Newswise — Two University of Iowa sociologists suggest that people who are routinely misidentified as members of a racial group to which they do not belong experience high levels of emotional distress and are more likely to contemplate or attempt suicide. Lisa Troyer and Mary Campbell, both sociology professors in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, presented their paper on this topic, "The Implications of Racial Mis-Classification By Observers" Monday, Aug. 14, at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Montreal.
Troyer and Campbell analyzed data collected between 1994 and 2002 for the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which included two measures of racial identification that are crucial to understanding misclassification: the self-reported racial identification of the young adults in the study and the racial identity assigned by an observer.
They found that more than a third of the American Indian youth in the nationally representative sample were mis-labeled by an observer as members of another racial group, while less than 5 percent of white, black and Asian participants in the study were identified incorrectly.
Among the American Indians in the study who were misidentified, 13 percent reported thinking about suicide, compared to only 6 percent of those who were identified correctly. Three percent of the misidentified young people had attempted suicide, while 1 percent who were identified correctly had done so. The misidentified young people were also more likely to be seeing a counselor or therapist (8 percent to 5 percent). They also found that mis-classified American Indians were more likely to participate in organizations that emphasize racial and ethnic identity, perhaps creating connections that help deal with the stress.
"Previous studies of multi-racial Americans have given us anecdotal evidence that constantly having to explain your racial background is stressful for people," Campbell said. "People say 'I'm constantly being asked what I am' and 'I don't fit any of the boxes.' They talk about it as if it is stressful, but until now we didn't have data to support these observations."
This study is the first to document empirical evidence of the stress associated with not being recognized as a member of the racial group with which one identifies.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young American Indians, age 25 - 34 years, and the third leading cause of death among young American Indians age 10 - 24 years," Troyer said. "Standard explanations of suicide do not fully explain the racial gap. Our study offers a new window to understanding this disturbing disparity.
"Adolescence is a critical time in human development, a time when identity becomes crystallized," she continued. "Race is important to identity and when your race is not recognized by others it is stressful."
While the current study is focused on American Indians, Campbell and Troyer note that the increasing multiracial diversity in the United States makes the study potentially applicable to other populations.
Posted: Sun 20 Aug 2006 00:37 Post subject: Racial Misidentification
If it causes such distress to constantly be misidentified, isn't the logical conclusion that identifying as "black" when you don't look it is harzardous to health?
Posted: Sun 20 Aug 2006 21:48 Post subject: Re: Race Misidentification Causes Distress
Charles shared with us the article Race Misidentification Causes Distress (above) relating the research paper of two U. of Iowa sociology professors, Lisa Troyer and Mary Campbell. The gist of their research on American Indian-identifying adolescents was; being misidentified by others -- "that constantly having to explain your racial background" -- was stressful. It might contribute to their higher suicide rate.
Lisa Troyer wrote:
"Race is important to identity and when your race is not recognized by others it is stressful."
Troyer and Campbell freely generalize their research evidence from depression and suicide-prone young Indians; they make global pronouncements on the "importance" (reality?) of constructed "groups" which we call "the different races." There seems to be a sub-theme in their publication which (a) cautions against interracial marriages; (b) warns against a multiracial identity or departures from hypodescent, ODR "race-attribution" thinking; (c) implicitly proposes that people resort to sewing identity-patches on their clothing (e.g., something similar to the Nazi-ordered yellow stars which WWII era European Jews were forced to sew on), that way eliminating viewer uncertainty. Or (d), Troyer and Campbell may be pushing "All of the above" for their correct answer?
I did not see any thought from the paper by Troyer and Campbell of possibly a different, better solution: (a) Racially ambiguous children might be counseled to embrace Multiracial as their true identity, one that their racial appearance will square with.
A.D. Powell wrote:
If it causes such distress to constantly be misidentified, isn't the logical conclusion that identifying as "black" when you don't look it is harzardous to health?
Ms. Powell brings to mind solution (b) -- "White" -- an identity whose time has arrived for getting its much needed expansion. I think many people's stress will be relieved by successfully becoming "white" or "white-multiracial." One such person who I know well is my son. He points to the word "ethnicity" always printed on "what is your race" questionnaire forms nowadays, and he explains (in Virginia, where he is serving in the U.S. Navy) that it means there plainly is more than one way to be "White."
My Shoes (web site doesn't seem to have been updated in 4 yrs)\
http://www.myshoes.com/myshoes.html
"is a support group in cyberspace hosted by clinical psychologist Dr. Juanita Brooks for multiracial children, adolescents and adults who have a white appearance."
Jessica Harrison, to My Shoes wrote:
...I am half Japanese and half Caucasion and I too, "look all white"...it's every other day that someone asks "What are you?"...Sometimes when I tell people my racial heritage they still say, "Yeah but you're really White." I guess they didn't hear me.
To give Dr. Brooks her due, other posters displayed on her home page describe responses to ambiguity in their looks. Not everyone hears the reassurance (implied acceptance?) Jessica receives, that they're "really White." Hispanic Americans have argued the point for years (successfully). Why can't Dr. Brook's march her patients advancing along this well-traveled path that was blazed long ago by Latinos, Arab-Americans, also by Armenians, Jews, and many others? Even German-Americans once were racial probationers here. Dr. Benjamin Franklin, no less, thought (we) Germans were too dark-skinned, were "unassimilable."
Young American Indians may have more complex issues then merely not being "eyeball"-labeled correctly by their "redskin race." I think it is a far jump to generalize from Indian-identifying youth to "all races." One salient fear driving young Indians surely must be the "blood quantum" rules for tribal membership. "Wrong blood" running in their own veins threatens their expulsion from their own tribe -- exclusion from their parents' home of ethnic community. Clearly the same fear must weigh on their minds when out dating. "Wrong love," choice of marital partner amounts, for them, to conviction of anti-miscegenation "felony law" should their marriage result in their own children being expelled from the tribe. Some identity-political force struggles to keep Indian isolationism alive, held back from its birthright of nationwide American citizenship. Learned sociology professors could revisit that problem impacting identity-sanguinity of young Americans who have "Indian blood."
