"African Americans, etc" Part two. . .

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The thread on the term "African Americans" generated a lot of response, with some of the posters seeming (to me, anyway) to express what appeared to be bitterness over the concept of "race."

Why is the concept of "race" so controversial?

Is it that big a deal that populations that have lived more-or-less isolated from one another have different physical characteristics?

Help me--I'm not quite up to speed on this one.

[Satan]

The concept of race is controversial because as long as humans have had the ability to comprehend differences in other human beings, they have feared/hated those differences, rationalized somehow that the differences meant that their group was somehow superior, and tried their damndest to subdue anyone who was different.

After centuries of this inbred in all of us as a people, now that MORE rational thinking is employed, we are trying to celebrate those differences instead of attacking them, and this shift in human insight takes a long time to happen, but many want changes NOW!

It's something that goes far past the treatment of blacks in America, IMHO, and since people will always react to things that are different in different ways.

Some people see an odd bug in their house, they want to catch it and find out about it. Others want it dead. Still others keep tarantulas as pets.

As for the allusion to the "African-American" thread, my responses in that thread say that the term has nothing to do with what we THINK of people of a certain race, but what we CALL them and WHY. Different issues...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[Surgoshan]

Because people are tribal. Anything that's different deserves to be feared, because it may harm us.

Though that it is applied to other human beings is counterproductive to a racial (the human race) instinct.

[John John]

Mjollnir

Is it that big a deal that populations that have lived more-or-less isolated from one another have different physical characteristics

Problems arise when we are put into one area under one dominant culture and expected to react, think and live as one, when we are vastly different. It's not impossible, but it does have its problems. It takes time to nuture the sense of oneness. When the government legislates morality and ethics, it puts pressure on issues that are volatile and may even exacerbate, rather than heal. Race is the obvious badge, or mask, if you will, that illustrates our differences and is sometimes the thing that people attack when they are hostile.

------------------
"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair." F.Bacon

Brille

[Surgoshan]

But should we react, act and think as one? I certainly don't think so. I've managed to survive so far without resorting to conformity. I don't think it's a necessary survival trait. It may be possible, but, quite frankly, there are a lot of people out there that I don't like and don't want to be like. Should they conform to the way I act? Only if they want me to like them. I don't think they should. Is individuality in some way sacred, is conformity a bonus? I don't know. But it suits my personality and my dignity to be able to say to myself that I AM, and that that does not depend on how others think of me, and so I go my own way. Whether my views coincide with those of others doesn't strike me as important. If I happen to align with mainstream culture, it's not important. What I do, I do for my own reasons, and anything else is pretty inconsequential.

So, John John, I think the solution to sectional tension is not conformity of any sort, no matter how possible oneness is. Instead, people should just not care. Being the same isn't important. What others think and feel really doesn't matter in relation to what you think and feel. The only time you should consider others, is when your actions effect others. And then, just be certain you don't hurt them. The only imperative there is is "Don't hurt others." Everything else is up to you.

------------------
There my thoughts, and you really shouldn't care about them. I post here for my own benefit. You'd be surprised how writing out your thoughts helps clarify them. So, pay attention to whatever it pleases you to pay attention to. I really don't care.

[John John]

Surgo, that was well said and a philosophy I easily agree with. I was not advocating for oneness but simply saying that oneness, the sense of mutual society, does not come naturally but is learned societal imperative. Race is the outward sign that we are different. Perhaps societies pressure to bring disparate people into oneness is an artificiality that is unworkable. Who knows?

------------------
"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair." F.Bacon

Brille

[Surgoshan]

The sense of mutual society? Does that mean a feeling of belonging, some property that actually IS belonging, or is it something different?

Why do people want to belong? What is it about people that makes them want to be with other people, with people that are like them? For that matter, what is it that makes people care so much about others? People say that our world is falling apart and that values are failing, but I'd be willing to bet you that 50 years from now you'll still occasionally see in the paper the headline "2 died searching for lost child." Mankind is almost universally stupid, in that people will turn out in great numbers to try and save another person, despite the odds against survival. What is it in our makeup that does this to us?

I think there's an instinct in us that drives us to do this. I doubt there's a single person that would question the rightness of the act of getting a baby out of the path of an oncoming car, despite the fact that they don't have any personal interest in doing so. It's something they do almost as a matter of instinct.

The saving of another life is almost ingrained in us. Society is probably an instinctual behavior. And part of that instinct is that we expect the society to mesh. And when it doesn't, we get upset. Why doesn't society mesh? Because people are not all the same, but large groups of fairly similar people gather together, making it appear that society is sectioned and not whole.

