. black people in general) were doing so simply because "a black man is running for president", whether as a generalisation of your personal experiences talking to individual black people in detroit or simply because that's the interpretation you'd bring to those statistics.

The problem is that I never gave "specific examples of black people voting without clear political insight and analysis".

By way of example, the "white people voting 50-50 obama / mccain" data you take as evidence of a lack of racism I interpret entirely differently, and assume it'd be at least 60-40 if there weren't loads of racists. And at least 100-0 if there weren't loads of barely sentient fucknuts for some reason entitled to vote.

Of course.....that's life as seen through Democratic glasses. ;)

[Prime Junta]

C'mon PJ, even for an instigator such as yourself, that was completely pathetic. I would have absolutely no problem saying "blacks" rather than "people" if that were the case. However, since not all the people I was refering to were black, that is exactly why I said "people" to begin with. Of course I understand you would love to believe otherwise. Someone as opinionated as myself has no need to mince words.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm glad you don't feel the way it looked like... at first glance.

[JDR13]

Right....moving on...

If you guys would like, perhaps we could discuss some real examples of racism now?

[Benedict]

Of course.....that's life as seen through Democratic glasses. ;)

Yep, never claimed I wasn't every bit as biased :)

Not that you're biased of course, just me going around inferring like a dirty inferrer.

[JDR13]

Not that you're biased of course, just me going around inferring like a dirty inferrer.

Nah, I no longer think it was intentional. Of course we're all biased concerning different matters. :cool:

[JemyM]

Perhaps. I get a feeling that you want to use terminology based on how you'd like the world to be (e.g., where racial characteristics are entirely unimportant as community identifiers, or to determine how people treat each other), whereas I try to use terminology that describes the world as it actually exists as precisely as possible.

I leave this quote since it to me captures where we speak past eachother. Debating nature "as is" is a practice for intellectuals. It's not meant for a public of people who have yet to recognize the complex structures that keeps society together. It's also not meant for kids who needs clear guidelines on "proper behavior" when they are not yet old enough to understand the consequences of their behavior.

I personally do recognize natural behavior. I do not disagree that natural behavior exist. I do however see it as a requirement for keeping a society together, that some natural impulses are "trained away" by overlapping principles, ethics and norms. While this goes against nature and our natural instincts, it is a requirement to keep society together and to create a peaceful environment to live in.

When I say that recognizing a race is a pathway to racism, I also mean that not recognizing a race is a pathway out of racism. A culture that do have the aim to break down racial seggregation must also disagree with accepting race as a way to distinguish people. This is a form of conscious raising. It should naturally "sting" someone and feel inappropiate to speak about "race" in public. Even using the description "black" about someone should almost require an excuse for doing so. This is not only a cultural norm, it's meant to force each individual to think about what his/her instincts tell him/her to feel.

An example of this; I, as you, struggle to make race as unimportant as I possible can. I had problems with this goal when I begun my education because I suddenly had to face people from other ethnic backgrounds, an environment which was alien and strange to me. I had a natural instinct of "fear" of the unknown. Over time I managed to break down the natural instinct to be scared and uneased with the prescense of these "new kind". In my attempts I tried to be nice to these strangers and today many of them are my friends. Throughout my lifetime I have broken down the barriers when it comes to facing subgroups different than me. This was true when you went from your teenage interest in women into having women who are "friends only". Same with meeting people who are gay and recognizing them as individuals and "friends only". In each case, using a principle to object a natural impulse of fear and anxiousness when approaching strangers have lead to a positive outcome.

Im getting off topic, but I think I made my point about the difference between nature and principles. I would not officially discuss Obama's color. I am far more interested in his political view, and recognizing the "black community" in the US seems like a glaring problem to me.

[dteowner]

If it's such a problem, why are members of said communities so fierce in defending their "unique culture" and "treasured history"? There are black/white/hispanic/asian/alien-abducted communities because the members want them. It's tribalism, plain and simple, and it's foolish to pretend that they don't exist or claim some higher perception by ignoring them.

[Prime Junta]

I leave this quote since it to me captures where we speak past eachother. Debating nature "as is" is a practice for intellectuals. It's not meant for a public of people who have yet to recognize the complex structures that keeps society together. It's also not meant for kids who needs clear guidelines on "proper behavior" when they are not yet old enough to understand the consequences of their behavior.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, then. From where I'm at, I don't see anything inherently elitist about discussing the world as it is as opposed to how we'd like it to be -- especially since I believe we're much more likely to find agreement about reality than about objectives.

I personally do recognize natural behavior. I do not disagree that natural behavior exist. I do however see it as a requirement for keeping a society together, that some natural impulses are "trained away" by overlapping principles, ethics and norms. While this goes against nature and our natural instincts, it is a requirement to keep society together and to create a peaceful environment to live in.

I don't believe it's possible, or indeed desirable, to train away our propensity to identify with groups based on characteristics transmitted to us by our parents and society. I think it would be far more productive to try to learn to relate constructively to people who identify with different groups. That, naturally, applies to minority groups just as much as dominant ones.

When I say that recognizing a race is a pathway to racism, I also mean that not recognizing a race is a pathway out of racism. A culture that do have the aim to break down racial seggregation must also disagree with accepting race as a way to distinguish people. This is a form of conscious raising. It should naturally "sting" someone and feel inappropiate to speak about "race" in public. Even using the description "black" about someone should almost require an excuse for doing so. This is not only a cultural norm, it's meant to force each individual to think about what his/her instincts tell him/her to feel.

I think that this is putting the cart before the horse. Using the description "black" is only bad if you believe or feel that "black" carries negative or exclusionary connotations. I think we should work on the connotations, not the word. I only very reluctantly gave up on using the word "negro" (or its Finnish equivalent, "neekeri"). It didn't start out with the ring it has now; it was the word used by American civil rights campaigners like Martin Luther King for their community. They wanted to change the connotations associated with it, not get rid of the word. I only dropped it from my discourse when it was so completely co-opted by racists that I could only use it by including a very lengthy preface describing exactly the sense in which I wanted to use it, which meant that it became an obstacle to communication rather than something that helped it.

