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

[Nay Sayer]

Considering how much you miss the “point,” I’m beginning to worry that no matter where it was put you’d be damned to find it.

There would first need to be a "point" to find.

[the crackhouse]

Language is social. Direction is not...

Your (last) posts are rhetorical trials. Leave down your ego and admit you're wrong.

You're just playing with words and avoiding the point that way.

Idance

[ngeso]

I think it goes to the psyche of racial structure. If it was racially beneficial for the dominant culture to say Columbus discovered America and to also claim Columbus is from the same race that's in power, its validation for the race in power that they deserve to be in that position.

In the same breathe, for the non-dominant culture to say we all came from East Africa as a species, can serve to validate that there's a certain affirmation that lends credence a contribution of non-whites to the world that might otherwise get overlooked.

Now I remind you, I'm only talking in social and not scientific ideologies. I guess its a white supremacy vs. afrocentricity model. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth, but both work to validate their specific ethnic groups.

The answer I was looking for.

...

[ngeso]

The most powerful people are black in Germany?

Kenya. Remember, I operate in both, papers and all.

...

[Monny JcIntosh]

It means that when light hits the skin of some humans, the skin reflects wavelengths that are perceived by the rods in our eyes as a shade lighter than some arbitrary and changing division between "white" and other "races." This is combined with regionally specific ("European") facial features to divide humans into a group that social conventions has labeled "white", that human history has attached other meanings to.

I take it that, if the concept of race is not scientific, then there it really has no consistent application conditions, preventing it from having any fruitful scientific use: according to the principles on which we classify people as belonging to one race (as "caucasion" say), we ought to classify others as belonging to it too, but we don't. And I take it that's borne out by the dictionary definition of "caucasion" Deesko cites.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Considering how much you miss the “point,” I’m beginning to worry that no matter where it was put you’d be damned to find it.

You’re confusing language with referent. And language, again, is social.

He's not confusing language with referent; if anything, you are - and have been throughout much of this thread. A map is a representation of an area, not the area itself. While it may be a matter of convention to represent positions north of others by placing their representations above those of the others, there is nothing conventional about the fact that certain positions are to the north of certain others.

[ngeso]

Off the top of my head, I would say the benefit is having a better understanding of world history against the backdrop of the last 3-400 years racism, in all of it's many forms, that has been perpetuated by Western "Civilization."

But was there cultural continuum between 70.000 and 400 years ago? The political argumentation I read into the constant teaching reference of the African origin of mankind is that in that enormous time period the essential experience of all people was linear and common, and that the ensuing common identity or memory was betrayed by white occidental civilisations during the past 2000 years.

What about the racism of pre-Western civilisations? Or did that not exist?

...

[Nay Sayer]

But was there cultural continuum between 70.000 and 400 years ago?

I would say there was to some degree but a definate and detailed answer to that question is above my pay grade.

The political argumentation I read into the constant teaching reference of the African origin of mankind is that in that enormous time period the essential experience of all people was linear and common,

In prehistorical times, yes.

and that the ensuing common identity or memory was betrayed by white occidental civilisations during the past 2000 years.

No. I would put that time closer to Europe's period of "enlightenment". Much of Europe's history during the last 2000 year is dominated by the "Dark Ages" where science, like Anthropology, Archaelogy, etc., were considered witchcraft. It's not until Europe's so-called period of "enlightenment" and the rise of modern European sholarship that you start to see theories of "Race" posited as sceince and the resulting racism that followed.

What about the racism of pre-Western civilisations? Or did that not exist?
...

I can't say that it didn't exist, however, it was never as wide spread in the ancient world as it is in the Western "Civilized" world.

[ngeso]

I would say there was to some degree but a definate and detailed answer to that question is above my pay grade.

In prehistorical times, yes.

People part ways for 65.000 years and become totally different cultural and mutually alien entities, but you're sure that the origin thing is culturally manifest enough in all of us for white people to be tasked that they are f*cking with some form of divinity?

No. I would put that time closer to Europe's period of "enlightenment". Much of Europe's history during the last 2000 year is dominated by the "Dark Ages" where science, like Anthropology, Archaelogy, etc., where considered Whichcraft. It's not until Europe's so-called period of "enlightenment" and the rise of modern European sholarship that you start to see theories of "Race" posited as sceince and the resulting racism that followed.

Opportunist theorizin! You switch on a just-in-time blame theory to suit your exact, isolated victimisation model and conveniently ignore the possibility of any parallel or previous occurences to give your issue adequate perspective.

I can't say that it didn't exist, however, it was never as wide spread in the ancient world as it is in the Western "Civilized" world.