George
But not everyone wants to be labelled white. If someone who has a white phenotype but identifies equally or moreso with her Asian, African, or Native American ancestry, why should she have the right to claim her affiliation to that group as well? Dr. Brooks was clearly showing that she did not want to be "really white" since it wasn't her identity. The filmmakers Eric Byler and Greg Pak are biracial Americans with Asian and white ancestry. They have white phenotypes but identify more with their Asian heritage and identify as Asian-American. Their works "Charlotte Sometimes," "Americanese" and "Robot Stories" reflect this.
Is there something wrong with this? Shouldn't people be able to self-identify.
As for broadening who can be white, what does this mean? Is it about being part of "tribe" or just increasing those who can take part in the White Privilege system?
That said, if someone believes in the so-called California Racial Privacy Act, one would assume that person wouldn't believe in any kind of races, much less broadening the definition of whiteness.
Posted: Fri 25 Aug 2006 05:44 Post subject: What is wrong with spreading out "white privilege"?
Triguy wrote:
(I)f someone believes in the so-called California Racial Privacy Act, one would assume that person wouldn't believe in any kind of races, much less broadening the definition of whiteness.
Has Triguy forgotten there is a human race? Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative was not out to extinguishing the species. RPI sought to address the problem of fictitious "different races" constructed by government classifying individuals in proto-endogamous castes.
The way things are, it is not helpful to walk away from the problem muttering that "no" government-classified "races" makes for a better idea. Anyway, effective deconstruction of "races" clearly requires abolition of the One Drop "rule" (ODR). The ODR constructed "white" to be "unmixed," "pure." (Albeit "white" Hispanic and Arab peoples seem inexplicably unthreatening to "whites," who the propaganda machine paints as racial purity fanatics.) Our U.S. immutable "races" require the ODR. Its device is necessary for the delusion of "difference" where no visual color-boundary line can be located. Conversely, the ODR, hypodescent and such devices operating the last few centuries undeniably have caste the U.S. bimodal in our racial hues, unlike any other country.
Triguy wrote:
As for broadening who can be white, what does this mean? Is it about being part of "tribe" or just increasing those who can take part in the White Privilege system?
My suggestion was, if the decision is perfectly balanced, all things being equal, then I advise anyone to choose "white" identity. The purpose is deliberately to help in breaking up the hypodescent, ODR immutable "difference" caste system. Not everyone supports this goal, ending racism effectively. But why should people with identity-choice be pressured to think of themselves being not good enough to be White, as their ancestors were?
Triguy wrote:
But not everyone wants to be labelled white. ... []
Is there something wrong with this? Shouldn't people be able to self-identify.
Triguy borders on the disingenuous representing "white" identity here in language of compulsion, or denial of choice. Has Triguy heard of hypodescent? The ODR? There exists compulsion and denial of choice (pressure aplenty) -- for "black" -- and increasingly for each of the census "non-white race" identities. (See OMB Bulletin 00-02 People such as Dr. Juanita Brooks of My Shoes collaborate (she doesn't resist racism) by proclaiming, essentially, the ODR taints them; they aren't good enough to be "white"; and pretend they're disowned by nearly all of their own ancestors. Brooks seems to be supporting the ODR establishment that imposes invisible "colored race" on obviously "white" people. Brooks complains because racially naive "whites" mistake her for one themselves. Brooks's tears, real or crocodile, push racially ambiguous, contradictory people under the rug of hypodescent ODR concealment. I found the same at Hapa Issues Forum -- trying to brainwash Eurasian college students into "Tragic Mulattoes" of Asian yellow hue.
So what is wrong with "white privilege"? Why not "broaden[] the definition of whiteness"?
My suggestion was for everyone who can to claim "white privilege." Mexicans unhesitatingly take the cue. They came for many decades claiming "white privilege." They, also Arabs, who will draw up incensed at any suggestion the ODR might apply to them show no qualms about rejecting "black" and lining up (or, line-jumping) for their "white privilege." Anyway, my theory is that movement should proceed in the direction of "white privilege" for all (& more U.S. citizens, too). My suggestion sharply contrasts with Noel Ignitive's Race Traitor, and the other, similar White Guilt trippers, who I think advocate socialist totalitarianism -- racial "equality" as scum residue left behind after all "white privileges" are torn away.
Contrary to Triguy's implying that "whiteness" somehow is oppressively forced on Dr. Brooks and the other individuals named, who naturally are sometimes mistaken for White, the far worse pressuring that many people feel comes from hypodescent and the ODR. Why should we not resist this by supporting White identity, on balance? Some people do want to enjoy some "white privilege." Why shouldn't they? Their choice erodes away racial classification "rules."
George
Has Triguy forgotten there is a human race? Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative was not out to extinguishing the species. RPI sought to address the problem of fictitious "different races" constructed by government classifying individuals in proto-endogamous castes.
Uh, this makes no sense. If Winkel believes that races are "ficticious" then why would he want to increase the acceptance of people into a "fictitious" category. Why not include people in a category of faries, trolls, and vampires? As for there being a "human race," it's actually the "human species," homo sapiens.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_race
Winwinkel wrote:
Quote:
My suggestion was, if the decision is perfectly balanced, all things being equal, then I advise anyone to choose "white" identity. The purpose is deliberately to help in breaking up the hypodescent, ODR immutable "difference" caste system. Not everyone supports this goal, ending racism effectively. But why should people with identity-choice be pressured to think of themselves being not good enough to be White, as their ancestors were?
But how does more inclusion of people into being considered "white" end racism? Latin America has such a system but it has done nothing to end the effects of racism. One drop of white blood may make someone white in Brazil but racism still exists as does colorism. Indigenous Brazillians and darker-skinned mulattos and blacks still face considerable racism there.