Is it that humanity as a whole desires to function as a single society, but would like a measure of impossible conformity? If this is so, would that conflict lead to growth or destruction?

[John John]

I think mutual society means that we share common goals, values and recognize each other as a member of the same tribe. We humans are societal by nature since we roamed the savannas millions of years ago. Our strong point, as a human animal, is our industry TOGETHER. Our willingness, and intelligence, to work at a task TOGETHER is one of the things that separates us from the mindless herds. Just look at a heard of wildebeests being attacked by a few lions. If they worked in concert, as humans do, they would thwart the lions attack easily.

I think the problem with conformity is when we expect ultra conformity, to the point of subordinating individuality to the needs of the mass, as in ant colonies. One of the beauties of humanity IS our humanity. We value life and go to great lengths to protect each other, which is one reason we have survived.

I think taking TOO many different people and forcing them to act as a tribe too quickly is artificial. The sense of tribe, which can transcend race and religion, takes time and must not be forced, or rushed.



------------------
"All rising to a great place is by a winding stair." F.Bacon

Brille

[Drain Bead]

The concept of race is rather controversial because too many people think that people of different races have major genetic differences from people of other races. Actually, there really is no such thing as "race" in a biological sense. Race is purely a cultural construct, and since that's the case, the word itself is somewhat negatively charged because of its association with biology.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

DB:

there really is no such thing as "race" in a biological sense.

OK, now, what does that mean? (Sincere question--I'm not pickin' on ya.) I think it means that we're all the same species. "Race" (to me) is just the human version of the word "breed" that we might apply to other critters.

Dogs: Chihuahua, St Bernard, Whippet
Cattle: Jersey, Holstein, Hereford, Brahma
Horses: Clydesdale, Arabian, Friesian

See my point. They're all the same, but all physically different. To me, "race" is our version of "breed," looking at us strictly as animals--which we are.

[Surgoshan]

Biologically speaking, different races have slightly different genetic trends, leading to slight differences in physical characteristics.

Unfortunately for that way of looking at it, humans share 50% of their DNA with bacteria, and nearly 99.9% of it with other humans. (those are estimates based on dim memories of journal articles) So what? So, genetically speaking, we're almost exactly the same. Take that, Klanny.

[Surgoshan]

So, basically, what you're saying is that we have to find a common ground to stand upon, without sacrificing our individuality, John John?

I can dig that.

------------------
They're my thoughts, and you really shouldn't care about them. I post here for my own benefit. You'd be surprised how writing out your thoughts helps clarify them. So, pay attention to whatever it pleases you to pay attention to. I really don't care.

[John John]

Drainbead

[b]Race is purely a cultural construct[/], and since that's the case, the word itself is somewhat negatively charged because of its association with biology.

I think the new age sociologists are trying to make the question of race a cultural shading, or slight variation, which totally ignores the phsiological difference in the human species. We are all humans as a species, but are broken down into three main catagories, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. From those three branches, which have equal merit, come the human species. Each branch is as valuable as the next but vary in appearance and habit. To expect people to react to the same situation in the same way is foolish. We LEARN culture.


Race :

1 : a breeding stock of animals

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English ~>

3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group

b : BREED

c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type flavor, taste, or strength

------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[John John]

Sorry about the whole response in bold - not my intention. Must have hit wrong button.

------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[John John]

Surgo

So, basically, what you're saying is that we have to find a common ground to stand upon, without sacrificing our individuality, John John?
I can dig that.

Precisely.

Individual effort is as important as group effort. It is very possible to get different races to act in concert, as a cultural tribe, towards common goals, as long as they see themselves as equal parts of the whole. When we emphasize race, as in African American, Italian American etc.,the sense of tribe gets diluted.



------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[Surgoshan]

I think in America more harm is done than good by concentrating on race. I feel that if everyone just relaxes, it'll go away. Unfortunately, my wishes cannot be universally disperssed over the American population. Sigh.

[{:-Df]

Surgoshan:
[quote]I think in America more harm is done than good by concentrating on race. I feel that if everyone just relaxes, it'll go away.[quote]
I do not criticise your sentiment, but I think that, pragmatically, 'everyone just relaxing' is unlikely (to the point of impossibility) to be the solution.

First, it is very difficult to forget past wrongs. (Just ask the inhabitants of the Balkans.) Second, to the extent that inequality of opportunity has become institutionalized, asking those on the 'less than' side of that inequation to "just relax" would be seen as, if not actually be, asking them to acquiesce and just accept a very long-term (if not permanent) second-class status.

