No, its historically accurate. Racism as a specific form of ethnocentrism is clearly the intellectual child of a certain strain of European thought. Of course, all communities have had and probably will have ethnocentrism. Racism, the idea that “race” differences are scientificly grounded – biologically imutable-- is another matter.
Results of what Hapla was talking about and irrelevant to the historical question per se.
I’m afraid that this is terrible misreading. Ethnic and religious purity, fine, but that is not synonymous with racism. (Unless we lose the fundamental meaning and confuse this with ethnocentrism) Racialism doesn’t exist yet. Ancient Egyptians enslaved folks who lost to them. Insofar as their society encompassed a wide range of skin color, and insofar as they never seemed to comment on skin color as such we should reject the idea they enslaved, as you imply, their neighbors from the Nubian states because they were darker. Rather, that was the result of war. Indeed, historically one finds alliances as well as war.
No it is not folks. It is correct. But perhaps I’m requiring folks to be a bit too precise in vocabulary.
Now Collunsbury…
It has been my impression that people from different Asian countries have always very SPECIFICALLY discriminated on race.
The Japanese have always felt they were superior to the Chinese, and vice versa.
Throughout history, I am positive that you could take any two Asian countries and find that they saw differences based on what country you were from.
I’m trying to be precise here, perhaps excessively so:
Ethnocentrism and discrimination against folks not Japenese, or Big Eyed or whatever is of course universal. I am sure Asians have found myriad ways to discriminate amongst themselves, historically. In-group/out-group categorization is inherent to our biology, although what the group is depends on social convention.
I understood Hapla’s assertion in the narrow sense of racism as ‘scientific racism,’ the idea of biologically rooted imutability – in which case we clearly have an intellectual product of ‘white people.’ Or better some European descended knuckle-heads speaking for “us” starting in the mid-19th century. A new and nasty twist on the same old same old based on really poor biology. It seems to be the most common idea in the Anglo world.
So, if we’re being precise, then Hapla is right on fact. It seemed to me Jodi understood it in the same vien and incorrectly argued for racial discrimination before our modern era.
However, if we’re using racism simply to mean discrimination/hatred/etc. against people not of your group, whatever that is, then of course he’s wrong, white folks did not invent hatred of folks who don’t look like you.
A bit of a semantical game, although arguably racism as science is a step nastier.
So, back to the regularly scheduled dating dispute.
(Frankly I think we can all agree that the OP was… unfortuately challenged in the understanding department and rather sadly self-satisfied.)
It’s totally relevant. If you are going to decry modern racism, then you have to take into account internalized racism and cannot exucse it. This thread is only tangentially about the “historical question” anyway. It’s about modern racism, and whether an encouragement to white people that they date people of color is always/sometimes/ever a racist thing.
Under what theory do we consider prejudice/enslavement on “ethnic” as opposed to racial grounds to be different in any practical sense? It is not.
If you have citation for your assertion that racism is a particularly European invention, by all means trot it out. In particular I would love to see you explain the institutionalized racism of China and Japan, which has existed for millenia and continues to exist to this day. In any event, I’d also like someone to explain the practical value in declaring “white folks invented racism,” when the subject is the prevalence of racism in modern society, as practiced by people of many races.
i don’t ever recall excusing internalized racism (there you go reaching for something to argue about again). do i want it to continue? absolutely not. is it going to disappear instantly now that it has been identified? no. until it does, can we acknowledge its existence? thank you.
let me turn this around on you. let’s say the subject is the American standard of beauty that has been hoisted upon women in this country. can we agree that this standard of beauty is responsible for women starving themselves, dieting obsessively, looking down upon other women who can’t meet that standard (i ask because it seems like i can’t take anything for granted with you). these are all harmful behaviors for women, done by women, mostly to themselves but also to others in the community. could we talk about an internalized standard of beauty?
am i then being “patronizing” to women if i say that this standard of beauty that the media has created is making women hurt themselves? would that be equivalent to saying: “women are powerless to think for themselves and reject * standards of beauty* of any type? As if instead they must inevitably be harmful to one another because they have “internalized” that standard of beauty is a good thing. It isn’t, and the costs of internalized *standards of beauty *are as high as the costs of external *standards of beauty – perhaps higher, because it is behavior taught to * women by *women , to the detriment of women . And if this occurs – and you admit that it does – entirely within the * female community, how long do you get to blame * the media for the fact that * women perpetuate this problem?”
i admit it’s not perfect but i’m lazy and i thought using a direct quote was smart-assy enough for a reply.
hope this doesn’t lead to a hijack, i’m just trying to reframe these arguments in an imperfect anology to get a fresh view.