In the U.S., the acceptance of some Hispanics and Arabs who have white skin may have been beneficial for them but the effects of racism by their inclusion into whiteness has done nothing to eleviate racism against African-identified Americans or other people of color. Doesn't the revocation of the "white card" for Arabs and South Asians as a result of post-9/11 show that the fluidity of whiteness does nothing to end bigotry?
Winwinkel wrote:
Quote:
Triguy borders on the disingenuous representing "white" identity here in language of compulsion, or denial of choice. Has Triguy heard of hypodescent? The ODR? There exists compulsion and denial of choice (pressure aplenty) -- for "black" -- and increasingly for each of the census "non-white race" identities. (See OMB Bulletin 00-02 People such as Dr. Juanita Brooks of My Shoes collaborate (she doesn't resist racism) by proclaiming, essentially, the ODR taints them; they aren't good enough to be "white"; and pretend they're disowned by nearly all of their own ancestors. Brooks seems to be supporting the ODR establishment that imposes invisible "colored race" on obviously "white" people. Brooks complains because racially naive "whites" mistake her for one themselves. Brooks's tears, real or crocodile, push racially ambiguous, contradictory people under the rug of hypodescent ODR concealment. I found the same at Hapa Issues Forum -- trying to brainwash Eurasian college students into "Tragic Mulattoes" of Asian yellow hue.
How does a rejection of a white identity mean that someone does not feel good enough to be white? Winwinkel reflects an outdated and insulting line of thinking that believes that there is something better about being considered white vs. Asian or black. Because someone who has a white phenotype does not wish to label himself as white does not denote an inferiority complex. Doesn't believing so steal away someone's right to have equal admiration or affection for another ancestry?
Winwinkel wrote:
Quote:
My suggestion was for everyone who can to claim "white privilege."
How does giving more people unfair and discriminatory rights better the human condition? Would it be a better world if all brown-eyed people in America automatically got higher wages, better employment opportunities, and an easier time in dealing with the justice system than blue-eyed people? There are more brown-eyed people in the U.S. so that would mean of course that more people were treated well. So, who cares if the minority blue-eyed people suffer discrimination?
Quote:
Contrary to Triguy's implying that "whiteness" somehow is oppressively forced on Dr. Brooks and the other individuals named, who naturally are sometimes mistaken for White, the far worse pressuring that many people feel comes from hypodescent and the ODR.
Au contraire, I implied no such thing. You inferred such. My belief is that people should be able to self-identify as they choose. As for the ODR, hasn't its rule been greatly diminished in the U.S.? If the ODR is so strong in the U.S., let's say amongst African-Americans, then why are so many predominately African-American Internet sites populated with people who are more than happy to say biracial people like Mariah Carey or Halle Berry, for instance, are not "really black"? It's well known that Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain has African ancestry, but I have yet to see anyone in American label her as black. It's also known that Heather Lochlear, and Carol Channing and Vin Diesel but none of them has been forced to call herself black.
If the promise of the United States is to have a land where all are equal, white privilege is, by definition, anti-thetical to the ideal.
No bio-race has ever been identified in Homo sapiens. See The Rules paragraph B.4. Biologically speaking, the species today has only one subspecies, variety, breed or "race." If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
triguy wrote:
But how does more inclusion of people into being considered "white" end racism? Latin America has such a system but it has done nothing to end the effects of racism. One drop of white blood may make someone white in Brazil but racism still exists as does colorism. Indigenous Brazillians and darker-skinned mulattos and blacks still face considerable racism there.
You are evidently using a non-standard definition of "racism." See The Rules paragraph B.4. It appears that you may mean "colorism." If you are not using the term "racism" in the standard way as defined in The Rules paragraph B.4, then please explain precisely what you mean by the word. If you are using the term "racism" in the standard way as defined in The Rules paragraph B.4, then please present evidence for the phenomenon.
No bio-race has ever been identified in Homo sapiens. See The Rules paragraph B.4. Biologically speaking, the species today has only one subspecies, variety, breed or "race." If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Uh, that's exactly what I've said. There is no such thing as the human race as Winwinkel wrote. There is only homo sapiens, a species. There is no such thing biologically as race. You didn't read Winwinkel's comment did you?
triguy wrote:
But how does more inclusion of people into being considered "white" end racism? Latin America has such a system but it has done nothing to end the effects of racism. One drop of white blood may make someone white in Brazil but racism still exists as does colorism. Indigenous Brazillians and darker-skinned mulattos and blacks still face considerable racism there.
You are evidently using a non-standard definition of "racism." See The Rules paragraph B.4. It appears that you may mean "colorism." If you are not using the term "racism" in the standard way as defined in The Rules paragraph B.4, then please explain precisely what you mean by the word. If you are using the term "racism" in the standard way as defined in The Rules paragraph B.4, then please present evidence for the phenomenon.
Was the above collection of links meant to be in response to my request? If so, it is grossly non-responsive. Take it one step at a time. Are you or are you not using the site-standard definition of racism? Just answer that. Yes or no.
No bio-race has ever been identified in Homo sapiens. See The Rules paragraph B.4. Biologically speaking, the species today has only one subspecies, variety, breed or "race." If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Uh, that's exactly what I've said. There is no such thing as the human race as Winwinkel wrote. There is only homo sapiens, a species. There is no such thing biologically as race. You didn't read Winwinkel's comment did you?
I would not recommend Triguy's betting his rent money that Frank didn't read my post.
Triguy states flatly that "There is no such thing biologically as race." Is this a defensible position? Supporting argument, authority would be nice.