I'd also respectfully submit, still without criticism, that your comments sound much more likely to be issuing from a member of the privileged 'class' than from someone who is daily subject to prejudice or even oppression (real or imagined). Would you say that is fair? If it is, and if you can for a moment step into the shoes of someone who knows that s/he will never get a fair shake, but who hopes for better for hi/r (grand)children, would you modify them in any way?

For my part, I think any solution will have to include some measure of reaching out (let's build a bridge to...OUCH!), of active and conscious efforts increase tolerance and understanding.

[John John]

}DF

First, it is very difficult to forget past wrongs. (Just ask the inhabitants of the Balkans.) Second, to the extent that inequality of opportunity has become institutionalized, asking those on the 'less than' side of that inequation to "just relax" would be seen as, if not actually be, asking them to acquiesce and just accept a very long-term (if not permanent) second-class status.

yes, it is tough to forget past wrongs but if people are to move forward they must do that. What is the statute of Limitations on past wrongs? Do we still hate the English for the War of 1812, or the Spanish for the USS Maine?

I think provisions have been introduced to rectify past wrongs i,e., Affirmative Action, Minority Loans and Aid to Families in need. How long do we let that stand? An argument can be made for the feeling that I do not want to be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES past crimes. What is the right answer that satisfies everyone?

------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[{:-Df]

John John,

You're quite correct in pointing out that it is complicated and not amenable to "simple" solutions.

yes, it is tough to forget past wrongs but if people are to move forward they must do that.1 What is the statute of Limitations on past wrongs?2 Do we still hate the English for the War of 1812, or the Spanish for the USS Maine?3

1. Exactly. I just observe that that usually requires, as I said, "reaching out." That is, there needs to exist some acknowledgment that feelings may be hard, and hard feelings may be justified, but that we're all gonna work to try to improve things - and there needs to be some movement on that front, as well. ("Forget it" is often not the best advice.) If, however, someone who might be justified in some anger or other can instead let it go unilaterally, more power to them!

2. No such thing, of course, but I get your point. In a perfect world, wrongs would rarely happen and would be immediately righted and as soon forgotten. In the real world, it appears that old wrongs are remembered for as long as the inequity it bred continues (say, for as long as the land remains concquered, or as long as the descendants of the wrongdoers continue to profit), or as long as similar wrongs keep the memory current, or as long as some advantage results from its remembrance. I really don't know any solution other than 'try to make amends.' If 'the other side' remains unreasonable, and 'we' have really understood their point and why they remain upset, and truly nothing more remains to be done...then I dunno. (But clearly, room for improvement remains on the American 'racial' scene.)

3. No, but then: 1) we are no longer suffering the effects of those incidents, and 2) we have long since received more benefit from 'moving on' than keeping a hatred alive would have accrued.

Also, those are minor incidents not akin to genocide or cultural destruction. Perhaps better questions might be: why do so many self-proclaimed Christians still hate (or why did they ever hate) Muslims and/or Jews (and also vice-versa)? (Was it because of the actions of the Roman Empire? Because of the events of The Crusades? Or is it just that no real reason is required?) Also, why is there still so much prejudice directed at the Roma (Gypsies)? (Because "they're thieves?" How ridiculous.) It's these millennia-old hatreds that really seem to defy logic.

An argument can be made for the feeling that I do not want to be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES past crimes.4 What is the right answer that satisfies everyone?5

4. That argument could be made for me - I am white, descended from recent immigrants on my father's side, from Canadians on my mother's. As far as I know NONE of my ancestors were involved in oppressing or profiting from black or any other Americans. On the other hand, I continue to benefit from privileges I have not earned which are afforded me, because of my skin tone, simply from the state into which our society (northern California, in my case) has evolved. Real estate agents and cops and prospective employers and etc. generally treat me in a way that a black citizen could not expect. (A black citizen might be treated the same as me some or even most of the time, but they could not EXPECT it; on the contrary, they can EXPECT, some of the time at least, to be treated differently from me for reasons not of their own doing.)

Benefitting from privilege afforded does NOT make me a wrongdoer, but I should not then be surprised when someone on the other side of the fence, or the glass ceiling, or whatever, identifies me as part of the problem. (I do live in that unattainable land, even if I'm not in the 'army.') To some extent, the 'crimes' are not 'past' while the inequities remain - and that is especially true with regard to people's perceptions of the situation. If I don't like that perception being applied to me, then (speaking pragmatically) I'd better be pretty darn visible among the forces trying to tear the fence down.

5. There is no such thing as either "THE right answer" or everyone being satisfied. (At least, not in a group of more than one, and often not even then.) I've said this before, and it comes up again: our American habit of looking for the one right answer, for the magic bullet that will solve all difficulties, causes more problems than it cures. Life can't be solved; it can only be navigated. Systemic problems (problems involving complex systems) must be managed, because the inputs and even the subsystems change; there is no one perfect, unchanging state to be achieved.