The slide from "negro" to "colored" to "black" to "African-American" to "something we shouldn't even mention in polite discourse" isn't doing anything to solve the problem of racism in America; all it's doing is sweeping it under the rug.

An example of this; I, as you, struggle to make race as unimportant as I possible can. I had problems with this goal when I begun my education because I suddenly had to face people from other ethnic backgrounds, an environment which was alien and strange to me. I had a natural instinct of "fear" of the unknown. Over time I managed to break down the natural instinct to be scared and uneased with the prescense of these "new kind". In my attempts I tried to be nice to these strangers and today many of them are my friends. Throughout my lifetime I have broken down the barriers when it comes to facing subgroups different than me. This was true when you went from your teenage interest in women into having women who are "friends only". Same with meeting people who are gay and recognizing them as individuals and "friends only". In each case, using a principle to object a natural impulse of fear and anxiousness when approaching strangers have lead to a positive outcome.

Our experience differs greatly here. I was two when I first went to live abroad, then again when I was six, and again when I was twelve, and yet again when I was fifteen and sixteen.

Probably the most important formative experience of this kind I had was the year I spent in Nepal. I went to a school that was roughly 1/3 Nepalese, 1/3 American, and 1/3 "others." That year included stuff like a staging of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar, where Jesus was played by an Indonesian Muslim, Mary Magdalene by an American Jew, and Judas Iscariot by a Tibetan Buddhist. Not to mention spending all in all about one month sharing very close quarters with all these people, and many more besides, while trekking in the Himalayas. My best friend was Iranian (we still keep in touch, occasionally), I had a terrible crush on a Norwegian, and my prom date was a half-Kenyan, half-Pakistani Muslim (and I had a god-awful crush on her too). We were all ridiculously diverse in values, backgrounds, cultural expectations, and appearances, all thrown together in a big ol' multicolored mess, and it all somehow worked out just fine. For most of us, anyway.

I mean sure, there were the usual teenage cliques and all the general cattiness associated with it, but I honestly can't recall anything that was racially or ethnically or religiously motivated. I personally certainly never liked or disliked or feared any of my schoolmates for these reasons. Yet we were all very conscious about our respective cultures and communities. It's there, it's real, and it wasn't a big deal.

In other places and contexts it is a big deal. A very big deal. And coming from this background, I feel that it's somehow completely wrong-headed to try to address it through bending the sense of words, or pretending that values people attach to them don't exist. I guess in a way I'm still looking for the world that that microcosm of Lincoln School (http://www.lsnepal.com/) in Kathmandu promised.

Im getting off topic, but I think I made my point about the difference between nature and principles. I would not officially discuss Obama's color. I am far more interested in his political view, and recognizing the "black community" in the US seems like a glaring problem to me.

But he *is* black, and that *does* make a difference to the way he sees himself, and the way American voters -- black, white, brown, yellow, red, Jewish, Arab, whatever -- see him. It's no use pretending that he isn't, or it doesn't. You say you've befriended people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds: that's a million times more effective in bringing down the barriers that separate us than pretending that those barriers don't exist.

[JDR13]

But he *is* black, and that *does* make a difference to the way he sees himself, and the way American voters -- black, white, brown, yellow, red, Jewish, Arab, whatever -- see him. .

He not black though, he's of mixed heritage to be precise. He's just as much white as he is black. Sometimes people forget that, most likely due to the media's focus on the whole black thing. I agree with what you're saying about voters perception though.

[Prime Junta]

Nope, it's not the media. It's simply that if one of your parents, or even one of your grandparents, is black, American society treats you as black rather than white. The media simply reflect that reality.

[JemyM]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, then. From where I'm at, I don't see anything inherently elitist about discussing the world as it is as opposed to how we'd like it to be -- especially since I believe we're much more likely to find agreement about reality than about objectives.

Your experience is way above average which means that the "reality" that you take for granted is more than an average individual is able to comprehend. Furthermore, you have broken down plenty of natural instincts that you were born with. People with less experience than you still live with instincts that give them mistrust or fear. Before you can debate race you must first verify that whoever you talk to have the same stage of raised consciousness as you have.

I don't believe it's possible, or indeed desirable, to train away our propensity to identify with groups based on characteristics transmitted to us by our parents and society. I think it would be far more productive to try to learn to relate constructively to people who identify with different groups. That, naturally, applies to minority groups just as much as dominant ones.

You already did. Your experiences have challenged your instincts and were reprogrammed. You have already broken more barriers than most people will do in their lifetime.

I think that this is putting the cart before the horse. Using the description "black" is only bad if you believe or feel that "black" carries negative or exclusionary connotations.

It does if it's used in a competitive situation, such as promoting a president.

We were all ridiculously diverse in values, backgrounds, cultural expectations, and appearances, all thrown together in a big ol' multicolored mess, and it all somehow worked out just fine. For most of us, anyway.
I mean sure, there were the usual teenage cliques and all the general cattiness associated with it, but I honestly can't recall anything that was racially or ethnically or religiously motivated. I personally certainly never liked or disliked or feared any of my schoolmates for these reasons. Yet we were all very conscious about our respective cultures and communities. It's there, it's real, and it wasn't a big deal.

Teenagers are identity seekers but they do not understand cultures like an adult. They often go to radical extremes and try to identify themselves with whatever is available to them. Thing is, you still recognized eachother as individuals and you weren't even old enough to really recognize traditional cultural prejudice and misconceptions. I doubt any of you were as conscious about your respective cultures/communities compared to an adult who lived his/her entire lives within a fixed group. You were not representatives of different cultures, you were a culture. A rich culture, but still an unique culture composed by the people who were there.

But culture isn't the same thing as race. Culture is dynamic, not genetic.