The word "race," not surprisingly, evokes "roots," a common-sense concept depicting the geometric spread of genealogical ancestry (extending back), and of course, this recognition is of great antiquity. What is "no such thing" or "non-biological" about the principle that all individuals have parents -- about the existence of ancestry? How is the word "race" not simply and accurately a word for ancestry? In particular, "race" must be a word for shared ancestries of two or more people. Dr. C. Loring Brace, for Nova, PBS television, characterized race as "family resemblance writ large." The same principle of recognizing our own human species in a sense of "family," and even the phrase "human race" are of great antiquity. If "race" names the genetic sharing of two or more individuals in the sense of family resemblance, regardless the remoteness of their common ancestor, then what principle prevents including the whole human race in the race? In set theory, is there any rule against the existence of the all-inclusive subset of all?
I see much usefulness in the human race as viewpoint, very distinct from the notion of our species, Homo sapiens. This "subset of all" is not needless redundancy.
Species is the basic unit of Linnaean binary taxonomy (not "subspecies," since these are arbitrary and species are necessary). Species identify an instantaneous view of each breeding population. (Analogous to a census.) Race is the concept which looks in the direction of evolutionary origins. (Analogous to family trees extended to merge, genetically uniting all members of the species.) Human race and species Homo sapiens both include the same set; but their viewpoints are at right angles to one another. Again, species flash-pictures a breeding population like taking a census. Race, turned at right angles to species, describes the viewpoint of geneticists and evolutionary biologists, tracing ancestral origins.
I believe Charles Darwin himself was on top of all these ideas that I've set out above. This is clear in his book, The Descent of Man (London: Down, Beckenham, Kent Co., 1874), which is available online at URL:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt
George
No bio-race has ever been identified in Homo sapiens. See The Rules paragraph B.4. Biologically speaking, the species today has only one subspecies, variety, breed or "race." If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Uh, that's exactly what I've said. There is no such thing as the human race as Winwinkel wrote. There is only homo sapiens, a species. There is no such thing biologically as race. You didn't read Winwinkel's comment did you?
I would not recommend Triguy's betting his rent money that Frank didn't read my post.
Triguy states flatly that "There is no such thing biologically as race." Is this a defensible position? Supporting argument, authority would be nice.
The word "race," not surprisingly, evokes "roots," a common-sense concept depicting the geometric spread of genealogical ancestry (extending back), and of course, this recognition is of great antiquity. What is "no such thing" or "non-biological" about the principle that all individuals have parents -- about the existence of ancestry? How is the word "race" not simply and accurately a word for ancestry? In particular, "race" must be a word for shared ancestries of two or more people. Dr. C. Loring Brace, for Nova, PBS television, characterized race as "family resemblance writ large." The same principle of recognizing our own human species in a sense of "family," and even the phrase "human race" are of great antiquity. If "race" names the genetic sharing of two or more individuals in the sense of family resemblance, regardless the remoteness of their common ancestor, then what principle prevents including the whole human race in the race? In set theory, is there any rule against the existence of the all-inclusive subset of all?
I see much usefulness in the human race as viewpoint, very distinct from the notion of our species, Homo sapiens. This "subset of all" is not needless redundancy.
Species is the basic unit of Linnaean binary taxonomy (not "subspecies," since these are arbitrary and species are necessary). Species identify an instantaneous view of each breeding population. (Analogous to a census.) Race is the concept which looks in the direction of evolutionary origins. (Analogous to family trees extended to merge, genetically uniting all members of the species.) Human race and species Homo sapiens both include the same set; but their viewpoints are at right angles to one another. Again, species flash-pictures a breeding population like taking a census. Race, turned at right angles to species, describes the viewpoint of geneticists and evolutionary biologists, tracing ancestral origins.
I believe Charles Darwin himself was on top of all these ideas that I've set out above. This is clear in his book, The Descent of Man (London: Down, Beckenham, Kent Co., 1874), which is available online at URL:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt
George
George,
Your attachment to the word race says more than I could ever say about your state of mine, well the word creepy does come to mind. Speaking of PBS, you might want to visit its site where there is an informative section called "Race--The Power of an Illusion."
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm
Posted: Mon 28 Aug 2006 03:20 Post subject: Re: Does one practical human race exist?
triguy wrote:
Your attachment to the word race says more than I could ever say about your state of mine, well the word creepy does come to mind.
Actually, I think that you are both on the same page, although you are focusing on different aspects.
Speaking biologically (compared to other primates), humans are as alike as peas in a pod. This is because we almost became extinct about 85 kya, when our population was reduced to only a few thousand individuals, so everyone alive descends from those survivors. As I understand triguy's point, this means that our species is unusual in that it has no varieties, breeds, subspecies or "races" in a biological sense. This is correct. But as I understand George's point, the same fact means that our species was reduced to just one surviving variety, breed, subspecies or "race" and that we are it. This is also correct. Whether you describe our odd lack of genetic clustering as having "no races" or as everyone being of "the same race" depends on your rhetorical point.
The fact is that the "race" notion (in a social out-group sense) is ubiquitous and exceedingly powerful in the U.S., even though it is not supported biologically. By seeing our species as having "no races," triguy seems to be deconstructing the social "race" notion. By seeing our species as all being of the same biological race, George seems to be enlisting the power of the "race" notion itself to advocate embracing all of humanity.
Posted: Mon 28 Aug 2006 03:39 Post subject: Deconstructing "race"
I see George's position as deconstructing "race" because, if we acknowledge one human race, we have essentially denied race as most Americans understand the term. If everyone is of the same "race," then there are no "races." If everyone is "white," then no one is "white." There must be an opposite "race" in order for the word to have any power.
Posted: Mon 28 Aug 2006 04:38 Post subject: Re: Does one practical human race exist?
fwsweet wrote:
triguy wrote:
Your attachment to the word race says more than I could ever say about your state of mine, well the word creepy does come to mind.
Actually, I think that you are both on the same page, although you are focusing on different aspects.
Speaking biologically (compared to other primates), humans are as alike as peas in a pod. This is because we almost became extinct about 85 kya, when our population was reduced to only a few thousand individuals, so everyone alive descends from those survivors. As I understand triguy's point, this means that our species is unusual in that it has no varieties, breeds, subspecies or "races" in a biological sense. This is correct. But as I understand George's point, the same fact means that our species was reduced to just one surviving variety, breed, subspecies or "race" and that we are it. This is also correct. Whether you describe our odd lack of genetic clustering as having "no races" or as everyone being of "the same race" depends on your rhetorical point.