When it comes to a subject like the current one, it seems that it is always those on top who don't want change. (Surprise!) And what is further obvious in the backlash to such programs as you mention in the part I didn't quote, people just don't like to get the short end of a stick. 'White Male Anger' is an emotional response to a perception of being oppressed. It's true that people are and have been treated unequally by such programs as Affirmative Action. But if anything, that experience should produce MORE understanding (I've walked a mile in your shoes...) and activity for real improvement, rather than just demands for a return to the old situation.

Personally I don't think the government can solve a problem of this sort, with any type of program. It will take the efforts of all of us. And I don't think spreading the misery around is the right answer, nor paying people not to acquire survival skills. On the other hand, halting all attempts to improve and just letting everyone shoot it out is not a good answer, either.

[John John]

Very thoughtful and well written { DF. Obviously there are no easy answer to these hard question. It cannot be cured in a short time, since it took centuries of wrong doing to bring us to this point. It is even made harder when innocent people are blamed for wrongs they had no hand in committing. Why are the descendants of Northern Liberals, for instance, who fought to end slavery, held to blame? Why is it that the very people that helped end segregation in this country are now lumped in with the culprits and blamed? Is that fair?

You say we are the recipients of privilege because of our color? Is that still true? What doors are still closed to blacks? Why do Orientals do so well in this country?

No one has the all the answers.

------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[Fretful Porpentine]

Is it just me, or does "Que" have the most appropriate screen name ever?

------------------
"I'm not sure who's watching TV these days, but they're not getting any smarter."

[John John]

is it just me, or does "Que" have the most appropriate screen name ever?

Should it be "Que?"?



------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[pldennison]

Why do Orientals do so well in this country?

"Orientals"? See, Cyb, this is one of those things. I'm sure they prefer to be referred to by their country of origin. You know, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Cambodian, etc. The cultural difference between any two of these countries is about as great as between the U.S. and France, making "Oriental" a completely nondesriptive and useless word. "Oriental" is a word that people who don't know any better use to describe "people with epicanthic folds."

[John John]

What does "white person" describe? What does anglo saxon describe?

It will amaze you but not all inhabitants of Asia are Oriental. Some Asians are Caucasians, some are Oriental.

------------------
Truth is something you stumble into when you think you're going someplace else.
[Jerry Garcia]

[Que]

The reference that we living in america doesn't make us american is evident of the never ending demise of unity. Why would I think that there is actually a drive to level the playing field. This would mean that we would have to stand on our own merits and our own actions without riding on the coattails of those that came before us. anyone referencing anything that devides us as a people is a clear purveyor of the chicken shit award. Scared to defend themselves with their wit, personality, and humanity, these cowards need to realize that we all are visitors to this "new land". In the respect for these Pagan holiday rituals I say (as I formally boycott them)if you want to celebrate the fact that a bunch of criminals came and stole a land that in the spirit of brotherhood clearly belongs to all that inhabit it, well have at it.We cannot own what is not ours to own.

I am not completely stupid though, I do lock my doors.

[David B]

Df asked:

Also, why is there still so much prejudice directed at the Roma (Gypsies)? (Because "they're thieves?" How ridiculous.)

Ridiculous? Maybe. But unfortunately, many Gypsy families continue to leave the impression that Gypsies are thieves by, well, being thieves. Are there honest Gypsies? Of course. But the dishonest ones make it difficult for everybody. They actually teach their children how to commit crimes, and when they are old enough (which isn't very old), use them to help commit the crimes! We're talking whole crime families here. In fact, there is a class of crimes known to many cops as "Gypsy crimes." These include mostly scams, as Gyspies have traditionally not been violent (they would trick you into letting them into your house, but not usually force their way in), but some have moved all the way up the ladder to murder.

Now, you're saying: "So what? Blacks commit crimes. Whites commit crimes. Why single out Gypsies?" I think the difference is that, as I said, there are whole Gypsy families who actually teach crime as a way of life. And these are the ones you generally hear about. Frankly, I have no idea what percentage are involved in criminal activity as compared to the percentage who are not, and I doubt it would even be possible to get such data. But there is definitely a reason that Gypsies have gotten a reputation as being thieves.

John John:

Why do Orientals do so well in this country?

This is actually a topic I can speak to with some authority, at least with regard to Chinese immigrants. The answer, reduced almost to the point of unrecognizability, is simply culture; culture, and strong ties to "the old country."

