First, that number is not nearly as high as 99.9%, but I will agree it is probably higher than 50%.
Second, they generally tend to identify as black because that is how society is going to treat them, anyway, so they may as well associate with the group that will accept them rather than the group that will hassle them and spurn them. It was not blacks, but whites, who went through the birth records in Virginia and other places in the early 20th century and “relabeled” anyone with as much as a single black great-grandparent as “colored” and then used anti-miscegenation laws to declare void the marriges to whites of those reclassified people. Whites were the ones who spent a couple hundred years spurning anyone who was an “octoroon.” After a few hundred years of such discrimination, it is not at all difficult to see why they will turn from the rejecting group toward the accepting group.
(And if you think that asking the single question “ever been with a black guy” is providing a “racial motive,” then you are willing to say anything to make your fragile points.
I have not provided any “excuse” for the Carr’s behavior. You keep screaming that they must have acted from a racial motivation. I have provided some information about their backgrounds. A history of physical and sexual abuse does not excuse anything they did. Nothing excuses what they did–a point I already made. However, when you scream “race, race, race” and we have no racial epithets and no claims of racial superiority, but we do have testimony that they were victims of abuse, the logical thing to conclude would be that their motivation sprang from their abusive backgrounds, not that they were racially motivated. I repeat that nothing excuses their behavior: not every victim of abuse perpetuates it. However, among abusive people, an extremely high number have suffered abuse–as the Carrs have. If we’re looking for motive, then comparing their lack of racial epithets over the course of three known assaults against their known history of being victims of abuse should not lead the neutral observer to leap to a “racial” explanation. Of course, if you start out with a need to make the event racial. . . .)
Not really. You’ve described the stereotype of a panicky liberal jumping to catch-phrases whenever his beliefs are challenged. I’m not panicky or bent ouf of shape, nor have I fallen back on tired leftist rhetoric.
But if it comforts you to picture me doing so, then by all means continue. You’ll still be wrong, of course, but that doesn’t seem to matter.
I don’t know where you got your numbers. A dream, I expect.
As for choosing to identify as “black”, I imagine it’s simply easier than choosing “white”, because if you have some physical traits of the black parent, the prevailing culture in the U.S. is that you are black, period. If the superficial “black” traits are sufficiently minor, you could try describing yourself as white, but if it becomes known later that one of your parents is indeed black, you open yourself to accusations of trying to “pass”. As long as whiteness is seen as something that can be “tainted” by miscegenation (actually, I find almost all of the people who care about miscegenation at all are concerned about “white” being tainted), an individual of mixexd background may simply find it easier to take the line of least resistance. Accomodating bigotry doesn’t mean bigotry has become acceptable, though.
If Cecil is to be believed, then Brazilians behave in a way exactly opposite to how you describe “99.99%” of Americans with similar parentage. Maybe it’s just a U.S. problem and not a racial one.
It’s very sad that Bush has done such horrible things as appointing Ashcroft and lying to the American People. Because he’s done quite a few things that I approve of. This happens to be one of them. (Others include mention of a Mars program, and the multiple small nuclear reactor program)
I realize that you are not making excuses for the Carr brothers, but you are making excuses for those who have turned a blind-eye to the racial component of the crime, so as to prevent the “proles” from thinking incorrect thoughts.
It is an absolute double-standard, the very same double-standard that, for the sole purpose of protecting the party, demands a blind-eye be turned to Howard Dean’s courting of the “the boys in pickup trucks with Confederate flag stickers” vote. The same double-standard that required party loyalists to turn a blind-eye to President Clinton’s exploitation of a twenty-one year old intern.
Had “W” made the same gaffe that Dean made, Democratic party loyalists would have been relentless in painting Bush as a racist, just as they did with Trent Lott.
Had it been a Republican president exploiting a twenty-one year old intern in the manner that Clinton did, you wouldn’t have heard a damn thing about “the President’s private life”.
And had the Carr brothers been white, shouts from the Left would have demanded the criminals be charged with a hate crime.
