Does Race exist?

[El_Machinae]

The word is "taboo".

It's not. What is the name of the classification system we would use when using someone's appearance when applying the social rule. "We're looking at their [trait]".

My suspicion is that the correct word to use there is 'color'. But I'm double-checking.

 

[Naskra]

classification system we would use when using someone's appearance

stereotype

 

[red_elk]

Do you understand my objection?

Not quite. You seem to see the difference between people of different races, but claim that it doesn't explain anything.
It's not supposed to explain anything. The fact that you see it, is enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

stereotype

No, it's not a stereotype. It's a social rule. It involves some stereotyping, but that's about it.

 

[Naskra]

It's a social rule.

mos maiorum. if you want to get fancy.

 

[H4run]

Not quite. You seem to see the difference between people of different races, but claim that it doesn't explain anything.
It's not supposed to explain anything. The fact that you see it, is enough.

They are ethnicity not race, and not solely skin color based. Are race is equally the same with ethnicity?

 

[Absolution]

I think is must be obvious that Race can only be a genetic issue and not a social construct.
Racism is, possibly, thinking races are a social construct.
Hating Muslims, hating black peoples, hating whatever else, that is not necesarrily even a race, and mainly for its related social stereotyps.

Racism can be used well in a way that is quite parallel to a genetic debate.
While the word "race" itself may not be the proper taxonomic term to use here, some grouping of humanity's genetic diversion can be discussed.
And in such discussion, a scientific equivalent of common terms such as "Asian", "******" or possibly even "Semitic" can be used.
Without any social application, but simply to discuss the differences between different genetic groups of humans.

 

[Naskra]

Are race is equally the same with ethnicity?

No. The categories are quite fluid. Mr. Obama was ethnically a white guy from Harvard, but black under the one drop rule, then he was a guy from the 'hood in Chicago by personal effort.
Mayor Morial of N. Orleans ran three times for office, once as white, once as black and once as Creole. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[red_elk]

They are ethnicity not raced, and not solely skin color based. Are race is equally the same with ethnicity?

No, ethnicities are often indistinguishable from each other by visual appearance. You can't tell whether a person in front of you is Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian or Russian until he speaks. Well, may be you can, but I can't despite being one of them.

 

[H4run]

No, ethnicities are often indistinguishable from each other by visual appearance. You can't tell whether a person in front of you is Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian or Russian until he speaks. Well, may be you can, but I don't despite being one of them.

thank you for your answer, and Maluku consist of Ambonese and other ethnic, it is one of the 300 ethnicity in Indonesia. Rationally you will put them in Asian racial group. By doing that it will refuted all of your generalization of what constitutes Asian, even of what constitutes Indonesian. So your statement:

Not quite. You seem to see the difference between people of different races, but claim that it doesn't explain anything.
It's not supposed to explain anything. The fact that you see it, is enough.

This is totally not reflects my previous argument, because none of the example that I chose above are racial examples, but they are of ethnicity.

 

[red_elk]

I don't understand what you are arguing about. What ethnicity has to do with all of this?
If a cop asks you whether the suspect looked Black or White, would you be able to answer his question?
And if this question is not about his race, then what it is about?

 

[Senethro]

It's not. What is the name of the classification system we would use when using someone's appearance when applying the social rule. "We're looking at their [trait]".

My suspicion is that the correct word to use there is 'color'. But I'm double-checking.

Estimated Race(abrogated).

 

[Estebonrober]

Most people aren't good or evil in the D&D sense, they're just socialized to the local standard norms in time and space. Where different standards encounter each other there is friction.

If there is a large enough movement in their local social norms I'd expect your coworkers to go along with it and, based on my own observations, probably forget/deny they ever held a different opinion.

I agree with you about evil and the way social norms work over time. My point is twofold, that racist's desires revolve around demonizing the other and that social norms can go "backwards". I believe we are witnessing that first hand. I've seen more racist talk in the last two years (blacks and latinos aren't able to self govern type talk) then in the decade prior to Trump.

 

[Berzerker]

Look, if you don't think historical baggage is a good enough reason, then paint a swastika on your face and walk down your local high street. Its the quickest way to learn what historical baggage feels like.

Cant argue with that, the same logic applies to removing Confederate symbols.

Its an obvious trait for racists to use, its not an obvious trait for rigorous classification.

Its a trait people (and critters) use instinctively to recognize danger. When white slavers were operating in W Africa people learned to run at the first sight of them. Was it racist for them to run?

Of course these laws were intrinsic in creating a racial disparity in the past, it's the whole reason why my statement acknowledged white privilege existed in the past. I am asking for current laws that would create a racial disparity?

Past is prologue... How much money would Trump inherit if his father was a slave? The descendants of slaves were robbed of family wealth and everything that goes with it, like free, well educated children adding to the family fortune. As for laws now, slavery was replaced with Jim Crow and that was replaced by the drug war.

According to one of Nixon's cronies the drug war was payback to hippies and black people for opposing his war, the hippies faded into history leaving black people with a bulls eye on their backs. Its ongoing now and the violence and mass incarceration it has caused destroys family structure even worse than a real war. Daddy's not a war hero who died in battle, he's rotting away in a coffin or prison cell for selling drugs and the neighborhood is ruled by gangs.