The fact is that the "race" notion (in a social out-group sense) is ubiquitous and exceedingly powerful in the U.S., even though it is not supported biologically. By seeing our species as having "no races," triguy seems to be deconstructing the social "race" notion. By seeing our species as all being of the same biological race, George seems to be enlisting the power of the "race" notion itself to advocate embracing all of humanity.
At least, that is what it looks like to me.
But that's not what George said in terms of his view of more people becoming white and being allowed white privilege.
Winwinkel (George) wrote:
Quote:
So what is wrong with "white privilege"? Why not "broaden[] the definition of whiteness"?
My suggestion was for everyone who can to claim "white privilege."
Again, George's words are about choosing a discriminatory right as oppose to wanting to be recognized as just a member of an ethnic tribe (like Irish, German, etc.) per se. Adding additional people to Club White Privilege does nothing to engender an all encompassing identity as "human" instead of a member of an elite group of humans.
FWSWEET wrote:
Quote:
No bio-race has ever been identified in Homo sapiens.
Again, science says that there is no such thing as race as you agreed, Frank. Therefore, why continue to use a word that is as loaded and capriciously used as race? Why not just say humanity, which comprises ALL homo sapiens, or mankind (though it does have a sexist connotation)? There are no subspecies of homo sapiens walking the Earth (unless you believe in homo sapiens vampiri . White Privilege is about being a part of psuedo aristocracy, born or allowed to join a group of humans who are recognized for being better and deserving of more rights and benefits not through merit but through luck, subjugation and oppression.
Posted: Tue 29 Aug 2006 17:21 Post subject: Re: What is "Whiteness"?
triguy wrote:
Winwinkel (George) wrote:
Quote:
So what is wrong with "white privilege"? Why not "broaden[] the definition of whiteness"?
My suggestion was for everyone who can to claim "white privilege."
triguy wrote:
White Privilege is about being a part of psuedo aristocracy, born or allowed to join a group of humans who are recognized for being better and deserving of more rights and benefits not through merit but through luck, subjugation and oppression.
I do not promote discrimination or elitism. Is Triguy implying that everyone born into the "white" group is thereby culpable for it (guilty) unless and until they renounce their "whiteness," as Dr. Juanita Brooks and the Race Traitor et al. folks do? Are Brooks, et al. the only non-oppressive, guiltless "whites" -- to Triguy -- and only by disowning themselves in the sense of claiming (by hypodescent, ODR "rules") "really" to be some other "color" essentially (i.e., by invisible "race" essence)?
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), finally ended the legal basis for this notion of "white privilege" that Triguy describes as "psuedo aristocracy." Loving, abolishing the former "anti-miscegenation" laws, also ended legal support for the notion of exclusive "races." People self-identify their "races" now. No formal policing mechanism I know of stops anyone identifying "white," not since 1967. The ODR, too, lost its legal enforcement to the Loving Court. The ODR today is imposed by social pressures, such as Triguy's insistent arguments here. In most parts of the U.S.A. today, "white" people do not butt into other people's racial-identity choices. Therefore, I think I can truthfully say that "Soul Patrol" self-appointed enforcers of the ODR today maintain both of its aspects, now in the wake of Loving. They police "white purity," and they also try to enforce the stigmatizing "any black blood" Jim Crow definition of who is "black." I doubt most "white" people today know what the ODR is, or care.
The main engine of our "racism"-obsessive culture wars (denouncing "whiteness," calling it "guilty" for unearned "privileges," etc.) is Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960). This decision set up today's entrenched resistance to stopping government classification of individuals' "races" and doing all of the things sufficient for dissolving the color line; ending its tyranny of endogamy. Gomillion gave birth to "majority minority" voting districts, as these can be gerrymandered from census data. On an unconscionably racialist basis, Gomillion forbade "white" census gerrymandering; and Gomillion did not ban "non-white" "race"-based political organizing. Gomillion, was the first Affirmative Action, as we now recognize Government transferring benefits on the basis of "races" (pure racialism) from "white majority" to census-"minority" classes of persons (i.e., mainly to the more privileged of "minorities," who can work the system). Wouldn't other catch phrases -- as "academic privilege" -- make more sense as Triguy decries "psuedo aristocracy"?
Will Triguy please explain to us how this census "races" Balkanizing -- the actual political motivation condemning "white privilege" -- will make U.S. society better?
triguy wrote:
Again, George's words are about choosing a discriminatory right as oppose to wanting to be recognized as just a member of an ethnic tribe (like Irish, German, etc.) per se. Adding additional people to Club White Privilege does nothing to engender an all encompassing identity as "human" instead of a member of an elite group of humans.
I have not advocated any discrimination. Triguy comes up with this idea that anyone's "white" identity-choice equates with "a discriminatory right." How, in Triguy's mind, is this rectified if a person wants membership in "an ethnic tribe (like Irish, German, etc.)? The "tribes" Triguy names would be socially recognized as "white." But how is "tribalism" a less "discriminatory right"? Aren't "ethnic tribes" recognizably more exclusionary (if not elitist) than the generic mutt (like me) U.S. American notion of "white person" is?
fwsweet wrote:
The fact is that the "race" notion (in a social out-group sense) is ubiquitous and exceedingly powerful in the U.S., even though it is not supported biologically. By seeing our species as having "no races," triguy seems to be deconstructing the social "race" notion. By seeing our species as all being of the same biological race, George seems to be enlisting the power of the "race" notion itself to advocate embracing all of humanity.[]
I agree with Frank Sweet's reading of Triguy and me. And I like A.D. Powell's comment (below). I like Frank's reference to the power in the "race" notion itself.