The only way the double-standard can survive, is through the loyalty of a media that has prostituted itself to the point of becoming nothing more than an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”.
Okay, that’s a sample of one. To prove 99.99% with any confidence you’ll need about, say… two million more? You better get cracking.
Besides, “hassle and spurn” come at different levels. What if Halle Berry did declare she was white, as she apparantly has a right to? Then she’ll run into people who’ll say she’s not “really” white, or have articles written about her claiming that. The annoyance factor is trivial, by why give ammunition to racists?
Personally, I think Tiger Woods and his self-described “cablinasian” approach is the most appropriate, since it contains an implied “none of your damned business”.
Actually, I live in a fairly Latino area of Washington, D.C., and find the people who you so easily demonize to be good neighbors, hard-working, and strong family people. I’d say that you are the one who is out-of-touch with the reality of the immigrant community. These people aren’t a threat; they’re just living the American Dream.
This is just silly. Dean has been telling the rest of the Democratic Party that they cannot afford to exclude or alienate poor and middle class Southerners since he opened his campaign. On one occasion he used a graceless phrase to make his point–and was roundly excoriated for his bad phrase. You now try to claim that all the people who criticized Dean (without even knowing what he said) are “turning a blind eye”?
For the last few posts you have just been engaging in us-vs-them rhetoric that does not even move the discussion forward. Get back to us when you finally come up with a definition of the “white race” that is objectively real with actual scientific evidence that it exists. The rest of this is just “poor picked upon whites” silliness with a broad shmear of “liberals are bad.”
Spelling mistakes are easy enough, but you’re showing some pretty basic ignorance of statistical analysis, sample size, confidence intervals, etc. If you wanted to prove that only one person in ten thousand behaved a certain way (i.e. claimed to be white, given a mixed background), a sample of ten thousand wouldn’t be nearly enough if you wanted to extrapolate that to the entire population of mixed-background Americans (which I would wildly guess is at least ten million or so).
Had your statement been less specific, i.e. claiming that 75% or more of mixed-background people self-identify as black, then you could slide by with a smaller sample size. Instead, you’re confidently throwing around near-absolutes without a hope of proving them. More colloquially, you’re spreading out a thick layer of bullshit and trying to ski.
You know, with 9 out of the 32 being listed as having (documented) “mixed” anscestry, but being assigned one race nonetheless, it’s not hard to fail the test.
As for extremist rhetoric, I have never watched PBS, but this particular site is really irritating.
For example, try going to “Human Diversity”-> “Take the Quiz” -> Question 8
(click on one option, and you’ll get an “answer” button. Then press it)
Leaving aside that Julius doesn’t appear to have had any gradchildren(that wikipedia.org lists - his son was executed at 17 to prevent him from contesting Augustus’ leadership, and his daughter “died at childbirth”, with no mention of what became of the baby, but its name isn’t listed anywhere, so I assume it died as well. Of course, Julius could have plenty of undocumented offspring in Gallia or wherever, but they could’ve chosen a better example, like Genghis Khan. My point is that they’re irritating)
Umm… So leaving this all aside, the site’s explanation of the answer is “Steve Olson and Joseph Chang have shown … if we go back in time … about 30 generations … we each have a billion potential anscestors…”. It apparently took 2 people to “show” that 2^30 is about a billion, but never mind that. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow. They then mention migration, but still, the sloppy reasoning is just irritating.
They are essentially right and Razorsharp is wrong, but it’s pure accident.
Not precisely considering the huge amount of money NPR gets from “viewers like you” (although that’s a PBS slogan, I believe), charities and art endowments, and typically liberal companies like Exxon. Some money does come from the federal government, yes, but without contributions from listeners there is absolutely no way NPR would stay afloat.
No, what I am saying is that you have a reading comprehension problem. The obvious point I was making, was noting the double-standard that exists.
“Get bact to us…”??? Man, you really do have some “chutzpah”. Who annointed you arbiter of this forum?
