I’d contend that it was just his identity as Other that was an issue
“Thick lips” seems to be a standard preModern Western European representations of Others - like Jews, Arabs, hell, even Irish…
True enough.
In general, I’d agree, the point was that he was exotic and “other”. Exactly where “the Moor” came from (and whether his skin was truly Black or merely swarthy, etc.) is something of interest to modern people with modern concerns about racial matters, not to Elizabethans.
Though I do content that, occam’s razor, it simply makes more sense to picture Othello as of sub-Saharan origin. True, references to “black skin” can be merely tanned or swarthy, and true that “thick lips” can be merely a conventional depiction - but there is nothing inherently unlikely about a sub-saharan Black among the “moors” and “turks”, as would be known to Elizabethans (and being Black would visually enhance his ‘otherness’ in a way easy for the play’s audience to see).
It goes to his credibility, and the credibility of those who repeat his tale.
An article in Jet magazine, known for fashion and beauty tips, entertainment news, dating advice, and diet guides, is hardly “evidence”.
On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, shouldn’t proven be the key factor?
For the love of Christ. Consider me done with this insane hijack.
I wouldn’t think that calling out a poster with an agenda making unsubstantiated claims in Great Debates is insane, but since it’s considered a hijack, I’ll drop it.
Fair enough.
Pushkin hardly qualify as black, except if you follow the one drop rule.
The life strory of his great-grandfather, black general in the Russian army, is very interesting, on the other hand.
And the more obvious it gets that parental wealth and education don’t create equal performance outcomes, the subtler those “cultural factors” get. 
We’ve debated Steele’s contributions ad nauseum. What I would say is that if you find them persuasive, that’s good.
I think as humans we have a fundamentally altruistic gene ( 
) that drives us to want fairness. We want mother nature to be fair in doling out genes equally. Where we notice substantial performance outcomes that we cannot overcome not matter how hard we try, we are more easily persuaded by any reason that comes along.
We need those “subtle” reasons because we can then cling to a sense of fairness and egalitarianism.
If you are actually interested in dissecting the quality of Steele’s stereotype threat and other such reasons, there are good articles on both sides of the fence, including quite a few which show it’s just nonsense. I have listed many of them in other posts.
Among other things, you’ll notice a stereotype threat needs to be advanced only for blacks. Not Jews. Not asians…well; you get it.
:eek: Have you met any humans?
It’s almost as if the circumstances and history are different for different groups!
And no doubt their ability to succeed in Russian society has a lot to do with unique opportunities that arise from close ties to Russian nobility and not to the general ease of upward mobility in Imperial Russia (something of which I have doubts).
Huh, was the fact that I used a vulgarity a problem?
You rather foolishly claimed that the US and the allies went out their way to aid “the Jews” as a result of the Holocaust and created Israel to do this.
To anyone with even an elementary level education about the situation this was utterly moronic and comes close to the common anti-Semitic tropes of the Jews manipulating dumb goys into doing what they needed doing.
The US and UK governments under Roosevelt and Churchill were both aggressively anti-Zionist. Had Roosevelt lived we probably wouldn’t even have an Israel.
Truman only supported Israel because of a close relationship with one of his friends. The US and the UK both refused to give any support to the Jews of Palestine when the Arab armies were attempting to exterminate them and in fact the only country that gave them military aid was Czechoslovakia.
Finally, the fact that you are so shockingly ignorant of the Holocaust that you somehow believe the international community felt horrible about it or tried to do something about is something you should do something about.
It’s truly astonishing that an educated person, who generally makes intelligent comments was unaware that during WWII, when the Nazis were shoving Jews into ovens the UK, Canada, Australia and a ton of other countries that you seem to imagine to be Jew lovers imposed harsh restrictions on their immigration to try and prevent from coming their. Also rather than helping Jewish refugees to get to Palestine the US and the UK actively tried to stop them, including using their military to do so.
I should add they continued such immigration quotas after WWII.
I asked what, if any books you’d read on the subject because I wanted to know how you could be so horribly misinformed?
I know I probably came across as harsher than I intended, but you should realize that while you didn’t mean to, when you were claiming the goyim were going out of their way to save Jews at a time when they were actively trying to trap them in Nazi occupied Europe, at gunpoint if necessary, you were pissing all over the graves and memories of millions of Jews.
What you did was the equivalent of claiming that during Reconstruction the US spent trillions of dollars trying to save black people and set them with their own well-armed self-sufficient communities and gave them all 40 acres and a mule.
Doesn’t excuse discrimination against either.
I’m almost certain I claimed no such thing and that you’re projecting things onto my words so that you can snidely ask disingenuous questions about how many books I’ve read in order to call me stupid. That’s what the problem is. If you’re interested in a genuine discussion, you’ll speak civilly to me, and I’ll engage. If you’d like to continue in your current vein, knock yourself out.
So I admit, Ibn, after your continued insults in your last post, at first I only read the first sentence of it and got disgusted enough to respond without reading the rest.
I just read the rest, and have to ask: what the ever-loving fuck are you on about? You’re describing a conversation with an imaginary person. Every paragraph of your post describes someone saying things I never said. Forget asking me how many books I’ve read: how many of my posts have you read?
At this point, if you want to continue the conversation, you’ll need to quote specific things I said, and then you’ll probably need to explain what you think they mean. You’ll need to get clarification on what I said. I cannot imagine any other way for the conversation to be productive.
Who is excusing discrimination? Who are you arguing with?
Yes. But since none of those actions are unique to black people in America, and in fact many of them have historically happened to Jews, we can, in contravention of the thread, test the thesis “To what extent do laws limiting opportunities, being forced to live in ghettos, being systematically scapegoated and killed in response to various social ills produce an underperforming minority group?”
So, do you think that the various oppressions you mentioned do reliably produce an underperforming minority? If I can pick out individual oppressions which happened unto minorities which did not go on to underperform, would that change your opinion?
In the USA, slavery is unique to black people (and possibly Native Americans). But every circumstance is different, and has different consequences. The historical plight of Jews in Europe was terrible but different than the historical plight of black people in America. The treatment of each group was terrible, but in different ways. It’s not at all surprising that the consequences are different.
I’d agree, and one way to look at those differences on a very basic level is this: most Jews who came to America were fleeing from those terrible circumstances (via immigration); OTOH, most Blacks who came to America, did so involuntarily - they were dragged into those horrible circumstances (via the slave trade).
So, all things being equal, one would assume that the first group would be better off.
I did not call you stupid and don’t think you are. It’s very possible for smart people to believe foolish things. It doesn’t make them foolish.
Beyond that, no I didn’t misrepresent you. You made claims that seemed to show little understanding of the history of the region which you now appear to trying to deny making.
Bull, frankly, shit.
I did not say this. It is a fabrication on your part. You even put “the Jews” in quotation marks, with a nice little insinuation that I was being antisemitic. You should be ashamed of yourself, and until you decide to address what I said honestly, I’m done with you.