Does Race exist?

[BornInCantaloup]

I'm bringing forward the 'rule' about the N-word because I think it's probably the strongest social rule out with regards to consensus among non-racists. So, it's not a 'race-based' social rule, we'd call it a 'color-based' social rule, then? Is this because color is an identifiable characteristic while 'race' connotes some type of heritage? And would saying "knowing someone's ethnicity would allow me to predict their color" be (at least) a coherent question?

I'm trying to unpack how the words 'color' and 'race' should be used in the discussion.

Ok, I think I get it. Are you asking whether there is a derogatory use for the N-word and what classification justifies that derogatory use ? Fair question.
So, black people use the N-word the most. Is it a racial address ? I think, most of the time it isn't.

2 things :
- Attributing positive values to the N-word is a reversal of the olden racial meaning. Subversion of the traditional meaning. Re-appropriation. This doesn't fundamentally challenge the claim that races exists. It's more a challenge to the hierarchy ;
- It is also a way to recognize between "we, who are both subjected to the same discrimination". It's a discrimination-based social rule and that discrimination is based, indeed, on skin tone. The recognition of a shared stigma sets the conditions for solidarity, very much alike to class-based or gender-based solidarity.

It isn't a rare occurence that, under oppression, people would try to subvert the dominant codes.


From ethnicity to skin tone : to some extent. Within the limits of variations which are, sometimes, pretty big.
From skin tone to ethnicity : no way. A piggy-pink American is undefinable within relevant measure. You can probably recognize a Korean from a Japanese based on appearance but... it doesn't have much use past civility and the proper greetings. "Konichiwa anime manga you like ?"
People are different, everywhere. And differences between people can be "significant" ^^ The funny thing about "significant" is that it doesn't signify anything by itself. It's the emptiest of empty shells.
Ascendency matters and it can be "significant". Yeah, sure, thanks. Some families will be more prone to triggering cardiac conditions, or diabetes, or pretty much anything ranging from insanity to winning a US Open. And what conclusions do we draw from this ? Do we even draw any ?

 

[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.

 

[Senethro]

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.

Lol read your own post! You're framing it as a free speech issue! Its not. You're already free to say it. You are permitted to be impolite and be regarded as impolite.

 

[Berzerker]

where am I? Who are you? What are we arguing about here?

sounds like Admiral Stockdale in the VP debate in '92

 

[brennan]

"I'll tell you what you mean, thank you very much!"

 

[red_elk]

Lol read your own post! You're framing it as a free speech issue!

I don't.
"I think if there are taboo words, they should be taboo for everyone" is not about free speech, it's about discrimination.

 

[Senethro]

No, its not. Its about politeness.

Preventing someone from speaking/participating in society due to their ethnicity is systemic racial discrimination (stated in full because its the kind that matters).

Your political/economic rights are not damaged by being unwilling to say the word when you will be regarded as impolite. Say it, or don't.

Alternatively, make an argument for changing the standards of politeness.

 

[red_elk]

Your political/economic rights are not damaged by being unwilling to say the word when you will be regarded as impolite. Say it, or don't.

I'm not concerned about right to say n-word in public. It's about social norm, when polite/impolite depends on the skin color of the speaker.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not asking if there is a derogatory use of the word, we all know there is. But I am noting that there is a set of social conditions under which the word is used. Sometimes it's acceptable, sometimes it's marginal, and sometimes it's unacceptable. Nine times out of ten, I can easily figure out whether the usage is acceptable or deserves social censure

I'm not discussing the social rule, I only brought it up because it is one that is broadly understood

What I don't have is a name for this set of categories that I'm applying. When I look at the group having the discussion, I'm looking at their [factor] before I figure out how the censure rule is applied.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not concerned about right to say n-word in public. It's about social norm, when polite/impolite depends on the skin color of the speaker.

k, so why should the social norm be changed?

I'm not asking if there is a derogatory use of the word, we all know there is. But I am noting that there is a set of social conditions under which the word is used. Sometimes it's acceptable, sometimes it's marginal, and sometimes it's unacceptable. Nine times out of ten, I can easily figure out whether the usage is acceptable or deserves social censure

I'm not discussing the social rule, I only brought it up because it is one that is broadly understood

What I don't have is a name for this set of categories that I'm applying. When I look at the group having the discussion, I'm looking at their [factor] before I figure out how the censure rule is applied.

My suggestion of Estimated race(abrogated) was completely serious. You don't want something too wieldy because its not intended to be used.

 

[red_elk]

k, so why should the social norm be changed?

It's up to US people, to decide whether they are ok with racist social norms or not.

 

[Senethro]

It's up to US people, to decide whether they are ok with racist social norms or not.

Depends what you mean by racist. Like, having a racist ideology? As a shorthand for racial discrimination? As a shorthand for systemic racial discrimination? The first and third are pretty much always bad, the second needs a demonstrable harm shown. I don't think the first and third are a good fit and you haven't shown a demonstrable harm, so I don't see a reason to act.

Also, consider the optics of white (er(a)) america trying to tell black(er(a)) america not to use a word because its racist. Just think about it. Let me know when you're done.

 

[red_elk]

Also, consider the optics of white (er(a)) america trying to tell black(er(a)) america not to use a word because its racist.

My opinion is that using racist slurs is not ok, even for black people.
Dividing america on black and white is not ok either.

 

[Kyriakos]

No, its not. Its about politeness.

Preventing someone from speaking/participating in society due to their ethnicity is systemic racial discrimination (stated in full because its the kind that matters).

Your political/economic rights are not damaged by being unwilling to say the word when you will be regarded as impolite. Say it, or don't.

Alternatively, make an argument for changing the standards of politeness.

The way things stand, though, it isn't really helpful for black people themselves to keep using the n word all the time (eg rap videos or movies). Imo, anyway.
Can't depower a term if at the same time you identify it as being very powerful if used by non-blacks. I think the approach is problematic, but i do not have a solution. And it should go without saying that even if words go into misuse (as Amazon Queen also noted) a person meaning to term you in a racist way will find a new word if you are sensitive to this.
Having to translate Lovecraft i came across a number of slurs i didn't know existed, and possibly at least some of them are not in use by now

 

[Senethro]

My opinion is that using racist slurs is not ok, even for black people.

why tho
i don't think it fits the definition of harmful racial discrimination

compare - sikhs in uk being allowed to carry knives - racist under your definition but really kind of stupid to care about

Dividing america on black and white is not ok either.

I agree.

 

[red_elk]

why tho
i don't think it fits the definition of harmful racial discrimination

Don't know. Whether racist slurs should be considered harmful racial discrimination or not, is a separate question.