First, recognize that the situation is only recently so. As recently as World War II the immigration services of "our" government limited Chinese immigration to a few hundreds per year (while millions were being slaughtered by our common enemy). Previous to that, discrimination against "Orientals" exceeded, if anything, that suffered by blacks.

That is no longer true. Now Chinese-descended Americans and Chinese immigrants are among the fastest rising segments of our society.

Please recognize that I am speaking in very large generalities, but loosely put then:

Chinese culture STRONGLY values education - and with education comes economic opportunity.

Chinese culture STRONGLY values family ties - and in their realization of that value comes economic resources. Parents, siblings, cousins, and even just friends often act almost as a bank for each other. (For the Korean-American version of this, see Cecil's article http://www.straightdope.com/columns/941104.html).

Chinese culture seems to prime its citizens for both competition and cooperation. Competition is intense, starting at the lowest levels of grade school and continuing from there. In terms of cooperation, Chinese seem to be able to subsume themselves (when required) to the group in ways we WASPs have trouble understanding. (This is especially true of family.) Beyond that, Chinese culture emphasizes (more than WASP culture) the individual's existence as a part of a larger social whole and emphasizes social skills and possession of a strong social network as survival traits.

Chinese culture seems largely to view hardship as a natural state of being. (At least, hardship, the unfairness of life, and overcoming such challenges seems to be as much the core of most Chinese language TV miniseries shown here as 'love' is a core part of English language soaps.) Hardship and hard work certainly don't discourage most of the Chinese I know, as far as I can tell. And with that view comes a valuation of hard work; the Chinese I know seem fascinated (maybe that's the wrong word) for the "American" penchant for taking off and playing at every opportunity. (EVERY weekend, if you can believe that!) Also with that view comes a certain lack of fear when it comes to taking risks (see also below).

Chinese culture seems to prime high numbers of its citizens to be entrepreneurs. It may be just the sample I have dealt with, but in my experience it is far more likely that a given Chinese person will have aspirations to be a business owner (even just a small business like a corner noodle stand) than that a WASP will. And that disparity is more and more apparent as education level decreases.

Until recently, the Chinese I have known have dealt always on a cash basis (except for buying homes, and in China and Taiwan even that is done with cash). Credit card balances are paid off each month, and purchases don't occur unless the money is available. Having worked for a time in the money industry, I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH the importance of this. If you pay an additional 25-75% for almost everything you buy (because you finance it with money you haven't earned yet), and you buy more because it's "easy" (rather than earning first, buying later), you will end your life with far less than someone who is more careful with their money. If you then multiply that behavior by (almost) all the members of a given family, over multiple generations, times the number of families in a given cultural group, the difference in group success rapidly becomes glaring.

I could go on, but shouldn't need to in terms of cultural tools available to persons of Chinese heritage. Another whole type of factor that greatly influences the success of the many recent, voluntary immigrants concerns the economic and business ties they maintain with "the old country." You need money? Access to a factory, a programmer, a cheap labor source, etc.? That's all available, in the large sense. And that, in contrast, is one huge difference between recent voluntary immigrants and those Americans whose ancestors were ripped from their cultures and families, forcibly kidnapped to these shores, and essentially prevented from developing a new economic reality here but whose labors went for the benefit of others.

In response to another of your questions, I would ABSOLUTELY I receive treatment as a white male that I would not as a black, as a woman, etc. Yes, many doors remain closed to many blacks in a real sense, even though we as a society like to tell ourselves that the doors are open in an ideal sense. And the fact that some blacks excel, or even are simply not discriminated against, does not mean that many, many do not face discrimination. And the fact that much of this discrimination may be unconscious, unintended, and without hate or anger does not mean it doesn't exist.


David B:

I don't dispute your "facts" (few as the citations might be). I would instead point out that it is the reactions to the allegations you repeat that diverge widely when speaking of the Roma vs. other groups or families. ('Romani' also seems to be a preferred term in the sources I found below.)

Let's pick a group... Okay, some Sicilian families are "crime families" - and in far worse ways than being scammers. Those families also teach crime as a way of life. (This is true in the literal sense, though less so than in the popular perception.) Are ALL Italians - or even all Sicilians - painted with that brush? I would suggest - and I would not be the first - that much of what is said of the Roma, while based on a kernel of fact (much of it OLD fact) absolutely reeks of scapegoating. The closest parallel I can find lies in what "everyone knows" about "the Jews." (And 'perhaps' it is no coincidence that the Roma suffered under Hitler much as the Jewish people of Europe did...)