But he *is* black, and that *does* make a difference to the way he sees himself, and the way American voters -- black, white, brown, yellow, red, Jewish, Arab, whatever -- see him. It's no use pretending that he isn't, or it doesn't. You say you've befriended people from different ethnic or religious backgrounds: that's a million times more effective in bringing down the barriers that separate us than pretending that those barriers don't exist.

From my perspective the barriers are an illusion that every individual have to tear down. Once done, there's no reason to recognize the barrier anymore and you are better of to tell others that "hey, that barrier is just an illusion, trust me". I do not recognize a friend as "my friend, the arab muslim". I recognize a friend as "my friend, mr hillarious" or "she, the deep one, kind but with many issues". Social traits, not racial or ethnic.

[Prime Junta]

Sadly, the barriers aren't illusions. If they were, you could simply ignore them. That doesn't work, any more than ignoring a wall lets you walk through it. What does work is recognizing that the barriers are there, and then working to reach over them and wear them down.

Oh, and, thanks for the flattery; it was very... flattering, but I still don't believe that my consciousness is so tremendously superior to most people's that I have to dumb down my words when talking to them. I prefer just to try to explain myself if there are misunderstandings, which there invariably are, given the ridiculously low bandwidth with which language saddles us.

As to those natural instincts, curiosity is a natural instinct too, and it's usually the one that surfaces when I run into something or someone different. In fact, when I've been looking at how children relate to each other and people in general, I'd even say that curiosity comes naturally but fear has to be cultivated. It's most likely individual, too; those Myers-Briggs tests give me the same personality type as Dr. Hackenbush here, which may or may not mean anything.

Finally, I don't give a tinker's cuss about race as a genetic concept. "Race" as we're talking about it here *is* cultural -- or rather, it's a visible marker of a cultural identity; one among many others. It's no different than language, and very little different than religion.

(My wife often reads Marie Claire, a French women's magazine. I remember an interesting number they did, where they very carefully made up and styled a (white) French woman to turn her into une black, and then sent her out into the Paris nightlife. The job was good enough that nobody suspected any skulduggery, and the write-up of her experience was an interesting read.)

[skavenhorde]

Your experience is way above average which means that the "reality" that you take for granted is more than an average individual is able to comprehend. Furthermore, you have broken down plenty of natural instincts that you were born with. People with less experience than you still live with instincts that give them mistrust or fear. Before you can debate race you must first verify that whoever you talk to have the same stage of raised consciousness as you have.


I consider myself an "average" individual and I can tell you that PJ is not beyond my ability to comprehend. That has got to be the funniest line I've heard all day. However, your point of view is very strange to me. I guess it has to do with the fact that I grew up and was friends with many different races.

What you said about natural instincts is the strangest part. When I was a kid there was no natural instinct of mistrust or fear, only curiosity. Only later in High School did that BS start to show itself within the different groups. I would think it has more to do with society than any instinct.

[Prime Junta]

I consider myself an "average" individual

That makes you highly unusual. Almost everyone considers themselves significantly above average. I certainly do. ;)

[JemyM]

Sadly, the barriers aren't illusions. If they were, you could simply ignore them. That doesn't work, any more than ignoring a wall lets you walk through it. What does work is recognizing that the barriers are there, and then working to reach over them and wear them down.

Everyone build up generalisations within their mind. We connect traits with other traits automatically. When we out of instinct begin to mix social traits with skin pigment we are building an illusion. We see patterns that simply arent there. Disconnecting the idea that skin pigment tells you something about the individual is something which takes experience.

As to those natural instincts, curiosity is a natural instinct too, and it's usually the one that surfaces when I run into something or someone different. In fact, when I've been looking at how children relate to each other and people in general, I'd even say that curiosity comes naturally but fear has to be cultivated.

I think the instincts are natural, but how we connect them are cultural. We normally teach our kids to be aware of danger. We teach them to be cautious so they do not harm themselves. Kids react by being cautious against odd things, the unknown. And if you burn yourself once, that experience sticks to the mind and might make you to do irrational mistakes later on because you have learned how to misjudge the situation. Xenophobia is so common it's a norm, but what we seen as strange is different in each individual.

Finally, I don't give a tinker's cuss about race as a genetic concept. "Race" as we're talking about it here *is* cultural -- or rather, it's a visible marker of a cultural identity; one among many others. It's no different than language, and very little different than religion.

A skin pigment tells you pretty much nothing about the persons opinions, but if one declares him/herself a "muslim" you might be able to guess his/her opinions with more hits than misses. While there are muslims who do drink for example, if you guess that the person have issues against alcohol you are more likely to be right than wrong.

(My wife often reads Marie Claire, a French women's magazine. I remember an interesting number they did, where they very carefully made up and styled a (white) French woman to turn her into une black, and then sent her out into the Paris nightlife. The job was good enough that nobody suspected any skulduggery, and the write-up of her experience was an interesting read.)

I do not doubt that it's a different experience to be white or arab in Sweden with prejudice all over. That doesn't mean that a person regardless of race is better off with their own racial group than with people who share their interests.

[JemyM]

I consider myself an "average" individual and I can tell you that PJ is not beyond my ability to comprehend. That has got to be the funniest line I've heard all day.

I doubt you belong to the group I refer to as average.

However, your point of view is very strange to me. I guess it has to do with the fact that I grew up and was friends with many different races.

Probably.

What you said about natural instincts is the strangest part. When I was a kid there was no natural instinct of mistrust or fear, only curiosity. Only later in High School did that BS start to show itself within the different groups. I would think it has more to do with society than any instinct.

The teenage years is usually the time in which most westerners start to seek their own identity and go through a difficult time with lots of frustration and aggrevation. This means that seeing the difference between "we and them" grows along with expectations from friends, such as being lojal, fitting the norms etc. This is indeed cultural but the instincts behind it isnt. But if you are at that point taught to disregard race as a social trait, you have one less identity trait to associate yourself with.