That is the inference of a conversation that goes like this: “White people are racist towards people of colo.” “People of color can be racist each other, too.” “Yes, but that’s internalized racism.” (Clear implication: it is something different than, and less than, exteral racism.) This is not me “reaching for an argument;” this is how the argument has progressed.
No, IMO, you cannot take this for granted. A woman who “starves herself,” a woman who “diets obsessively,” and a woman who judges her fellow women by measuring them against Jennifer Aniston, have problems that cannot be chiefly blamed on the media or “the American standard of beauty.” I will grant the justice of this argument regarding girls who are unclear of how or where to establish their own self-image; I will not grant it regarding women who presumably can think for themselves.
Not if we are going to excuse harmful behaviors on the basis of some “internalized standard” that discounts a woman’s ability to think for herself.
Yes, you are. The media does not have the power to “make women hurt themselves” any more than it has the power to make men hurt themselves. The very idea that it might have such power discounts the power of women to think for themselves, and to in turn value and reject stereotypes at the point where they become actively harmful.
But since I have refused to grant that “internalized” standards of any type can excuse behavior without implicitly stripping the person in question of the power to resist and reject such internalized standards, your reply is rather hamstrung, isn’t it?
I think the analogy is a pretty good one; it just doesn’t change my opinion any.
so essentially you’re saying (if i may sum up for you):
children are affected by society and it’s fine to mention this. but if i mention that adults are affected by that same society, i’m disempowering them and ignoring their ability to think for themselves.
somewhere along the line, people go from not necessarily responsible for their actions to 100% responsible for every “choice” they make.
Collounsbury, I have the utmost respect for you on the issue of race and genetics (I consider you the resident authority), but I think you are drawing unnecessary distinctions here.
I don’t think that their is an inherent difference between racism that is “scientifically” grounded and racism that is “religiously” grounded. Science has supplanted religion in many areas, and the move from religious to scientific arguments has also occurred. In fact, many of the people who believe in genetic superiority of one group over another will also argue from religious grounds.
You do make a very good point that not all discrimination is racially based. The point about the enslavement of outsiders by Egyptians is a good one – they were non-discriminatory in their slavery. Also, I agree that ethnocentrism is not the same thing as racism, but it is not always easy to distinguish between the two.
You certainly appeared to be doing so in this thread, what with your comments about people of color dating out of their race due to institutional racism.
Yep. It’s called “adulthood.” And I am not saying that people do not make choices based on societal factors; I am saying that we should not assume that is why they make the choices they do, unless we have information tending to show that. In other words, and as I have said, we should assume that a woman of color dating a white man does so just because she likes him, not because of some societal conditioning – at least until we have some evidence tending to prove otherwise. After all, that’s the assumption we make for white women.
Yes, it says “Montana” and it says “attorney,” but then I’m a pathological liar, so take it with a grain of salt. Actually, I’m a large male record-player repairman named Bubba.
Ahem, I’ll note ahead of time that I may be a bit prickly below. I apologize in advance for anything excessive, being time to go to bed.
You don’t know me very well, do you? Do I have a cite? Possibly the worst question one can ask me.
Well let me direct you to some folks in my cite file (luckily in one of my directories, one note, some of these items I’ve not looked at in while – I do present excuses if I make any errors by once more noting I am abroad on long term assignment and my prized library remained in the USA in storage.)
UNESCO’s Sociological theories : race and colonialism. Paris: 1980. I think has a history of racism (as defined here). Not fully satisfying but I recall that several essays were interesting, but my notes are far away…
Gates, Nathanial, ed. The Concept of “Race” in Ntural and Scial Science_ New York: Garland, 1997. A collection of essays, some better than others. Gould’s and Lewotin’s were among the most interesting if memory serves. Decent collection all in all with several essays which point the way to more profound examinations. I have a certain bias towards the hard science folks essays but the others were decent as memory serves.
Further, I seem to recall that Stocking, George, _Race, culture, and evolution : essays in the history of anthropology : Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982 included as history of the 19th century roots of scientific racism and its particularities.
Then, I heartily recommend: Tucker, William, The science and politics of racial research Urbana ILL: University of Illinois Press, 1994 whose work has all that can be appreciated of a hard scientist successfully delving into the history of a scientific trend.
Not very heartily, but just for thoroughness, I also pass along Gates’ Racial classification and history New York : Garland, 1997. I recall finding this volume of essays disappointing, but since I bothered to keep a few notes on it, I pass it along.