I must now admit that my usage of the Roma as an example is somewhat personal, based on experience with a Chinese person who in high school moved to and was educated (through university) in the Canary Islands, Spain. This person, who has no cultural or personal background with either group, demonstrates extreme prejudice with regard to Muslims and Roma. She has never met a Gypsy, and as far as I know she knows no Muslims. Everything she says - and it is all remarkably racist - I can only assume is "common knowledge" in Spain. (That is how she portrays it.)

So okay, that datum point is a poor one on which to base an understanding. But it lends perspective to the problem of persecution, which is ongoing. I found it surprising that she would even have an opinion, let alone such strong ones - but everything she says about Gypsies strikes me immediately as ignorant and just the sort of misinformation used for centuries to justify pogroms, hate, etc.

Yahoo! generated a number of URLs, including: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles3/onions3.html ("A survey in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1968 found that recorded incidents of theft by the Gypsy community were only 0.46% higher than that for the house dwelling community; although many more crimes were alleged, including cannibalism and murder! (Adams et al 1975, p 163).")
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/index.html and http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/pariah-contents.htm

Anyway, we ca

[{:-Df]

Note that a 0.46% difference would be statistically insignificant for any sample size they could realistically be referring to in that cite above.

[David B]

Df said:

I don't dispute your "facts" (few as the citations might be).

Sorry, didn't have citations handy and didn't have a chance to get to 'em last night (still not handy now). I have several books on the subject, including one put out recently by the Chicago Crime Commission (think that's the group) who now list some Gypsies as a crime family type like the mafia. I have also been an associate member of Professionals Against Confidence Crime (a police organization that deals with "Gypsy crime," among other things) and attended and spoke at their 1998 annual meeting. One of the other speakers was a police chief who prosecuted two of his own detectives for taking bribes from Gypsies; another was a woman who worked on cases of "sweetheart swindle" involving Gypsy women who cozy up to old men and then take everything they own (this type of swindle may also involve the murders I was discussing, which you can read more about in Hastened to the Grave: The Gypsy Murder Investigation by Jack Olsen), etc.

some Sicilian families are "crime families" - and in far worse ways than being scammers. Those families also teach crime as a way of life. (This is true in the literal sense, though less so than in the popular perception.) Are ALL Italians - or even all Sicilians - painted with that brush?

No, they are not. That's what I was trying to get at in my message, though I suspect I was less than successful. It is certainly a stereotype, and one that had (at least at one point) a basis in fact -- even if a small one. So why are the Sicilians no longer stereotyped but the Gypsies are? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that in most large cities, you can easily find a fortune teller, who is likely a Gypsy, still set up in a storefront operating in the stereotypical manner (and, as was shown recently in New York, still scamming people out of their money in big ways). You still see Gypsy families moving back and forth across the country, staying in one place long enough to start a local crime wave, and then moving on. You still see Gypsy children taken out of school after the first few grades so they can go to "work" with their families (my mother is a first-grade teacher in an area that has a mobile Gypsy population around and can attest to this). In other words, they still will play to their own stereotype.

I would suggest - and I would not be the first - that much of what is said of the Roma, while based on a kernel of fact (much of it OLD fact) absolutely reeks of scapegoating. The closest parallel I can find lies in what "everyone knows" about "the Jews." (And 'perhaps' it is no coincidence that the Roma suffered under Hitler much as the Jewish people of Europe did...)

I disagree. The Jews were picked on because they were successful. They did not, to my knowledge, go around committing crimes as a way of life (ok, so there was, and maybe still is, a "Jewish mafia," but that's more an aberration than a stereotype). The Gypsies have been, if anything, "picked on" for exactly the opposite reasons -- they were classic wanderers, not successful, and some were and are criminals. In fact, some Gypsies use the past prejudices against them to justify their current crimes!

"A survey in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1968 found that recorded incidents of theft by the Gypsy community were only 0.46% higher than that for the house dwelling community

Well, I'd like to know exactly what was included in the survey (no, I didn't have time to check the link yet). For one thing, a lot of the scam type crimes would not necessarily be considered "theft," depending on the definition. Another factor is that, well, those who engage in this type of thing are good. They rarely get caught. If the heat is on, they can leave. I know cops who know damned well that a certain Gypsy committed a given crime or crimes, but the evidence isn't there to prosecute them. Or there are crimes with higher priority to worry about (cases like this are detailed in the book I mention above -- if they hadn't resorted to murder, the cases probably never would have been investigated, and still barely were as it was). Or the people aren't interested in prosecuting, just in getting their money back (often the case with elderly victims), and Gypsy crime families keep a slush fund for just this purpose. They pay back the victim and walk away.

Anyway, we can start a new thread if enough people care, but it might be useful to remember how easily rumors and innuendo about "others" spread.

