"The History of White People": What it means to be white

[Nay Sayer]

This is the question you will ask yourself all your life.

And this life has an end, so get used to it.

Idance

Maybe you should call yourself the crackhead...

[Bill Blake]

Not quite. African, in a cultural sense, is a social concept. The [study of] genetics of the people who are indigenous to East Africa is not a social concept but a scientific one.

"East Africa," "West Africa," "Africa," "Florida," "Mexico," “Boise Idaho,” “The Straights of Gibraltar,” are not "social concepts?"

"A man is black" is a social concept. But "A man is from East Africa" is not?

[Nay Sayer]

"East Africa," "West Africa," "Africa," "Florida," "Mexico," “Boise Idaho,” “The Straights of Gibraltar,” are not "social concepts?"

"A man is black" is a social concept. But "A man is from East Africa" is not?

No.

Being from East Africa is *not* a social concept.

"East Africa" describes the easterly geography of the African continent. People who are "East African" can demonstrate such using genetics, cranial morphology, anthropology, linguistics, and other sciences.

[Bill Blake]

If you accept that humanity originated in Africa then that is not a non-scientific concept.I haven't read the book so I really cant form a opinion one way or the other.But in the interview the author raises some interesting points on race and in our country how the definition of being a American being change from meaning white to how we define it today.

Chef, a historical trace of the development and continuation of “race,” and more importantly, all that is attributed to it, in my personal preference, is a very good thing—not having read the book myself.

Africa, however, and any other geographical demarcation is a “social concept” as well. Now, I’m weary of any demarcation that separates the “social” from “scientific” in the first place so I’m “borrowing” “concepts,” regardless.

The implication in “scientific” could be construed to mean “natural,” if you will, a “knowing of the natural” that is not social, or “beyond” social. And so we have a long “history” of social/natural; “naturally” is there is no such thing as “Africa?” But then again, if human beings are “natural,” then what constitutes the distinction between our “naturalness” and our “social?”

And also, in these binaries, scientific/social, we have an implied hierarchy: the “scientific” is true, higher, the social is false, lower. But if we partake in the “social” where Africa and race do indeed seem to play a part, how do we reconcile the “scientific concept” that there is no race, or Africa for that matter, and the “social concept” where your black-ass from Africa is more likely to get thrown in jail, statistically—that is, “socially scientifically” (and isn’t that odd?-The science and the social?)—than my “white” “self?” Oh but it's just a "social concept" and not "scientific."

[Bill Blake]

No.

Being from East Africa is *not* a social concept.

"East Africa" describes the easterly geography of the African continent. People who are "East African" can demonstrate such using genetics, cranial morphology, anthropology, linguistics, and other sciences.

"East Africa" like "race" is a "social concept." (Well, not really, but in this logic it is). If East Africa, like any other geographical demarcation is a scientific concept then please explain to me how I'm "scientifically" in Georgia when I cross the "boarder" from Florida...remember, explain it to me scientifically.

[dj-chefron]

Chef, a historical trace of the development and continuation of “race,” and more importantly, all that is attributed to it, in my personal preference, is a very good thing—not having read the book myself.

Africa, however, and any other geographical demarcation is a “social concept” as well. Now, I’m weary of any demarcation that separates the “social” from “scientific” in the first place so I’m “borrowing” “concepts,” regardless.

The implication in “scientific” could be construed to mean “natural,” if you will, a “knowing of the natural” that is not social, or “beyond” social. And so we have a long “history” of social/natural; “naturally” is there such a thing as “Africa?” But then again, if human beings are “natural,” then what constitutes the distinction between our “naturalness” and our “social?”

And also, in these binaries, scientific/social, we have an implied hierarchy: the “scientific” is true, higher, the social is false, lower. But if we partake in the “social” where Africa and race do indeed seem to play a part, how do we reconcile the “scientific concept” that there is no race, or Africa for that matter, and the “social concept” where your black-ass from Africa is more likely to get thrown in jail, statistically—that is, “socially scientifically” (and isn’t that odd?-The science and the social?)—than my “white” “self?” Oh but it's just a "social concept" and not "scientific."

Your post is something I will have to think about,till then I will STFU.

[jimmymack-2000]

Thee "his"tory of white people is COMING TO AN END

[Nay Sayer]

"East Africa" like "race" is a "social concept." (Well, not really, but in this logic it is). If East Africa, like any other geographical demarcation is a scientific concept then please explain to me how I'm "scientifically" in Georgia when I cross the "boarder" from Florida...remember, explain it to me scientifically.

The latitude and longitude of Atlanta, Georgia is 33.7490 degrees North, 84.3880 degrees West. So, if you are in Atlanta, scientifically speaking, 33.7490 degrees North, 84.3880 degrees West is your location...

[AK]

n/m

[AK]

I think this very well may be the most simple-minded thing I've read in recent memory.

oops, I stand corrected.

[Bill Blake]

Your post is something I will have to think about,till then I will STFU.

Ha, I'd prefer that you didn't shut the fuck up. This shit is still stuff I could be misguided in and certainly haven't wrapped my head about it.

[Bill Blake]

The latitude and longitude of Atlanta, Georgia is 33.7490 degrees North, 84.3880 degrees West. So, if you are in Atlanta, scientifically speaking, 33.7490 degrees North, 84.3880 degrees is your location...

If you're messing with me, I don't mind. But if you're messing with yourself then...

[Nay Sayer]

If you're messing with me, I don't mind. But if you're messing with yourself then...

East and West are *not* social constructs.