[skavenhorde]

I doubt you belong to the group I refer to as average.

Then your average is utterly bizarre in my mind. Everywhere you go, hell even in Taiwan, you will see races mixing together. Whether or not they get along I would believe has a lot to do with culture and society and nothing to do with instinct. For god sakes teach a first grade class and you will see there is no natural hatred of the unknown or different. Actually its quite the opposite.

The teenage years is usually the time in which most westerners start to seek their own identity and go through a difficult time with lots of frustration and aggrevation. This means that seeing the difference between "we and them" grows along with expectations from friends, such as being lojal, fitting the norms etc. This is indeed cultural but the instincts behind it isnt. But if you are at that point taught to disregard race as a social trait, you have one less identity trait to associate yourself with.

Only "westerners" go through that? lol silly me I thought that was a shared trait with every single human on the planet. Anyways, I'll let you live in your reality and I'll live in mine because I don't see this inborn trait at all in the school I teach at or in my life. I see racism everywhere but not a natural born racism.

[JemyM]

Then your average is utterly bizarre in my mind.

This is simple cognitive psychology. Your assumptions, beliefs and reactions is the result of past experiences.

If you have a lot of exposure to environments/events/people etc you will develop a mind that is used to diversity and more likely to treat new events as new and unique, maybe even enjoyable or challenging. If you have limited exposure as well as a reason to feel insecurity, danger etc, you are more likely to develop a distaste for whatever doesn't fit your limited sense upon how things should be.

Everywhere you go, hell even in Taiwan, you will see races mixing together. Whether or not they get along I would believe has a lot to do with culture and society and nothing to do with instinct. For god sakes teach a first grade class and you will see there is no natural hatred of the unknown or different. Actually its quite the opposite.

A first grader have no responsibilities. They always have someone to take care of them, to protect them, to tell them what to do. They do not need to make decisions. They do not need to judge risks etc. All of this begins during teenagehood when given more freedom and more responsibilities. At that point people begin to demand that you act in certain ways, but how you are meant to fit in and be recognized for who you are is confusing. There's also a lot of competition going on and you are met with constant challenges. Feeling insecure at this point is common. When you are insecure, being part of a group is a way to feel stronger. Being "radical" at this moment is nothing special and you usually get an absolute black/white worldview. This is usually the point in which racial prejudice is formed along with other prejudices.

Only "westerners" go through that? lol silly me I thought that was a shared trait with every single human on the planet.

Identity conflict, rebellion against parents etc is a phenomenon in western culture. It's a result of how our culture promotes individualism. It doesn't exist in many cultures around the world.

Anyways, I'll let you live in your reality and I'll live in mine because I don't see this inborn trait at all in the school I teach at or in my life. I see racism everywhere but not a natural born racism.

You are not born racist. You are born with the instincts that make you one.

[Corwin]

I don't believe ANYONE is born racist, I agree with a song in the musical South Pacific:- You HAve to be Taught to be a racist. Unfortunately, family often is the teacher.

[JDR13]

Nope, it's not the media. It's simply that if one of your parents, or even one of your grandparents, is black, American society treats you as black rather than white. The media simply reflect that reality.

So by "American society" you mean eveyone, not just whites I assume. I also beg to differ if you think the media is totally blameless.

[elkston]

Let me offer some perspective, as a black American.

First of all, I support Barack Obama because I tend to vote Democratic and in this election, there is such a stark difference between what these candidates offer that it really is no contest in my mind.

Obama: Bold plans, unshakable confidence, inspiring, steady leadership, impressive grass-roots campaign, tough when it counts but knows how to unify people otherwise.

McCain: Quasi-Bush agenda, erratic & disorganized leadership, unnervingly bellicose foreign policy, crass and repelling personality when put under stress, fumbled his first BIG decision by picking Sarah Palin, inability to learn from past mistakes

And yes, the fact that Obama is black (I know he is half white, but he looks black, identifies himself as black, and in THIS country if your father is black, you are BLACK) makes me proud and does affect how I view him. Its something you just wouldn't understand unless you were black and lived in the US. You are contstantly bombarded with negative images and low expectations. Even if you happen to be "outside the stereotype", you still somehow bear the responsibility of every black person that fucks up. That's the price you pay for being a minorty.

So if anything, Obama is that public "proof" that YES: intelligent, successfull, law-abiding blacks DO exist. It sounds outrageous that this must be asserted, but you would be surprised at how many whites (esp. those who haven't been to college) think all blacks live in the ghetto and listen to rap music.

That being said, if Obama had the same policies as McCain, he would not get my vote. Its the same reason Alan Keyes doesn't get a lot of AA support, even though he is "blacker" than Obama.

Also, had Hillary Clinton prevailed, I would have been in her corner in a heartbeat. I respect her immensely.

If Obama wins, I will be estatic and hopeful for the future of race relations in America. However, it is absolutely not the end of racism and in fact, I expect a backlash from extreme elments who for one reason or another cannot accept a black President. Obama is a massive step forward, but the black community as whole still needs to own more businesses, have more college graduates, and have fewer males in prison. Obama cannot make these changes, (nor has he promised to. Don't fall for the RW racist BS about Obama "giving away the store" to blacks) but he CAN stand a symbol for achievement and America. I feel it would be a massive boost for young black males in the "wrong part of town" to see Obama on the screen taking care of business instead of gangsta-rap stars.

If Obama loses despite having a lead in the polls going into election day, I will be devasted. I could possibly lose faith in the synergy and cooperation of racial groups in America. It will leave the country divded, and not to mention, at risk.

I tell you what. The greatest fear amongst black Obama supporters is that whites who say they will vote for him get in the voting booth and do otherwise. I will not feel comfortable until Obama has a steady 10-point or more national lead.

And as for blatantninja's prediction that a possible President Obama cannot meet the massive challenges that lay ahead, just you wait! You might be surprised at this man!