Good grief, man, lighten up. The 99.99% figure had nothing to do with statistical analysis, it was a figure of speech reflecting media portrayal. You keep insisting that “race” does not exist other than as a social construct to make some kind of point. To which I say, so what? People will identify themselved according to what they recognize as their own kind, without the help of the scientific community drawing the lines of demarcation.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**Good grief, man, lighten up. The 99.99% figure had nothing to do with statistical analysis, it was a figure of speech reflecting media portrayal.
[quote]
You’re telling me to lighten up? That’s rich, since you’re the one claiming there’s a huge liberal conspiracy to beat the white man down.
So… when you state something as fact, and then are challenged on it, your fact suddenly becomes a mere “figure of speech”? That sounds like a formula to spread bullshit without taking responsibility for it.
And then it’s my turn to say “so what?” How does people identifying themselves as they choose prove that American whites are under attack? There is a subtle point under the rhetoric, though. For decades, the goal may have been to try to pass as white, since that was seen as necessary to success. In recent decades, though, it’s become clear that it’s not whiteness that causes success (i.e. there is no God-given or genetic imperative), but education and talent, which one can have even if you’re not white. As a result, whiteness loses it mystique, and trying to preserve whiteness by excluding all others or discouraging intermarriage is increasingly pointless.
Is that how you think the attack is proceeding?
Incidentally, did you take the test at the PBS website? I myself only got 10 out of 20 correct, but then I’m not maintaining that racial divisions are “obvious”. Feel free to get back to us with your results.
You’re telling me to lighten up? That’s rich, since you’re the one claiming there’s a huge liberal conspiracy to beat the white man down.
So… when you state something as fact, and then are challenged on it, your fact suddenly becomes a mere “figure of speech”? That sounds like a formula to spread bullshit without taking responsibility for it.
So we should allow people to self-segregate? What happens when someone with dark skin decides to identify as white? Would you, presumably self-identified as white, stand shoulder to shoulder in a self-segregated society with someone with ebony skin who also self-identified as white? If there were advantages/disadvantages to being in any of these particular groups when facing certain issues, how would you feel about the fact that someone could just jump ship and change their mind about being black or white? For instance, if some universities continue to promote diversity by quotas of minority students a candidate who previously self-identified as “white” could change and identify as “black” for the purposes of gaining advantage during enrollment selections.
Science is the closest we have to unbiased methods of making these types of divisions. If such divisions need to be made at all. Science says there isn’t a reliable way of dividing people along the “race” lines which would map clearly to ANY divisions made by “social” standards. The basic level is “human being” and no fundamental discrimination should be allowed below that level.
So you’re changing your position, now? Initially you claimed that I was wrong that race was an invention.
Why all the wrangling if you now say it does not matter?
Beyond that, your “identify themselves” statement, above, is clearly false. You have already claimed that “whites” were Germanic/Nordic (and have run away from the point that everyone in the world except a few kook “Aryans” would include the peoples of France, Ireland, Switzerland, Poland, Russia, Ukrakine, the Baltics, Finland, as well as Spain, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, the Balkans, and Greece, along with the Turks, Armenians, Arabs, Copts, Persians, and probably the Afghanis, Pakistanis, Indians, etc. You claim that people will “identify themselves” (after claiming that there was scientific support for such silliness), but then you go on to draw lines that other people would not identify.
What makes your “white” that ends at the Alps, the Argonne Forrest, and the Oder River more “real” than other peoples’ “white” that ends at the Mediterranean and the Caucasus or even other peoples’ “white” that extends down to the Sahara and the Indian Ocean? You said that people will “identify themselves” and I identify with all the people East and West of the International Date Line.
It is all simply a game in which a few small groups of people like to pretend that they are “different” (with the implication that they are “better”) than anybody else. A basic understanding of human migrations demonstrates that there aren’t any pure groups in the world and that claims for any group are so fuzzy as to be meaningless.
It happens. I know of several people who have done it, including a red-haired, pale, freckled Irishman who ticked the box saying he was of Puerto Rican descent as a joke and ended up unexpected winning a scholarship to university. Funny.