You think that indenture, slavery, persecution and power-oriented killing was arbitrarily "less bad" before the white man's enlightenment age? Based on what?


I put it to you that if people attain power, they will automatically, NATURALLY, wield that power over those without power regardless of race. White racism isn't something genetically inherent as much as it is the result of cultural evolution initiated by geographic and climatic circumstance, resource distribution and adaption capability. Racism is a product of CHANCE.

...

[Nay Sayer]

People part ways for 65.000 years and become totally different cultural and mutually alien entities, but you're sure that the origin thing is culturally manifest enough in all of us for white people to be tasked that they are f*cking with some form of divinity?

Opportunist theorizin! You switch on a just-in-time blame theory to suit your exact, isolated victimisation model and conveniently ignore the possibility of any parallel or previous occurences to give your issue adequate perspective.

Sorry but I can't make sense out of any of this.

You think that indenture, slavery, persecution and power-oriented killing was arbitrarily "less bad" before the white man's enlightenment age? Based on what?

This is a strawman argument. I never made that assumption.

I put it to you that if people attain power, they will automatically, NATURALLY, wield that power over those without power regardless of race.

Agreed.

White racism isn't something genetically inherent as much as it is the result of cultural evolution initiated by geographic and climatic circumstance, resource distribution and adaption capability. Racism is a product of CHANCE....

Now you've really dove off the deep edge. Racism is the product of I G N O R A N C E. Plain and simple.

[ngeso]

Now you've really dove off the deep edge. Racism is the product of I G N O R A N C E. Plain and simple.

Racism is a manifestation of power imbalance (as is classism, sexism, etc.). It can but does not necessarily have to be due to ignorance.

...

[Moksha]

I take it that, if the concept of race is not scientific, then there it really has no consistent application conditions, preventing it from having any fruitful scientific use: according to the principles on which we classify people as belonging to one race (as "caucasion" say), we ought to classify others as belonging to it too, but we don't. And I take it that's borne out by the dictionary definition of "caucasion" Deesko cites.

I'm not necessarily co-signing the original point.

I think race is, to some degree, scientific. Genetics are inarguably responsible for our skin colors (science) and certain illnesses and more common in one branch of the human family tree than others, which corresponds to "race" in some ways. Nay Sayer's geography-based diasporas are also in the realm of scientific inquiry.

Most of the meaning we place on race, though, is obviously of a socio-historic nature. But I think that sociology is a science, too. As is psychology, which is also heavily influenced by societies' various views on race.

I would be equally comfortable arguing the exact opposite as Bill. He's saying, I think, that science is merely a subset of social conventions. I would say that social conventions can be analyzed by and reduced into an objective, non-human sense of science.

[the crackhouse]

Now you've really dove off the deep edge. Racism is the product of I G N O R A N C E. Plain and simple.

I say you've sinned by candor here.

I don't think Hitler was dumb nor ignorant. He was a politician.
To gain power, you have to get your voters into a fight, the goal is not always negative, but the themes are various: environment, insecurity, immigration, poverty, economy...

I always wonder why politicians aren't viewed as mad persons?

Do you think a president, king, prime minister, dictator, parliamentarian are sane people when they gather around the idea of making the world a better place?

Why is that people will never think a politician has an agenda? People love smiles, promises and thinking their lives will improve.

If the promise is that, whatever they have to do to realize it, they will.
"Yeah, let's kill all
A - Jews !
B - Mexicans!
C - Blacks!
D - Tutsis!
E - Women!
D - Pigs!

And let's face it, most politicians in Europe have access to power AND money.
You can decide to just reach your job and get elected or even get bigger power.

In France a parliamentarian, after 6 months in his job, will receive a good pension for the rest of his life. Just because he did reach this position.

Idance

[Nay Sayer]

I'm not necessarily co-signing the original point.

I think race is, to some degree, scientific. Genetics are inarguably responsible for our skin colors (science) and certain illnesses and more common in one branch of the human family tree than others, which corresponds to "race" in some ways. Nay Sayer's geography-based diasporas are also in the realm of scientific inquiry.

We assign people to a specific "race" using a very limited and arbitrarily chosen set of criteria - usually skin tone and facial features.

I submit that if "race" is a viable theory then there should be;

A tall and thin people race
a red headed race
a blue eyed race
a short and fat race
a straight haired race
a curly haired race
a slanted eyed race
a brown eyed race
a black haired race

Or, you could take combinations of the above to create even more "races".

If race is indeed a viable theory then 99% of the players in the NBA belong to the same "race".

It just doesn't make sense..