If you want to start a new thread, that's fine -- I'll follow you.

And, yes, I know about rumors and innuendo and all. But I also know about "Gypsy crime."

[{:-Df]

David,

I think we may be arguing apples and onions. You relate the proposition and facts that there is a significant Gypsy influence in the direct confidence industry (just as there is or was a significant Sicilian influence in the Mafia). I propose that the Roma as a group are and have been unjustly oppressed and that most of the rationalizations historically offered for that oppression (cannibalism, child theft, etc., etc.) are recognizably similar to the false justifications used in the oppression of other groups across the planet. (And since you bring that argument onto American soil, maybe it is appropriate to this thread. And it is further possible that the Roma who came here, as with so many groups, were the 'more aggressive' of their cohort.)

The Jews were picked on because they were successful. They did not, to my knowledge, go around committing crimes as a way of life (ok, so there was, and maybe still is, a "Jewish mafia," but that's more an aberration than a stereotype). The Gypsies have been, if anything, "picked on" for exactly the opposite reasons -- they were classic wanderers, not successful, and some were and are criminals.1 In fact, some Gypsies use the past prejudices against them to justify their current crimes!2

1. I didn't mean to suggest either that Anti-Semitism derives from criminal activity on the part of a perceived Jewish representational sample nor from some status on 'their' part as perceived 'losers.' I think that the situation is far more complex with regard to any developed prejudicial complex, Roma and Jews included.

What I was attempting to communicate was simply that in cases like this some true examples, interpreted in the context of old or untested beliefs, are seized upon to justify those beliefs and subsequent actions when in fact they justify nothing of the sort. (In other words, people are not sufficiently skeptical when it comes to matching isolated examples with which they ARE familiar to larger belief systems about which they cannot be certain.) The way you phrased your earlier post sounded like you might be indulging in the same stereotyping. (Your more recent post, of course, throws that into a different light.)

The parallel I attempted to draw would then go something like this: some Jews ARE international bankers (and are not alone in that); some blacks HAVE developed considerable "rhythm" (and are not alone in that); some Gypsy families ARE (probably; I have no personal experience) Crime Families.

These are facts. I won't dispute that. It is when we as groups try to draw conclusions from these (isolated) facts that we historically run into trouble. The existence of (some) Jewish bankers does not prove an international conspiracy and certainly does not support blaming that group for economic problems in Europe (or anywhere). The fact that some (few) blacks have spent considerable effort developing 'motor skills' does not prove that "they" as a group are more nearly qualified for lives in the entertainment field and should not be given positions of trust involving "business acumen" or higher analytical skills. And the fact that some Gypsies have developed culturally-transmitted survival techniques that put them at odds with the ethics and mores of the majority cultures of the places some of them traverse does NOT mean that oppression, ghetto-ization and even murder of whole groups of Roma is acceptable (an ongoing reality) nor even that they are truly that different from 'us.' (I don't accuse you of oppressing the Roma nor condoning their oppression. Nevertheless, this oppression is ongoing, if the press, United Nations, etc. is to be believed, and it is justified by the oppressors for many of the same types of reasons that oppressors across the world use.)

"Some were and are criminals." Of which group in history could that observation not be made? I think that Gypsy oppression results not so much from their lack of success - and Jewish oppression results not so much from their success - as much as it results simply from their perceived status as outsiders.

The suffering of both groups comes, among other things, from the fact that human groups often feel threatened by outsiders and often transfer large parts of their anxiety to those outsiders. Outsiders are a perceived threat; they make convenient scapegoats; and most importantly people's perceptions become more sensitized in the presence of 'outsiders' or other threats.

Let me provide a couple of examples. 1) Almost every day I receive slips of paper in the mail that have coupons for local pizza joints on one side and pictures of abducted or missing children on the other. 2) Regularly (say, once a quarter or more often) the local news media issues a warning or transmits "investigative reporting" concerning scams being perpetrated on the elderly / the Y2K-phobic / some other 'unaware' group. Both of these examples are so common, and affect me so little, that they have essentially blended into the cultural noise I ignore every day.

BUT now imagine that "the Gypsy threat" was on my mind, because a group of "them" recently moved in across town, or because I live in an area where my culture keeps the threat in current memory. Suddenly those insignificant reports I have been ignoring take on meaning. Missing children? It's not parental kidnapping or run-aways - it's the Gypsies. Elderly men and women being taken in by scams? That's...somehow...different from these boiler-room phone operations I hear about. (It's Them against Us, rather than Us against Us. Them be damned...)