I believe I see disconnect between Frank's meaning of the phrase "no races" and Triguy's. I think Frank means no evidence subdividing our Homo sapiens (our species) supports classifying any of the five census "races." (Or any other, "races" either.) By contrast, I think Triguy's "no races" imply an absurd absolute zero common ancestry position -- one applied selectively, only for scolding other people's commentary on racial matters, while Triguy applies no such gag-order to himself.
Powell wrote:
I see George's position as deconstructing "race" because, if we acknowledge one human race, we have essentially denied race as most Americans understand the term. If everyone is of the same "race," then there are no "races." If everyone is "white," then no one is "white." There must be an opposite "race" in order for the word to have any power. definition of whiteness"?
How does Triguy define "whiteness" that is not merely a frank, neutral --
(a) description of an individual's regional racial phenotype;
(b) indication of the ethnic household one grew up in;
(c) declaration of one's most numerous social peer group;
(d) announcement of one's assimilation/integration in the U.S. Mainstream; or,
(e)) rejection of the hypodescent, ODR "rules" classifying "races," which Government classifies individuals in as "opposites"?
George
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Tue 29 Aug 2006 19:25 Post subject: Re: Deconstructing "race"
Powell wrote:
There must be an opposite "race" in order for the word to have any power.
Do words have power, or do people give them power?
If a non-white person in America acknowledges one human race, saying everyone is of the same "race," and I am "white": to whom do they report this? Where do non-whites display their I’m "white" badge...when applying for positions, driving the highways, and boarding planes?
Last edited by Altertude on Tue 29 Aug 2006 19:37; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Tue 29 Aug 2006 19:36 Post subject: Re: What is "Whiteness"?
winwinkel wrote:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), finally ended the legal basis for this notion of "white privilege" that Triguy describes as "psuedo aristocracy." Loving, abolishing the former "anti-miscegenation" laws, also ended legal support for the notion of exclusive "races." People self-identify their "races" now. No formal policing mechanism I know of stops anyone identifying "white," not since 1967.
As always an informative and indepth post. It must be my ignorance of the relevant laws or their everyday impact, but something again seems to be glossed over. One or two remarks if I may.
It's clear to see winwinkel and triguy have different ideas about what constitutes “white priviledge". According to winwinkel, "white privilege" is about "whites" not being allowed to marry “blacks”. That is what U.S slavery of mostly black people was about--anti-miscegenation. All that occured from around the 1800s to 1967 is that “whites” couldn’t marry “blacks”, and “blacks” couldn't marry "whites", and Indians couldn’t live in peace. Though in Alabama and Louisiana, as fwsweet’s essays will tell you, they had two endogamous color lines separating three groups: White, Colored, and Black.
But overall in the U.S, there just happen to be two seperate endogamous groups and one group had more people, that is probably why they are the dominant group today, with a political system which preserves that groups worldwiew accepted all around the world at all your favorite established nations.
What I’m hearing is that non-whites should tick white on their application forms, and all will be right. Interesting concept.
But wait a minute, if Loving v. Virginia ended the legal basis for "white privilege" does that mean it also opened the door to "black privilege", the privilede of supporting a racist law and custom?
"Whiteness" studies was begun by people who said they were white. People who recognised other people who they classified as white. If we want to know about "whiteness", seems only logical to ask a white person, what does a white person do that a non-white person doesn't do?
Posted: Sun 03 Sep 2006 02:24 Post subject: Re: What is "Whiteness"?
Altertude wrote:
What I’m hearing is that non-whites should tick white on their application forms, and all will be right.
The point of this thread seems in danger of being lost.
The United States of America has two concepts: "black" people, and Black identity. The U.S. default state is "white"-White. Confusion has reigned ever since the first legislation of the "one drop rule" (ODR) in 1910, its subsequent spread and entrenchment in the American psyche. The ODR ruled that totally "white" phenotype could mean Black identity for some. My argument is, it is time for the ODR regime to end. (Time for regime-change.) For this I counsel "white" people to identify White. I support regime-change because the "difference" maintained by the ODR between "the races" supports unconscionable social inequality -- actually an atrocious caste system. I think this U.S. caste system should be broken up.
I deliberately choose not to define who is "white." The ODR that I want to see overthrown is a socially resuscitated fragment from the Jim Crow racial "integrity" laws which once enforced racial segregation. Outlawing interracial marriage ("anti-miscegenation" -- 1st enacted in Va. Colony 1691) was the original foundation of "races" and segregation. And outlawing intermarriage was necessary for defining practical "different races," ones able to last for more than a few generations. How could "different races" make any sense without endogamy and extended "family resemblance writ large"? The ODR ostensibly defines two "different races." It does so in terms of "none" and "any." It occurred to me that socially repealing the ODR (Loving v. Virginia Court overturned its law in 1967), needs people defying the ODR's premise. Thus, "white" people who identify White defy the ODR. Now, since the ODR's definitions -- "none" and "any" -- are key to who is "white"-Black or "black"-Black, and since no laws stand guard anymore over who is "white" or White, therefore it is a judgment call, I think, for each individual to decide when they personally should be White.
Altertude's errant post rambles, and I can't be quite sure what more to explain? But to me the fact that no bright line of "difference" divides absolute "white" from absolute "black" (except in the ODR's hypnotic trance), makes me think no "races" exist but our common human race. (Another viewpoint for looking at ourselves is the taxonomic classification Homo sapiens, our species, which Triguy mentioned.) If we jettison the census classifications of us in "colored" "races" then wouldn't we all default to equal membership in our shared human race -- folk who can be any "color"? But we discover there is political resistance to this solution! It turns out that the ODR has political support, as if a life of its own. Therefore, combating the ODR seems to call for resistance, for tactics that work. Trying to win regime-change by insurgency this way, by the combined action of many individuals, I counseled "white" people to identify White in defiance of the ODR. Again, it is up to everyone to decide for themselves when they are "white." I can think of other identity strategies which will help win victory, too. However, complying with the ODR empowers it; complying does not resist the ODR.