I also recall glancing briefly at but honestly am not sure if thorougly consulted Kevles, Daniel In the Name of Eugenics : Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity New York: Knopf, 1985. As well as Paul, Diane Controlling human heredity, 1865 to the Present Humanities Press, 1995. I also note Shipman, Pat, The Evolution of Racism: Human Differences and the Use and Abuse of Science New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994 since it is on my biblio file. Same for Hannaford, Ivan. Race : the History of an Idea in the West Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
I assume since they appear on my list that they must have been of some worth, so pass them along.
Also see Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man New York: Norton, 1996. One need not go with his politics to follow his excellent review of the science of the issues. I would stress above all his biological observations over others as he is a biologist first and foremost.
.
On history
You will note, for accuracy I hope, that my comments were restricted to the historical question only. In that light, and in light of his comment re history, I replied.
So, all note, I am addressing a narrow historical and perhaps philosophical point. I understand JayB’s criticism, but disagree that religous-biological discrimination fall within the same spectrum. The key point of 19th century scientific racism developments was the question of immutability. Broca, Vacher de la Pouge and others laid a “rational” basis for inferiority being immutable. That was a big change and disturbingly you find their rhetoric echoed today.
But, JB you’re right, I may be being a bit too picky. Religious and pseudo-scientific blend into each other all too frequently, the later pisses me off more. Moreover, I like preciseness. Ergo, please do note my disclaimers on this account and the precise nature of my argument.
(But please, Edwino is an expert on the genetics issue. I am a mere dabbler.)
Qutie the contrary, it is fundamentally different in pratical effect, as argued above. One can shift ethnicity when it is not fixed, conceptually, by biology. Assimilation is still possible under non-‘biological’ regimes. Impossible under biological ones. Indeed, one the most striking differences found in this regard is between pre and post scientific racism. The color line became much “firmer” afterwards. And the impact became formalized. In areas where a looser ethnocentrism held, say in Iberian colonies, the influence of the “blood purity”/anti-assimilationist ideas of the racialists seem to have had rather negative effects.
I shall leave you to consult the literature, but the short of it is the difference is fundamental.
I think you would be well advised not to patronize me, of all people. I don’t argue points which I do not consider myself well-read in.
In turn I would ask that you defend in an intellecutally coherent way the phrase “institutionalized racism of China and Japan, which has existeed for a millenium” with the forewarning I don’t play slippery with my terms.
I would expect that, if we are using the same definition of racism, that you will be able to adequately demonstrate that China and Japan both had (i)institutionalized discrimination based on race as I have carefully and non-arbitrarily framed it in my comments (ii) that racialist ideas were not imported in the 19th century from Europe (iii) that they are indeed millenium old whether imported or not (iv) the discrimination does not fit into the rubric noted of ethnocentrism vs racism (again as I have defined the term, not arbitrarily but certianly precisely).
Time and space, as well as definition are important in examing any question.
But in a less pissy note, I simply put forward the following:
Ethnocentrism is universal and fundamental to our biology. In-group-out group is basic to primate social structure. given. Racism, using it in the way I have defined it above (with the acklowledgement that we can give it a wider meaning)
Racism, in terms of considering out-groups immutably out-roup based on inherent, unchangeable characteristics is indeed a recent invention. A sad side effect of more positive developments in European thought (Aside, Freedom, I believe that you would fine Orlando Patterson’s Freedom a very interesting read.)
Well, that’s another matter. I suppose it has some marginal value if someone is discussing the history of racism or tries to claim that racism is universal through time and space. It is not.
Further to this point, an excellent layman’s read on this topic is How the Irish Became White. All of the formerly discriminated against Western and Eastern European and Russian immigrants were successfully able to, as you describe, shift ethnicity and achieve cultural hegemony in America. Even Asians are beginning to do so. Blacks have not.
i hope everybody remembers that it was i who said, “there are huge differences between racism and tribalism.” so technically, i was the one who got this ball running, even if it was Collounsbury who did all the real work. thanks for making coherent all the thoughts i had in my brain, which went something like, “uh…ethnicity is fluid while race is forever…ummm…right?”
feeling like the kid brother who got rescued from the bully…
now what are the chances of Jodi conceding a point?
I agree that they are different, but they are part of the same spectrum as opposed to separate things. The older, religios based racism just didn’t have the same tools available. The pseudo-scientic racism pisses me off more as well, mainly because the religious based racism generally contradicts its own tenets and is harder to take seriously nowadays.