[the crackhouse]

Racism is a manifestation of power imbalance (as is classism, sexism, etc.). It can but does not necessarily have to be due to ignorance.

...

I'm not even sure that racism is due to ignorance. Ignorance can be the start to be getting more and more knowledge (for an open minded).

People are not always leaving bad ideas about the things they don't know, nor do they fear their ignorance.

BUT, an asshole (who's typically called ignorant) could use what he has been told (French invented the French Fries) to express their minimum knowledge of the thing. Only one point of view could be considered as ignorance?

So, did the discoverers of new countries been assaulted with racism?
If Natives did never see any Columbus before, the ignorance on these new guys was full.

I don't think you get kicked in your ass or that people will have racist maners when you cross the more isolated places in the world.

Idance

[the crackhouse]

We assign people to a specific "race" using a very limited and arbitrarily chosen set of criteria - usually skin tone and facial features.

I submit that if "race" is a viable theory then there should be;

A tall and thin people race
a red headed race
a blue eyed race
a short and fat race
a straight haired race
a curly haired race
a slanted eyed race
a brown eyed race
a black haired race

Or, you could take combinations of the above to create even more "races".

If race is indeed a viable theory then 99% of the players in the NBA belong to the same "race".

It just doesn't make sense..

Again I think we need to choose if we're talking in generalities or on a specific subject.

Race is determined by the stare of common people to an individual.
This one is black, this one is asian, this one is white.
This is the popular, dumb, accepted idea of race.

Now we have people called scientists who have been looking deeper than the surface and will tell you that DNA totally condradicts any trial to determine a race classification.

Idance

[Moksha]

We assign people to a specific "race" using a very limited and arbitrarily chosen set of criteria - usually skin tone and facial features.

I submit that if "race" is a viable theory then there should be;

A tall and thin people race
a red headed race
a blue eyed race
a short and fat race
a straight haired race
a curly haired race
a slanted eyed race
a brown eyed race
a black haired race

Or, you could take combinations of the above to create even more "races".

If race is indeed a viable theory then 99% of the players in the NBA belong to the same "race".

It just doesn't make sense..

Taxonomy is also a science.

[Bill Blake]

He's not confusing language with referent; if anything, you are - and have been throughout much of this thread. A map is a representation of an area, not the area itself. While it may be a matter of convention to represent positions north of others by placing their representations above those of the others, there is nothing conventional about the fact that certain positions are to the north of certain others.

No, I’m not and you seem to be misrepresenting my position: which is that maps are social constructs (whether scientific) and that’s all. But, “Africa” is a linguistic sign, a map (of Africa) is not. However, a coordinate system-seems to me at this point-arbitrary—in other words, pick your center…this should be apparent when you consider the earths relationship to the rest of the universe. And when you do, then tell me where north, south, east, or west is?

[Bill Blake]

Ha ha ha, the “dark ages” is an “enlightenment” historical convention and has been challenged as being biased.

[Nay Sayer]

which is that maps are social constructs

Utterly ridiculous.

However, a coordinate system-seems to me at this point-arbitrary—in other words, pick your center…this should be apparent when you consider the earths relationship to the rest of the universe. And when you do, then tell me where north, south, east, or west is?

There is *nothing* arbitrary about the magnetic north pole or the geographical north pole.

[Nay Sayer]

Ha ha ha, the “dark ages” is an “enlightenment” historical convention and has been challenged as being biased.

Call it what you will.

Those are the terms that Europeans use to describe their own recent history.

So, are Europeans showing bias against themselves?

Yeah, that certainly makes a ton of sense...

[Bill Blake]

I would be equally comfortable arguing the exact opposite as Bill. He's saying, I think, that science is merely a subset of social conventions. I would say that social conventions can be analyzed by and reduced into an objective, non-human sense of science.

Explain to me what a non-human sense of science is?

[Bill Blake]

Call it what you will.

Those are the terms that Europeans use to describe their own recent history.

So, are Europeans showing bias against themselves?

Yeah, that certainly makes a ton of sense...

Wanna make a bet? Walk into a history department today and use the term “dark ages.”

[Moksha]

There is *nothing* arbitrary about the magnetic north pole or the geographical north pole.

But it IS arbitrary that we, as a culture, have decided that these features are the ones to base our cardinal directions on. Why not a point determined by celestial calculations? Why not from the tallest mountain on Earth? Or the deepest trench?

[Moksha]

Wanna make a bet? Walk into a history department today and use the term “dark ages.”

I took a great class on Invention During the Middle Ages in college. Definitely opened my eyes to the misrepresentation of that time.

And Ancient Rome wasn't all we've romanticized it to be...