Who defends keeping the census classifying "races"? Why? Who defends White over Black, or Blumenbach's 18th-Century taxonomy? How should "white" and "black" skin-tones be recognized? Is Black the "real race" of people who do not look "black"? Is maintaining the U.S.'s caste system, its intolerable inequality and persistent endogamy, justified by someone's aim to get even? ("Reparations"?) How will "black" get equal to White without seizing ground by conquest? (E.g., by harshly enforcing the ODR? Virtually all Latinos and 1/3rd of Whites have "black blood.") How is that not Balkanizing? How is Balkanization good? I only proposed equality, finally (not more Govt. "leveling the playing field"), for people with dark skin-tones.
George
Posted: Sun 03 Sep 2006 07:12 Post subject: Re: What is "Whiteness"?
winwinkel wrote:
triguy wrote:
Winwinkel (George) wrote:
Quote:
So what is wrong with "white privilege"? Why not "broaden[] the definition of whiteness"?
My suggestion was for everyone who can to claim "white privilege."
triguy wrote:
White Privilege is about being a part of psuedo aristocracy, born or allowed to join a group of humans who are recognized for being better and deserving of more rights and benefits not through merit but through luck, subjugation and oppression.
I do not promote discrimination or elitism. Is Triguy implying that everyone born into the "white" group is thereby culpable for it (guilty) unless and until they renounce their "whiteness," as Dr. Juanita Brooks and the Race Traitor et al. folks do? Are Brooks, et al. the only non-oppressive, guiltless "whites" -- to Triguy -- and only by disowning themselves in the sense of claiming (by hypodescent, ODR "rules") "really" to be some other "color" essentially (i.e., by invisible "race" essence)?
Again, this is Winwinkel's obsession with hypodescence and the ODR. No where did I imply a belief in the ODR. Winwinkel continues to infer that which was not implied to satisfyy his retro views that everyone must be a part of a binary racial world where being white is the goal of all humans. Not everyone suffers from such an inferiority complex. Why is being Chinese or Japanese or Native American or African or mixed any less desirable than being white?!
George, don't you get it? There are over a billion Chinese people in China who could care less about being white!
As for white privilege, because someone rejects white privilege has nothing to do with someone's appreciation of her heritage. How does someone saying she is white but doesn't want to benefit by the oppression of others automatically show support of the ODR? Moreover, if someone chooses to identify as multiracial instead of white, why is this person suddenly a race traitor in Winwinkel's eye? Winwinkel believes that someone is defective if she chooses to identify as Eurasian or mulatto if that person has a white phenotype. Gee, how dare someone not choose to live her life as Winwinkel sees fit.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), finally ended the legal basis for this notion of "white privilege" that Triguy describes as "psuedo aristocracy." Loving, abolishing the former "anti-miscegenation" laws, also ended legal support for the notion of exclusive "races." People self-identify their "races" now. No formal policing mechanism I know of stops anyone identifying "white," not since 1967. The ODR, too, lost its legal enforcement to the Loving Court. The ODR today is imposed by social pressures, such as Triguy's insistent arguments here. In most parts of the U.S.A. today, "white" people do not butt into other people's racial-identity choices. Therefore, I think I can truthfully say that "Soul Patrol" self-appointed enforcers of the ODR today maintain both of its aspects, now in the wake of Loving. They police "white purity," and they also try to enforce the stigmatizing "any black blood" Jim Crow definition of who is "black." I doubt most "white" people today know what the ODR is, or care.
Again, Winwinkel tries desperately to insist that I believe in the ODR because I don't subscribe to his beliefs. Winwinkel also chooses to disbelieve that white privilege does exist, as if institutional and societal racism disappeared with Loving v. Virginia. Did the 40-plus years of the GOP's use of the Southern Strategy not show that institutional racism was alive and well in America? As for Winwinkel's disgusting use of the phrase "Soul Patrol," that says a lot about his thinking than I could ever think to say. Pray tell who are the members of this "Soul Patrol"? Do they have badges an office?
Winwinkel, which prominent African-American periodical has most recently enforced the ODR? It's widely known because of PBS.org that Carol Channing, Heather Lochlear and Queen Elizabeth II have African ancestry but I've never seen them celebrated as being "black"? The late Jackie Onassis was also identified as having African ancestry but neither she nor her children have been heralded as being the newest member(s) of black America. Wentworth Miller is one of the most prominent Americans who identifies as biracial and stars as a white character on TV. I have never read an article in "Ebony" or "Jet" magazine that described him as the hottest black actor on TV. But, according to Winwinkel, Wentworth Miller suffers from an inferiority complex because he self-identifies as mixed- race instead of white.
Rejection of white privilege isn't about denying anyone's heritage, it's about rejecting bigotry and oppression. Connecting rejection of white privilege with support of the ODR is illogical since ending white privilege and rejecting the ODR are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, I thought a large part of the multiracial movement is for individuals to be able to self-identify as they choose without having to worry about someone like Winwinkel imposing an identity they don't choose. Silly me! I should have known that rejecting the ODR is only a good thing if someone chooses to identify as white but is verbotten if someone chooses to label himself as mixed?
The main engine of our "racism"-obsessive culture wars (denouncing "whiteness," calling it "guilty" for unearned "privileges," etc.) is Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960). This decision set up today's entrenched resistance to stopping government classification of individuals' "races" and doing all of the things sufficient for dissolving the color line; ending its tyranny of endogamy. Gomillion gave birth to "majority minority" voting districts, as these can be gerrymandered from census data. On an unconscionably racialist basis, Gomillion forbade "white" census gerrymandering; and Gomillion did not ban "non-white" "race"-based political organizing. Gomillion, was the first Affirmative Action, as we now recognize Government transferring benefits on the basis of "races" (pure racialism) from "white majority" to census-"minority" classes of persons (i.e., mainly to the more privileged of "minorities," who can work the system). Wouldn't other catch phrases -- as "academic privilege" -- make more sense as Triguy decries "psuedo aristocracy"?