[JDR13]

McCain: Quasi-Bush agenda, erratic & disorganized leadership, unnervingly bellicose foreign policy, crass and repelling personality when put under stress, fumbled his first BIG decision by picking Sarah Palin, inability to learn from past mistakes!

I couldn't agree more, especially as I sit here and watch Palin flounder in her pathetic attempt of a debate against Joe Biden. No surprise really, her incompetence has been apparent for some time now.



So if anything, Obama is that public "proof" that YES: intelligent, successfull, law-abiding blacks DO exist. It sounds outrageous that this must be asserted, but you would be surprised at how many whites (esp. those who haven't been to college) think all blacks live in the ghetto and listen to rap music.


I really don't think Obama's success tells us anything that wasn't already obvious to anyone who's not a complete idiot. Of course I'm also not naive enough to believe there aren't a lot of ignorant whites who think exactly as you describe. While I'm sure education does play a part as per your example, I tend to think that geography also has a lot to do with white perception. IE: Whites who grew up in all white areas, without any meaningful interaction with minorities.

[magerette]

I couldn't agree more, especially as I sit here and watch Palin flounder in her pathetic attempt of a debate against Joe Biden. No surprise really, her incompetence has been apparent for some time now.

I thought she did much better than in her recent interviews. Geraldine Ferraro was proud of her and all. ;)

[Prime Junta]

So by "American society" you mean eveyone, not just whites I assume. I also beg to differ if you think the media is totally blameless.

Of course. I thought I made that pretty clear a few posts up:

But he *is* black, and that *does* make a difference to the way he sees himself, and the way American voters -- black, white, brown, yellow, red, Jewish, Arab, whatever -- see him. It's no use pretending that he isn't, or it doesn't.

And no, the media are not blameless; they could certainly be doing more not to perpetuate the stereotypes that drive this thing. But this is not primarily a media issue; it is a reality that goes far broader and deeper than that.

[Prime Junta]

I tell you what. The greatest fear amongst black Obama supporters is that whites who say they will vote for him get in the voting booth and do otherwise. I will not feel comfortable until Obama has a steady 10-point or more national lead.

That's an understandable fear, but I don't think it's all that likely that the polls are off by several points due to this reason. The same source of systematic error was present during the primaries, and some polls proved quite accurate at predicting the outcomes there.

IOW, if your nightmare scenario does happen, it's far more likely to be a case of good old-fashioned electoral fraud than whites lying to the pollsters. Check out this site (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) -- the methodology for ferreting out errors in the polls and sorting out what they really mean is as sound as it gets; among other things, he factors in how good the different polls proved at predicting the primary results.

At this writing, he gives Obama an 83.8% chance of winning, and a 24.31% chance of winning in a landslide (375+ electoral college votes).

But 16% is still a very real possibility -- about the same as the odds of your birthday falling on a Wednesday. So it ain't over yet.

[Benedict]

At this writing, he gives Obama an 83.8% chance of winning, and a 24.31% chance of winning in a landslide (375+ electoral college votes).


Man that'd be a good day.

I reckon the stock markets would jump quite a bit.

[Prime Junta]

McCain's "throw $1T at it without oversight" idea would make it jump even more.

[dteowner]

Thanks for posting, Elkston. I'd like to dig a little deeper at my original question, though, if you're willing.

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.

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.

[JemyM]

If that instinctive tribalism was bad in and of itself, I wouldn't think Elkston would use the phrase.

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

Certainly, some people use those dividing lines for ill purpose, but claiming they don't exist is just silly.

Stating that something you can see with the naked eye doesn't exist is delusional. Pushing that something you see is unimportant or doesn't matter isn't.
There is an advantage of downscaling unneccessary dividing lines as we by nature have the habit to assign negative values to the group we do not perceive as "us".

[Prime Junta]

There is an advantage of downscaling unneccessary dividing lines as we by nature have the habit to assign negative values to the group we do not perceive as "us".

Do we?

I submit that:

(1) 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.

(2) We have two opposing instinctive tendencies to react to unfamiliar groups that we do not perceive as "us:" curiosity and fear.

(a) Curiosity leads us to pursue opportunities that interaction with this "other" allows us; this manifests in things like trade, transmission of cultural influences and innovations, and so on.

(b) Fear leads us to ascribe negative attributes to the unknown, shun interaction with it, and defend ourselves from the threats -- perceived or real -- that it may pose.

(3) These two instincts cannot effectively coexist about the same out-group, over the long term. One or the other must triumph. If the opportunities opened up by curiosity prove beneficial, this becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. If the threats perceived by fear prove harmful, this too becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

(4) In order to indulge our curiosity about an object, we must first conceptualize the object. Without this, we have nothing on which we can pin the results of our curiosity: in order to understand an object, we must have some kind of working definition of it.

(5) Therefore, I submit that:
(a) Because of point (1) above, it is futile to attempt to define in-groups and out-groups out of existence;
(c) Because of points (2) and (3) above, there exists a moral imperative to indulge our curiosity rather than our fear about out-groups;
(d) As described in point (4) above, attempting to define in-groups and out-groups out of existence will simply make it more difficult to indulge our curiosity about them.

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

[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.

[Prime Junta]

If 6.5 billion people could contribute to a culture, do you really think it can become a monoculture?

We already do. The global super-community exists as well, in some form. But that super-culture is a product of all the cultures that contribute to it.

I've observed at fairly close quarters how the Fenno-Ugric cultures in Russia and Siberia have withered; their traditions, songs, literature, and way of life slowly but relentlessly eradicated, largely through the destruction of their languages. That doesn't mean that, say, the Komi or the Mari shouldn't learn Russian. But it means that once the last native Mari-speaker dies, we will all be a little bit poorer.

Culture have melted together for a long time now and this isn't neccessary a bad thing. When cultures mix, new cultures are formed.