Perhaps, but I’ve come across you more often. Also, thanks for the cites – I’ve had in the back of my mind to do some reading on these issues.
Thanks also to pldennison for the recommendation of How the Irish Became White. It reminded my of a talk I attended a couple of months ago where the speaker referred to miscegenation case law. He mentioned a case with a couple (I believe the man was black and the women Irish, but it may have been the other way around) who were prosecuted for miscegenation. The prosecution lost because they failed to prove that the Irish person was white.
actually, the “race” i was referring to is a social construction that was deemed to be eternal (or pretty damn close). i remember reading about (don’t have the book handy, please don’t ask for a cite) some Southern state whose legal definition (the one-drop rule in effect) of a Black person was somebody with 1/64 Black ancestry. not quite “forever,” but that’s a lot of generations to overcome one “mistake” (“miscegenation” having the same prefix and all). i think that’s one great-great-great-great grandparent–with this rule, i think about 99% of America’s “white” population is technically Black.
i certainly know race isn’t forever. in one generation i went from full-blooded photypically Asian to Latino/Native American looking. if i were to marry a white woman, our children almost certainly could pass for white. that’s pretty fluid–Asian to white in two generations.
oh, and Freedom, i think that we have met somewhere before. maybe not you in particular, but i’ve met people very much like you. you’re the guy asking me 20 years down the road, why doesn’t my kid like me? why don’t they just want to be white? why is this an issue? where does this anger come from?
not that singing crappy Depeche Mode songs won’t solve your problems…:rolleyes:
but seriously (and i’m going to ignore the whole slapping-your-kid-i’m spewing-crap stuff) i’m telling you as plainly as i can that you need to think about this. if you think your child is never going to be interested in their Filipino identity (wait until they hit college for most of the fireworks), if you think the kids on the playground aren’t going to make fun of your child’s brown skin, if you think your child isn’t going to resent you as an adult for having just “dropped the whole race identity thing” before they had the opportunity to decide for themselves, you might be planting seeds that will lead to real unhappiness for you and/or your child.
why do you feel that race identity is meaningless? have you considered the possibility that your child might not feel the same way? my best advice: be open-minded, expose them to all the culture available, and give them options. i know my share of multiracial kids who are very distant from their white parents because of these very issues.
HapaXL, I don’t presume to know what struggles have caused you to have these attitudes, but I find them disheartening.
A. I stopped posting to the other thread because you refused to listen to opposing viewpoints. Anyone here will tell you that I am the first to admit I’m wrong in a debate, and I find it difficult to have a debate with someone who metaphorically has his fingers in his ears, saying “La la la la, I can’t hear you.” I don’t see you having an open mind.
B. You seem to believe that race dictates destiny, and you certainly aren’t shy about making generalizations based on race (white people invented racism). I take the charge of racism very seriously, and I believe that you are a racist.
AFAICS, you are blood brother to a Nazi skinhead in kind, if not in degree. Both of you judge by race, not by individual merit. Certainly your last reply to Freedom indicates that you believe racial identity to be the most important aspect of self-determination.
C. It is obvious that racism is alive and well in America,
but in an age where a half black/half Thai golfer can be a beloved celebrity, where a poor black woman ca grow up to be a media mogul, and where there are no legal bars to intermarriage or access to public facilities, to claim that
racism and “white standards of beauty” prevent progress is laughable.
No, I would never tell you how to self-identify, but when you call yourself a person of color, you get to revel in your victim status. By ignoring your dad’s side, you get to forget that you are also one half hated oppressor. Be who you wish to be, but also be honest.
I think you are taking quite the stretch to claim I will be estranged from my son. I would invite you to deal with your father issues somewhere else. I have managed to become friends with a diverse group of people, and I force none of them to become white.
I never said I wanted my children to deny they were Filipino.
But who the hell cares what your history is? Besides being a side curiosity and interesting story, it really has no meaning.
WTF is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to run around feeling connected to America’s founding fathers and past heros? Or is he supposed to wallow in the victimhood of the slaughter America committed in the Philippenes years ago? Or maybe he should claim his identity from one of my other relatives who came from Europe.
Either history and a buck will get him a cup of coffee, and that’s about it. Life is about individuality, and is only what you make of it. I won’t be proud of anyone, family member or not, who hangs their self-worth on the past accomplishments or failures of others.
I’m going to teach my children what I have learned from life. If the fireworks start in college, then so be it. If he wants to be ignorant then I’m going to let him know it. Once you realize how ridiculous it is to feel guilt or ownership of a previous generation’s sins, then the rest of thew race scam starts to fall apart.