White people: "racism doesn't exist anymore, those underdeveloped countries/poor non-whites should stop whining and try to assimilate!"
Also white people: "race is just as legitimate a classification as any other biological taxonomy!"

Here's a politically incorrect opinion that will be probably be censored: people who actually believe in Rassenkunde should be lined up and shot.

A torch will be more effective against those strawmen.

But that is in essence what "race" means, not the simply observation that people have different skin tones.

Thats what race means to racists, everybody else sees race for what it is - information.

 

[H4run]

If a cop asks you whether the suspect looked Black or White, would you be able to answer his question?
And if this question is not about his race, then what it is about?

Well as I ALWAYS told you black and white are not racial classification, It is......

Wait, maybe it is...

Im of Yellow race, the South American are Pink Race, while you Russian are light Yellow.

If a police come to ask me do I see the fricking thief and ask me to describe him/her I would told them

"It is one of those orange people! go get those blasted fruity lads!"

Everything makes sense now, I see...

I don't understand what you are arguing about. What ethnicity has to do with all of this?

I also suddenly forget about all of this discussion, where am I? Who are you? What are we arguing about here?

 

[Kyriakos]

Imo one should keep in mind that the 'n word' issue is most of the time presented in US context. While there are similar slurs in some other countries with considerable black minority or considerable racist sentiment, it isn't the same phenomenon. I think that it is entirely unrealistic to change the taboo as things are in the US. Ideally, of course, there should be no taboo terms, because as long as they have power they continue to be used as a weapon by racists. I think it will take a few decades - at best - for this to start happening in the US, though. Afaik some attempt at this was made in the 80s-90s etc, but obviously it didn't actually succeed - remember the Kramer stand-up?
(Kramer being a crap comedian aside, having a term be something like a hammer hit is not a good state of affairs).

There are many reasons for the US case being different. For starters the US has a very populous minority of black people. Furthermore the black population there is used in a number of foundational claims or (up to) myths, re the civil war. Lastly, the black people shipped to the US faced hellish situations for many generations, so it is expected for them to feel they deserve some very prominent compensation. Problem is that while it is perfectly expected of a past victim to feel this way, it isn't possible to practically lead to much gain when victimization has lessened very considerably by now - of course there still is victimization; one only needs to see how US cops act when they approach a black suspect, at a number of cases leading to said suspects death when he wasn't even armed or posed a thread.

I am not optimistic re this issue being solved in the near future. Besides, the US is so polarized than even far more straightforward issues cannot be solved.

 

[red_elk]

Imo one should keep in mind that the 'n word' issue is most of the time presented in US context. While there are similar slurs in some other countries with considerable black minority or considerable racist sentiment, it isn't the same phenomenon. I think that it is entirely unrealistic to change the taboo as things are in the US. Ideally, of course, there should be no taboo terms, because as long as they have power they continue to be used as a weapon by racists.

I think if there are taboo words, they should be taboo for everyone, not only for arbitrarily defined "oppressors" group. As for the n-word, another problem is that it sounds similar to the word for "black" in few other languages.

Also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigaz

 

[Senethro]

I think if there are taboo words, they should be taboo for everyone, not only for arbitrarily defined "oppressors" group. As for the n-word, another problem is that it sounds similar to the word for "black" in few other languages.

No. This is not a free speech issue where everyone needs equal access/treatment. Its a polite speech issue. Politeness is always context dependent and the speaker and listener are part of that context.

 

[red_elk]

No. This is not a free speech issue where everyone needs equal access/treatment.

I didn't say this is a free speech issue. The issue is that some people are allowed to say specific words, while others don't, only because they have "wrong" skin color. It's a racial discrimination, which we supposedly want to eliminate.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Imo one should keep in mind that the 'n word' issue is most of the time presented in US context. While there are similar slurs in some other countries with considerable black minority or considerable racist sentiment, it isn't the same phenomenon. I think that it is entirely unrealistic to change the taboo as things are in the US. Ideally, of course, there should be no taboo terms, because as long as they have power they continue to be used as a weapon by racists. I think it will take a few decades - at best - for this to start happening in the US, though. Afaik some attempt at this was made in the 80s-90s etc, but obviously it didn't actually succeed - remember the Kramer stand-up?
(Kramer being a crap comedian aside, having a term be something like a hammer hit is not a good state of affairs).

There are many reasons for the US case being different. For starters the US has a very populous minority of black people. Furthermore the black population there is used in a number of foundational claims or (up to) myths, re the civil war. Lastly, the black people shipped to the US faced hellish situations for many generations, so it is expected for them to feel they deserve some very prominent compensation. Problem is that while it is perfectly expected of a past victim to feel this way, it isn't possible to practically lead to much gain when victimization has lessened very considerably by now - of course there still is victimization; one only needs to see how US cops act when they approach a black suspect, at a number of cases leading to said suspects death when he wasn't even armed or posed a thread.

I am not optimistic re this issue being solved in the near future. Besides, the US is so polarized than even far more straightforward issues cannot be solved.

For so long as some people want to discriminate against and use slurs against certain groups they will find words to use in such a way.
Handicapped was replaced by disabled because handicapped had developed negative connotations. In time disabled developed negative connotations and has been replaced by differently abled.
One way to deal with this is to take back ownership of words that have been used as pejorative. This has happened with gay and queer which are now in general use as synonyms for homosexual but are not generally seen as pejorative now.