[Bill Blake]

East and West are *not* social constructs.

What’s the coordinate where “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” meet?

[Nay Sayer]

What’s the coordinate where “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” meet?

What does the question have to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs?

What evidence do you have to support your assertion?

[Bill Blake]

What does the question have to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs?

What evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Since it's so "scientific" and you seem to have a handle on this, answer the question:

"What’s the coordinate where “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” meet? (from which, by longitude and latitude it's determined what “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” is...or is it?)

Or perhaps I should help you, Mr. Descartes...

Here????

[Nay Sayer]

Since it's so "scientific" and you seem to have a handle on this, answer the question:

"What’s the coordinate where “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” meet? (from which, by longitude and latitude it's determined what “east,” “west,” north,” and “south” is)

Or perhaps I should help you, Mr. Descartes...

Here????

The question has nothing to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs.

I have asked for evidence to the contrary.

You have not provided any.

[Bill Blake]

The question has nothing to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs.

I have asked for evidence to the contrary.

You have not provided any.

Oh it has every almost everything to do with it.

Now you’re being defensive. I asked you where is the center that determines what’s east, west, north, or south.

So I will help you out some more, since it seems you need it. Is it not you?

[Nay Sayer]

I asked you where is the center that determines what’s east, west, north, or south.

The question has nothing to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs.

And again I ask for your evidence to the contrary.

[Bill Blake]

The question has nothing to do with the fact that East and West are not social constructs.

And again I ask for your evidence to the contrary.

You haven’t given “evidence” that east, west, north and south are scientific concepts. Unless you are willing to tell me that you’re basing it on the Cartesian map of the earth that I posted and that, that is scientifically what determines that they are? Are you?

I promise you that I will explain to you that they are not “scientific concepts” (which may be jargon anyway, but we can let that pass for now), but in order to do that we have to be in some measure of agreement to proceed effectively, so help me out, please.

So let’s see if we can agree: if there is a north, south, east or west, does that not imply that there is a point at which they all meet? That is a center, from which, you would determine where north, south, east or west is?

[Nay Sayer]

You haven’t given “evidence” that east, west, north and south are scientific concepts.

I never made the assertion that they were. My position is that East and West are not social constructs.

I promise you that I will explain to you that they are not “scientific concepts” (which may be jargon anyway, but we can let that pass for now), but in order to do that we have to be in some measure of agreement to proceed effectively, so help me out, please.

So let’s see if we can agree: if there is a north, south, east or west, does that not imply that there is a point at which they all meet? That is a center, from which, you would determine where north, south, east or west is?

I don't know that there is a "center" where North, South, East, and West meet, nor do I know that North, South, East, and West need to meet.

The points on a compass don't need to meet in order for me to tell which direction is which.

No matter where in the world I may happen to be standing, even if it's some place you consider to be the "center" where North, South, East, and West are alleged to meet, my compass will still point North.

[Moksha]

Nay Sayer - national boarders, continent names and cardinal directions are all human constructs, is where BB is going with this.

Your insistence on East Africa being the mecca for humanity (brining along all your intended conotations associated with "Africa") is the result of social constructs.

[Bill Blake]

I never made the assertion that they were. My position is that East and West are not social constructs.


I don't know that there is a "center" where North, South, East, and West meet, nor do I know that North, South, East, and West need to meet.

The points on a compass don't need to meet in order for me to tell which direction is which.

No matter where in the world I may happen to be standing, even if it's some place you consider to be the "center" where North, South, East, and West are alleged to meet, my compass will still point North.

You never made a position that they were scientific concepts? But you make the position that they are not social concepts? That isn’t making much sense. What are they then?

Well good. Now we have two things. But we have to get to the first before we get to the second. We may be close, Nay.

Now, what holds a compass that makes sense of what a north is? What? A dog? A frog? A cow that jumped over a moon? The EARTH? What holds it?

When you say something along the lines of “I do,” or “You do,” “A beggar does,” “A nice Jewish girl does,” or anything along those lines, or better yet, “any of us,” then we can proceed.

Now do I have that above (north is it?) sentence right, as the answer from you?

[Bill Blake]

Nay Sayer - national boarders, continent names and cardinal directions are all human constructs, is where BB is going with this.

Your insistence on East Africa being the mecca for humanity (brining along all your intended conotations associated with "Africa") is the result of social constructs.

Ha ha ha ha, actually it’s MUCH better than this, as in stretched a bit more (Aw, hell, hate to give a gift way before Xmas, but shall we conceive universe? Or is that not earth-centric enough?) but don’t scare him off.

And remember, although it’s the Africa that well fits in italics, right now, it’s the East we’re dressing up since no one around here can stay with any gatdamn thing for too long. It’s like attention deficit disorder was a crack habit.

You're doing fine, Nay Sayer. I'm very impressed with you tonight; honest John.

Let's focus: "Anyone holding a compass," right?

[Nay Sayer]

Nay Sayer - national boarders, continent names and cardinal directions are all human constructs, is where BB is going with this.

There is nothing cardinal about the land masses we call continents. There is nothing cardinal about the force that makes a compass point in one direction. There is nothing cardinal about the direction that is 180 degrees of the direction my compass points to.

These are not social constructs.

Your insistence on East Africa being the mecca for humanity (brining along all your intended conotations associated with "Africa") is the result of social constructs.

No.

The African continent is not a social construct. The fact that it has an Eastern end and a Western end also isn't a social construct.

Those are simple facts of geography.

The fact that we refer to the Eastern side of the African continent as "East Africa" does not diminish the simple facts.