But they die so much more quickly than they evolve. Cultural evolution is not unlike biological evolution in that sense -- species can become extinct much more quickly than they evolve. Loss of cultural diversity is as devastating to humanity as loss of biodiversity is to the ecosystem.

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.

Not less interesting, perhaps, but nevertheless poorer, less nuanced. Someone compared reading a book in translation to looking at a Persian rug from the back. You can see all the detail and craftmanship that went into it, and admire the pattern, but it's still a pale reflection of what it's meant to be. I have read the Kalevala both in Finnish and in English and French translations, and the experience is different.

I've read the Qur'an in two translations, a "literary" Finnish one, and an "academic" French one. I believe the former got closer in "feel" to experiencing it in Arabic, but I entirely believe my Arab friends who tell me that it just cannot be properly appreciated in any other form than the original.

Language is like music, or dance, or poetry, or any other really complex cultural art form. It has a truth and a beauty in and of itself, quite apart from the truth and beauty of any artifacts woven with it. I value language for its own sake, and I believe we are poorer if we lose our linguistic riches, and not only because there won't be anyone left to admire those rugs right side up.

[Prime Junta]

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.

Yes, I noticed a dramatic change in tone from your part, and I both appreciate and thank you for it.

[JemyM]

A bit unrelated to the recent topic, but Bill Maher made a quite funny twist on the whole "race of the president" debate at the end of his "New Rules (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl3METtGx6U)" from August 26.

[dteowner]

It's probably a little unfair for me to have signed you up as the sole spokesman for a broad and diverse community, so I appreciate your efforts.
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.I'm really puzzled by my reactions to this paragraph. It's very good.

The first sentence was quite the revelation when I really considered it. It's basic, and even somewhat obvious, but I'd never really thought about it that way. OJ getting away with murder shouldn't change my opinion of the black community, and yet it does. So why is that?

The second sentence completely spoiled the effect for me. Immediately, I thought, "Awww, here comes the excuses." I answered my own question: the black community owns OJ's, ummmm, evil (?) because a portion of that community (The Jesses and Als and Johnnie Cochrans) proudly claimed it. Seems like a very bad thing to claim. Why would they do that?

The third sentence brought me back around a bit. Certainly, there's a kernel of truth in your second sentence, since the very concept of "black community" is an extremely broad brush. I wonder, though, who is truly doing the painting? "Nigger" is a hurtful word, but how can it be so hurtful that OJ can get away with murder because some stupid cop says it? BTW, I apologize for beating the OJ horse's corpse--it's a well known example that contains all the facets I want to highlight, but I'm well aware it's not the end-all, be-all of race relations. Can rap groups really co-opt a word that is that hurtful? If successful blacks are written off as exceptions in a gangsta world (and I'm not certain I could refute that), why would the black community embrace and glorify that demeaning gangsta archetype? Why are Michael Jordan and Tupac the pillars of black success instead of Colin Powell? That seems to border on self-induced failure.

[JDR13]

I sense a shitstorm descending....

[Prime Junta]

*Does* the black community embrace and glorify the gangsta archetype -- or only a highly visible fraction of the ghetto-ized, marginalized part of the black community?

[dteowner]

I'm not sure how I'd go about answering that one, PJ. If they're highly visible as you say, they're going to dominate the discourse, since that's pretty much the definition of visibility. Even if only a portion are talking as you say, that would still be all there is to hear, yes, which was my point. I'm certainly in waters that aren't on my sea charts, though, so I'm quite willing to be corrected.

@JDR- yeah, I'll probably be fitted for a white hood followed by a pine box within 20 posts, but I'm going to do my best to stay genuine and respectful. I think it's a conversation that is worth having.

[magerette]

Why are Michael Jordan and Tupac the pillars of black success instead of Colin Powell? That seems to border on self-induced failure.

That's a really difficult question, but I'd say possibly because for every Colin Powell there are twenty Jordans and Tupacs. And my guess is that's because being an athlete is an accessible road to anyone who attends even a minimal ghetto public school but has physical ability, whereas being a Colin Powell probably requires a college education, among other things.

Historically in America, African Americans have had two acceptable arenas for success--or rather the barriers fell earliest in these arenas--sports and entertainment. Both are based not on an individual having financial or social support, but upon intangibles like talent and charisma. (Not to imply that C.P. doesn't have either or both, of course.)

It's my understanding that Colin Powell is a self-made man, but I question whether forty years ago he would have been able to become a General and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It's a sign of progress to me, and I think we'll see many more such examples.

My $.02 anyway.

[JDR13]

@JDR- yeah, I'll probably be fitted for a white hood followed by a pine box within 20 posts, but I'm going to do my best to stay genuine and respectful. I think it's a conversation that is worth having.


There was nothing wrong with your post whatsoever, although I don't doubt certain people might attempt to spin it in a different way. It was a legitimate question.

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure how I'd go about answering that one, PJ. If they're highly visible as you say, they're going to dominate the discourse, since that's pretty much the definition of visibility. Even if only a portion are talking as you say, that would still be all there is to hear, yes, which was my point. I'm certainly in waters that aren't on my sea charts, though, so I'm quite willing to be corrected.

Feedback loops. Stereotypes are self-perpetuating, both for good and bad. That, I think, is what elkston has been getting at, when he says that OJ Simpson's failures belong to the entire black community, whereas George W. Bush's failures do not belong to the entire white community.

It's much easier to reinforce an existing stereotype than to break it. And, conversely, every black making good somehow reflects well on the white community -- "here's someone who did good despite being black, and look at how well we did by not stopping him." The black community gets to own their failures, but gets no credit for their successes. This, naturally, makes it much easier for blacks to fail than to succeed. It becomes a self-perpetuating vicious circle that's very tough to break out of.

There's nothing particularly American about this, by the way -- it works this way everywhere you have a marginalized community with negative stereotypes attached to it. In Europe, the Roma are treated just as badly at best, and much worse at worst.

[JDR13]

There's nothing particularly American about this, by the way .


