Posted: Fri 30 May 2008 20:28 Post subject: 3.3 Advocacy versus study of racialism
Violations of the rules prohibiting semantic ambiguity (rules about word usage) often spring from debate over who is of which "race." According to the rules, the site's mission is to inform and to become informed about U.S. racialism. And "racialism" is defined in the rules as a belief in the existence of races. "For example: few USAmericans admit to being racists but virtually all USAmericans are demonstrably racialists." (rule 3.3.4) And so, this site is basically a place where people can study how, when, where, and why Americans came to believe in the notion of "races."
What if you sincerely believe in "races" and want to argue that someone is of this or that "race"? Is such a thing allowed? The answer is "no." A moderator might briefly tolerate your presence as a subject of study -- as an example of someone actually suffering from the odd U.S. intellectual pathology. But eventually you will be expelled. The reason is that such a person can contribute nothing. Such a person is either objectively delusional or ignorant of science-as-process. Neither their belief in the reality of their delusion nor their refusal to follow scientific methods can lead anywhere.
Some, who secretly classify others into "races," can manage to contribute as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and argue from logic and facts. But the moment you switch from studying racialism to advocating racialism you will no longer be welcomed in this site.
This most often happens to those who conflate U.S. ethno-political self-identity with post-colonialist sentiment, with sub-Saharan genetic admixture. Some members honestly believe that African Americans (even those with overwhelmingly European genetic admixture and completely Western mores) plus the once-colonized peoples of sub-Saharan Africa form a single "black race." Some even lump impoverished Andaman Islanders, discriminated-against Australian Aborigines, and East Indian Dalits into the vast global "black race." If you express such a belief in this site you will be expelled.
We are here to study the belief in "races," not to advocate it.
When I read the above what I ask is whether racialists of all stripes will be tolerated? For example, to me the only difference between the claims of many ODR supporters and the claims of many multiracialists are the races they wish to legitimize. I truly do not see a qualitative difference between claiming that someone "really is Black," "really is White" or "really is mixed" if said person has chosen an identity label that may not fall in line with what the claimant would accept. All three claims are supported on the notion that the claimant "knows better" about which racial category ought to be "allowed," and that's a huge no-no. All three claims rely on the race notion to legitmize themselves - does it matter how they draw the categories? Not to me. I think they are all intolerable.
The exception is an explicit reference to admixture or ancestry. Although it does amount to holding one's nose and swallowing the racialist categories of Afro-Euro-Asian, at least the focus is on genes/genealogy rather than appearance or self-labeling.
to me the only difference between the claims of many ODR supporters and the claims of many multiracialists are the races they wish to legitimize.
I want to apply the policy to everyone. But there is a difference between ethno-political allegiance and genetic "race."
You may advocate ethno-political affiliation in the two flame-war forums. In those two places (only) you may argue that self-identifying as multiracial will cure baldness and bring world peace (or whatever). And you may argue that choosing to self-identify as Black will similarly bring about wonderful results. (Although you must do both without criticising any individual's self-identity.)
What you may not do is avocate an essentialist "racial" membership based on something other than ethno-political affiliation. For example, to say that two people are of different nationalities, political leanings, and genetic admixture but are the same "race" nonetheless, simply plunges the thread into a semantic death-spiral around the poster's meaning of "race."
And so it would be forbidden to say that someone MUST (or MUST NOT) choose an "xxxx" ethno-political self-identity because their genes are wrong, no matter what label you plug into "xxxx." You may be thinking of when a member says that someone cannot be multiracial because they are too African in looks, or that someone is multiracial, like it or not, because they are not African enough. This policy would disallow such an arguments.
sagascend wrote:
The exception is an explicit reference to admixture or ancestry. Although it does amount to holding one's nose and swallowing the racialist categories of Afro-Euro-Asian, at least the focus is on genes/genealogy rather than appearance or self-labeling.
I do not hold my nose. Historically, those three broad categories are inescapable. The fact is that eleven million Africans and three million Europeans replenished a devastated population of many more millions of Amerinds (Asians) starting five centuries ago. Those are the three great population streams that flowed together to make the New World inhabitants of today. Objectively there are more "races" (variation) within Africa than across the rest of the globe combined. But what molecular anthropologists are trying to do is track the ebb and flow of the eddies consequent to the merging of those three great streams. You and I carry DNA from all three sources, after all, and can be forgiven for wanting to learn more about our ancestors.
What you may not do is avocate an essentialist "racial" membership based on something other than ethno-political affiliation. For example, to say that two people are of different nationalities, political leanings, and genetic admixture but are the same "race" nonetheless simply plunges the thread into a semantic death-spiral around the poster's meaning of "race."
This type of advocacy is what I hope that we can eliminate. Because many USAmericans, indeed people, appear to be incurably racialist I am prety much convinced that behind a lot of the ethno-political talk is a core belief that there are unambiguous essential races that either mix or do not mix. It may be emotionally gratifying, may resonate with personal experience or assuage personal demons but I would never call it valid in any sense other than a sociopolitical sense. It still comes down to whether a poster truly believes that a person has a right to choose his/her own identity or whether there is a category that should be applied to them based on a set of rules. The core value that many flamethrowers seem to share is that personal choice is secondary to "the rules" that ought to apply.
fwsweet wrote:
But what molecular anthropologists are trying to do is track the ebb and flow of the eddies consequent to the merging of those three great streams. You and I carry DNA from all three sources, after all, and can be forgiven for wanting to learn more about our ancestors.
No doubt, and it is vitally important work that has changed the way I look at the world for the better. Still I wonder whether in about 50 years these 3 sources will still be articulated in the same way? My sense is that new and more precise categories will replace them (i.e., the Native American/Central Asian riddle will be solved).
This type of advocacy is what I hope that we can eliminate. Because many USAmericans, indeed people, appear to be incurably racialist I am prety much convinced that behind a lot of the ethno-political talk is a core belief that there are unambiguous essential races that either mix or do not mix.
I cannot agree more. The problem is that if we could somehow expel every member who secretly deep down believes in distinct races, we would be down to you and me, and I am not sure about you. Hell, I am not sure about me. So the best we can do is to forbid overt racialist expression. That may not change everyone's mind, but it should keep discusion productive.
This type of advocacy is what I hope that we can eliminate. Because many USAmericans, indeed people, appear to be incurably racialist I am prety much convinced that behind a lot of the ethno-political talk is a core belief that there are unambiguous essential races that either mix or do not mix.
I cannot agree more. The problem is that if we could somehow expel every member who secretly deep down believes in distinct races, we would be down to you and me, and I am not sure about you. Hell, I am not sure about me. So the best we can do is to forbid overt racialist expression. That may not change everyone's mind, but it should keep discusion productive.
ROTFL!! Well I am sure about both of us and a couple of other people too (but probably just a couple ). If you did have that belief you wouldn't do what you do.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
). If you did have that belief you wouldn't do what you do.