Well I don't buy it. Every example you provide may be true, and even to some extent generalizable; it still requires something other than an Us/Them mentality to solve. And while I do not claim this as an area of expertise, I do submit that most references with which I am familiar (NOT exhaustive) fall into a different pattern than you describe. From what I have (briefly) seen, scholarly research generally concludes that the Gypsy reputation is largely undeserving and the Roma people suffer greatly for it, and evidence to the contrary is generally anecdotal and unscientific.


2. Yeah, it's wunnerful how the human mind operates, in't? This, of course, is not new, nor is it unique to those individuals to whom you refer.


One last thing: in my opinion, Gypsy fortune-tellers generally provide a desired service. I may laugh privately at the product, but without doubt it is a thing some people want. If I wanted to fight it, I would fight the ignorance that drives people in that direction, not the entrepreneurs who fill the 'need.' Morally, it is little different from much of what goes unquestioned in our consumer culture. (I do not refer, of course, to violence, picking of pockets, etc. But violence and picking of pockets is hardly limited to Gypsies, so morally we are again on shaky grounds for the condemnation of an entire group.)

Using sex to sell cars, telling people that others will dislike or deride them if they have grey hair or don't use the right brand of cosmetic or wear the wrong symbol on their clothes, ad nauseum, is of the same moral stuff as telling them that the ghosts of their ancestors will be upset if they don't fork over cash ASAP. But THAT really IS another thread.

[SqrlCub]

Brief bit o' knowledge: (The following definition is based on the idea that species and race are generally the same thing.)

Whence in college taking biology classes, we were given the definition that a species could be defined by its physical makeup, its ability to reproduce with itself, and/or its physical location. They gave some specific examples (too lazy to look it up now) but one specific one was about squirrels (go figure) around the Grand Canyon. It seems that originally the squirrels were one species but since one moved to the other side of the Canyon, they lost that small percentage of the gene pool. Eventhough they are essentially the same animal (with minor physical differences like more ear tufts, different coloring, etc.), they are considered different species. Why is this you ask? It is because in the wild they are no longer geographically able to reproduce with eachother.
I would assume this would apply to humans, but too many of us are way too uptight (me included) to even consider this. With the advent of mass transportation, which includes airplanes, the geographical aspect of dividing a group into species has been lifted. In the animal world this is not a factor. They pretty much live by what nature allows them to do. We are now able to breed with whosoever gives consent (or more if you consider rape breeding) and are generally the same as all other humans on the planet minus some physical traits and cultural traits.
The real question that was asked is why is the consideration of race derogatory? I think the tribal aspect of the discussion has answered it well. People are pack animals, like wolves, we want to protect what we consider our own. I don't believe calling people a different race is a derogatory thing...I don't think it is actually an accurate term anymore because of reasons that I mentioned earlier. I would go so far as to point out now since we have the ability to pretty much anywhere in the world and marry pretty anyone in the world who consents, then the name "race" should be replaced with culture. I think it is a highly more accurate description. Now, I could be from the Caucasian American culture, someone else could be from the Black American (or African if you prefer) culture, ad nauseum.
Is this a bad thing or just a redefinition of what we already knew? I don't think so. In many ways it is just a redefinition, but overall I think it is a good thing. It is a way to differentiate instances in our society that we know as true. In cases like this I think we should commend ourselves on being such a diverse group of individuals rather than part of a giant hive designed to clone itself without ever gaining progress. Without all of the people in the world to give input and talk of desires, we would never make any type of advances, technologically, philosophically, or spiritually. I like hearing people with ideas different from my own as long as it is in an appropriate setting. I don't necessarily want those people's ideas to infringe upon my own, but I am usually interested in how their collective minds work.

Well, I don't know if I actually answered this question to the intent of the OP, but it was still my 2 cents.

HUGS!
Sqrl

------------------
Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter

[David B]

Df, I think we were pretty much saying similar things but, as you said, comparing apples to onions. I was more talking about current Gypsies; you were, I think, talking more about historical biases. Indeed, both Jews and Gypsies were punished for being "other."

I do have one issue, though, that if we want to explore further should probably be in another thread (I leave that up to you). You said:

in my opinion, Gypsy fortune-tellers generally provide a desired service. I may laugh privately at the product, but without doubt it is a thing some people want. If I wanted to fight it, I would fight the ignorance that drives people in that direction, not the entrepreneurs who fill the 'need.'

This is true -- to a point. The reason I specifically mentioned them was not the simple scam of claiming to be able to tell the future when you cannot. I was talking about the fortune teller scams that build on this, in which the fortune teller gains the trust of the victim, tells the victim she is cursed, and proceeds to bilk them out of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This goes beyond a simple matter of belief and way into the scam field.