Huh? :wow:

Is everything ok today PJ? Not ill or anything, are you? ;)

[JemyM]

We already do. The global super-community exists as well, in some form. But that super-culture is a product of all the cultures that contribute to it.

It is. I do consider this an amazing time to live in since foreign cultures are much more accessible thanks to internet.

I've observed at fairly close quarters how the Fenno-Ugric cultures in Russia and Siberia have withered; their traditions, songs, literature, and way of life slowly but relentlessly eradicated, largely through the destruction of their languages. That doesn't mean that, say, the Komi or the Mari shouldn't learn Russian. But it means that once the last native Mari-speaker dies, we will all be a little bit poorer.
But they die so much more quickly than they evolve. Cultural evolution is not unlike biological evolution in that sense -- species can become extinct much more quickly than they evolve. Loss of cultural diversity is as devastating to humanity as loss of biodiversity is to the ecosystem.

I guess it all depends on how accessible you can make that culture and what it contributes to the world. Cultural traditions is interesting to study because by studying foreign cultures you get perspectives to your own culture and your own life. However, there are cultural traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting) that have no more value than anecdotes in historybooks.

The good part with living in the digital era is that songs and literature can be recorded and shared (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7y93B0Cro) in a way that wasn't possible in previous generations.

Not less interesting, perhaps, but nevertheless poorer, less nuanced. Someone compared reading a book in translation to looking at a Persian rug from the back. You can see all the detail and craftmanship that went into it, and admire the pattern, but it's still a pale reflection of what it's meant to be. I have read the Kalevala both in Finnish and in English and French translations, and the experience is different.

Naturally, when a person who already know both languages and compare the native version (on his/her mothers tongue) with the translation, he/she will naturally experience the translation as pale. But this have more to do with personal nostalgia.

You know the language. You have lived with the language all of your life. It's part of you and your communication. Almost every experience you ever did is tied to that language. I, however, wouldn't get anything from Kalevala in Finnish as I haven't lived with that language, nor do I understand the nuanced meaning that you have throughout your life tied to each word. It's not the language itself that create the experience you feel, it's how the text responds to the complex neurological network in your head, forged by your unique individual experience. If you had never ever spoken Finnish, you would get the exact same experience as I do.

Compare this with the Bible. All over the world there are people who live their entire lives by the bible. They consider it their moral compass and it's the most important book they ever read. Some passages might boil up incredible emotions. Some quotes can be used to describe your situation perfectly or how to act in specific situations.

But what % of all those understands Arameic, Greek or Hebrew?

I've read the Qur'an in two translations, a "literary" Finnish one, and an "academic" French one. I believe the former got closer in "feel" to experiencing it in Arabic, but I entirely believe my Arab friends who tell me that it just cannot be properly appreciated in any other form than the original.

I have an academic version and a more "muslim friendly" version. The academic version is basicly saying "this is what the book say" and pay little attention to how muslims themselves commonly interpret the passages. There are no "soft" translations in it, if a passage sounds barbaric at first, there's no attempt to trying to find a softer translation. The other version pay great attention to try to be true to as many different meanings as possible and it also contains apologetics, explanations etc. The second version is called "The Message of the Qur'an" rather than the "Qur'an" as an open confession that it's a translation and not the arabic original.

Language is like music, or dance, or poetry, or any other really complex cultural art form. It has a truth and a beauty in and of itself, quite apart from the truth and beauty of any artifacts woven with it. I value language for its own sake, and I believe we are poorer if we lose our linguistic riches, and not only because there won't be anyone left to admire those rugs right side up.

Oh well. I guess I have to confess that I do enjoy some songs in languages that I cannot understand.

[Prime Junta]

I guess it all depends on how accessible you can make that culture and what it contributes to the world. Cultural traditions is interesting to study because by studying foreign cultures you get perspectives to your own culture and your own life.

I believe that cultural traditions are valuable for their own sake. If a Papua New Guinean tribe that has had no contact with the outside world dies out, and its dialect, traditions, songs, art, artifacts, knowledge, and everything else dies out with it, we will be poorer.

However, there are cultural traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting) that have no more value than anecdotes in historybooks.

No argument there.

Naturally, when a person who already know both languages and compare the native version (on his/her mothers tongue) with the translation, he/she will naturally experience the translation as pale. But this have more to do with personal nostalgia.

I speak four languages fluently enough to be able to read just about anything in them without having to reach for a dictionary, and I get the same experience with all of them: a work read in the original is more nuanced, richer, subtler than the same work read in translation, even if the translation is a very good one. Take _The Lord Of The Rings_, for example. The Finnish translation was made as a labor of love by two of the best translators we have, poets and authors in their own right. The result was beautiful. But compared to Tolkien's original, it was... not the same. The difference was subtle; I could perhaps compare it to looking at a really beautiful photograph on a really good computer screen, and then seeing the same photograph in a masterfully crafted print of the same size.

You know the language. You have lived with the language all of your life. It's part of you and your communication. Almost every experience you ever did is tied to that language. I, however, wouldn't get anything from Kalevala in Finnish as I haven't lived with that language, nor do I understand the nuanced meaning that you have throughout your life tied to each word. It's not the language itself that create the experience you feel, it's how the text responds to the complex neurological network in your head, forged by your unique individual experience. If you had never ever spoken Finnish, you would get the exact same experience as I do.

Which is my point, really. If the language is lost, the complex set of nuances and meanings and connections that it embodies is lost too, and the original way of experiencing the works created in it are lost as well. I don't know ancient Greek, but somehow I would be terribly sad if I learned one day that there was nobody left who could read Homer in the original; I'd feel that all of us would be poorer as a result.

[elkston]

dteowner,

I am encouraged that you are at least viewing things from another perspective. That is my goal. I am also not going to take shots at you. If we are going to make any progress in "race relations" then both sides have to listen. It must be a two way street. :)

And btw, if you believe in karma, then OJ Simpson got what was coming to him (well, somewhat at least) yesterday. Guilty on all counts in his Las Vegas robbery trial. Looking at maybe a decade or more in the slammer.

[dteowner]

As far as OJ goes, I suppose my joy at this court decision isn't that functionally distant from Jesse and Al celebrating when he got off for murder, although I'd like to believe I'm celebrating justice rather than racial angles. Probably not a particularly good position for me, though.

Maybe we need to dig into media coverage a little deeper, then. Thru some satanic pact, Jesse and Al have become the standard bearers for the black community in the media. It's truly unfortunate that they choose to use those positions to highlight situations that reflect poorly on blacks. Whether rejoicing at OJ's triumph, attempting to justify the LA riots, or defending the University of Michigan admissions quotas, those two always seem to be standing waist-deep in sewage. Why wouldn't those two use their positions of influence to drag the media to Howard U's graduation, or to shake hands with a young Barack when he kicks ass at Harvard Law? Do we really want to believe that the media will only turn on the spotlights if those two are standing in shit (I'm not buying it)? If we swallow that, are we ready to believe that Jesse and Al are both too stupid to see the manipulation (IMO, for all their faults, Jesse at the minimum is clearly very intelligent--I have to admit I'm not impressed with Al)?

[Prime Junta]

Old habits die hard. The civil rights movement was largely about drawing attention to screaming injustices -- you know, the back of the bus, restrictions on voting, segregated schools, lynchings, that sort of thing. It's not at all easy to suddenly shift gears and start drawing attention to positive role models and positive developments.

I agree, though, that you need more of that sort of thing. Simply listing grievances, past and present, real and imagined, will only go so far.

[dteowner]

I understand that "the struggle goes on", but the civil rights movement was 40 years ago, PJ. Does the ship really turn that slowly?

[magerette]

I understand that "the struggle goes on", but the civil rights movement was 40 years ago, PJ. Does the ship really turn that slowly?

I've tried to point out this generational thing in talking with JDR. Yes, the change has been extreme in the last forty years. What generation are Al, Jesse, and Rev Wright? They're my generational peers. We see race much more starkly, I think, as a battlefront, not a post-war peace negotiation where both sides have comparable power. You can tell by my own phraseology and point of view that I see racism totally differently than JDR or you do.

In my youth, the idea of " reverse racism" was just non-existent. It physically couldn't happen. I don't think it's a good thing that people percieve it as happening now, but it's a product of what had to be done to level a playing field. It's up to your generation to take it to the next level.

[JDR13]

In my youth, the idea of " reverse racism" was just non-existent. It physically couldn't happen. I don't think it's a good thing that people percieve it as happening now, but it's a product of what had to be done to level a playing field. It's up to your generation to take it to the next level.


People have no choice but to "perceive" reverse racism, because it exists. Although I've never liked the term "reverse" racism, because there's really no such thing. It's just racism pure and simple, it doesn't make a difference which direction it's going.

[magerette]

People have no choice but to "perceive" reverse racism, because it exists. Although I've never liked the term "reverse" racism, because there's really no such thing. It's just racism pure and simple, it doesn't make a difference which direction it's going.

Totally agree. Didn't mean to parse words. If I used the word perceived, it's because in my own life, I haven't experienced much racism directed at me from African Americans, or anyone else. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course.

[Prime Junta]

Nicholas Kristof had a very interesting piece about this in NY Times. It was about "racisms without racists" -- the unconscious biases held by many people who do not consider themselves racists.

[ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05kristof.html?ref=opinion ]

Salient points:
* Only about 10% of American whites are conscious racists. They generally wouldn't vote Democrat anyway, so their impact on the race is negligible.
* About 50% of American whites have unconscious bias against blacks, termed "aversive racism," which leads them to discriminate in ambiguous situations.
* The presidential elections are very much an ambiguous situation, with a lot of subjectives involved.
* This "aversive racism" can be teased out in experiments, such as:
- An individual faking a seizure on the street. Roughly 100% of white passers-by will call for help regardless of the victim's race if they're alone. But if they're in a group, which lowers the pressure for personal responsibility, 75% of them will call for help if the victim is white, but only 38% if he's black.
- When asked whether they would hire a highly qualified applicant, almost all whites would recommend him regardless of race. But when asked whether they would hire an applicant with borderline qualifications, they would recommend a white applicant 76% of the time, but a black applicant with the same qualifications only 45% of the time.

Even though he didn't post references, I have no reason to doubt his data. This is the kind of thing blacks in the US (and Roma in Europe, and Chechens in Russia, and non-Han in China, etc. etc.) have to deal with. It's insidious, because it's unconscious, manifests itself in subtle, carefully rationalized ways, and is therefore very hard to deal with. I get a vibe that a whiff of it may be floating even on this thread.

Kristof claims that the effect of this "aversive racism" is about a 6% hit on Obama's popularity, although I have no idea how he came up with this. He also draws a parallel with John F. Kennedy -- when he was running, Catholics faced very similar "aversive" prejudice, but his campaign, victory, and presidency went a long way towards dispelling it. He finishes off with a pious wish that Obama might do the same for blacks.

[magerette]

Some good points, Prime J. I'd say this "aversive" stuff is far far more common than flat out racism, and in this race, it's manifested in all the doubts about what Obama is "really" like. You can't really trust him, because like the black applicant with borderline qualifications, he just may embody some additional racial stereotypes that aren't immediately visible, whereas the vices and virtues of the white guy seem more familiar and predictable (whether or not he turns out to be an egregious asshat or a secretive gun hoarder who blows up his co-workers later down the line.) Really, all strangers are the unknown, but we feel far more comfortable with those on whom we can project ourselves.

That's why Ayers is more sinister than the Alaskan Independence Party, or Wright than Sarah's Muthee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthee). I have no doubt we'll be seeing race as a factor in the final numbers, and indeed, I'm sure it already has been, as in the perennial pundit question "Why isn't Obama further ahead?".