Will Triguy please explain to us how this census "races" Balkanizing -- the actual political motivation condemning "white privilege" -- will make U.S. society better?
triguy wrote:
Again, George's words are about choosing a discriminatory right as oppose to wanting to be recognized as just a member of an ethnic tribe (like Irish, German, etc.) per se. Adding additional people to Club White Privilege does nothing to engender an all encompassing identity as "human" instead of a member of an elite group of humans.
I have not advocated any discrimination. Triguy comes up with this idea that anyone's "white" identity-choice equates with "a discriminatory right." How, in Triguy's mind, is this rectified if a person wants membership in "an ethnic tribe (like Irish, German, etc.)? The "tribes" Triguy names would be socially recognized as "white." But how is "tribalism" a less "discriminatory right"? Aren't "ethnic tribes" recognizably more exclusionary (if not elitist) than the generic mutt (like me) U.S. American notion of "white person" is?
One more time: white privilege is about having rights above those not considered white. Rejection of white privilege does not equate with denial one calling herself ethnically white. If someone decides one day that all brown-eyed American should get a 10% decrease in their taxes and blue-eyed Americans should get a 30% increase in their taxes, does a brown-eyed person who rejects the 10% decrease any less brown-eyed?!
(As Frank has pointed out, there were no "races" before the advent of the European controlled African slave trade. People defined themselves based on their tribes as big or as small as that was.)
fwsweet wrote:
The fact is that the "race" notion (in a social out-group sense) is ubiquitous and exceedingly powerful in the U.S., even though it is not supported biologically. By seeing our species as having "no races," triguy seems to be deconstructing the social "race" notion. By seeing our species as all being of the same biological race, George seems to be enlisting the power of the "race" notion itself to advocate embracing all of humanity.[]
I agree with Frank Sweet's reading of Triguy and me. And I like A.D. Powell's comment (below). I like Frank's reference to the power in the "race" notion itself.
I believe I see disconnect between Frank's meaning of the phrase "no races" and Triguy's. I think Frank means no evidence subdividing our Homo sapiens (our species) supports classifying any of the five census "races." (Or any other, "races" either.) By contrast, I think Triguy's "no races" imply an absurd absolute zero common ancestry position -- one applied selectively, only for scolding other people's commentary on racial matters, while Triguy applies no such gag-order to himself.
Once more, Winwinkel choose to twist words and motivations to suit his needs. No where did I write anything that describes human beings as having no common ancestry. In fact, I agreed with Frank's position that there are no real biological subdivisions of homo sapiens. Hello, Winwinkel: I seem to recall writing the words "species," "humanity" and "mankind" as better descriptors than the phrase "human race."
Powell wrote:
I see George's position as deconstructing "race" because, if we acknowledge one human race, we have essentially denied race as most Americans understand the term. If everyone is of the same "race," then there are no "races." If everyone is "white," then no one is "white." There must be an opposite "race" in order for the word to have any power. definition of whiteness"?
How does Triguy define "whiteness" that is not merely a frank, neutral --
(a) description of an individual's regional racial phenotype;
(b) indication of the ethnic household one grew up in;
(c) declaration of one's most numerous social peer group;
(d) announcement of one's assimilation/integration in the U.S. Mainstream; or,
(e)) rejection of the hypodescent, ODR "rules" classifying "races," which Government classifies individuals in as "opposites"?
George
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: George, there you go again, picking and choosing words to suit your position, and disregarding stated positions to cobble together a rickety counter attack. So, where did I write that anything about people not being able to describe themselves as ethnically or phenotypcially "white" if they so choose?
George, you're the one who is obsessed with attaching labels or forcing people to choose labels they don't desire. You're the one who is upset that Brooks doesn't choose a white identity, not I. What right do you have to malign Brooks' for self-identifying as mixed?
"Previous studies of multi-racial Americans have given us anecdotal evidence that constantly having to explain your racial background is stressful for people," Campbell said. "People say 'I'm constantly being asked what I am' and 'I don't fit any of the boxes.' They talk about it as if it is stressful, but until now we didn't have data to support these observations."
This study is the first to document empirical evidence of the stress associated with not being recognized as a member of the racial group with which one identifies.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control, suicide is the second leading cause of death among young American Indians, age 25 - 34 years, and the third leading cause of death among young American Indians age 10 - 24 years," Troyer said. "Standard explanations of suicide do not fully explain the racial gap. Our study offers a new window to understanding this disturbing disparity.
"Adolescence is a critical time in human development, a time when identity becomes crystallized," she continued. "Race is important to identity and when your race is not recognized by others it is stressful."
These conclusions are being glossed over in this discussion. Where is the evidence that reclassifying people with white skin as "White" will end this race classification-based stress? Akin to the smoking bans, at some point the health risks and negative outcomes of a individual's behavior are justifiably curtailed when groups assume these risks and outcomes through no fault of their own. Banning racial labels in public discourse and making it socially unacceptable to play "what's your race" with another person may decrease this stress just as smoking bans have cleansed the air in countless bars and restaurants.
One is able to conclude the following based on the study results:
If race was unimportant to personal identity, "racially" ambiguous persons would not experience stress (related to this phenomenon)
If one were not asked what one's race is or had to check boxes, one might not experience stress (as related to this phenomenon).
It seems to me that the labels create the problem, not the in/accuracy of the labels. There seems to be a concession that "racial categories matter" and no plans to change that. Similar to the smoking analogy, the non-smoking patrons are made to suffer for the unhealthy habits of smokers in public places.
There is no indication from these results that increasing flexibility in adoption of the White racial label/decrease in assignment of the Black/other monoracial category will decrease the stress of the racially ambiguous. In fact, there are likely "monoracials" who experience similar stress because they do not identify with the racial labels proscribed for a person who looks like they do. It is reasonable to conclude that the attempt to proscribe and enforce the legitimacy of racial labels interferes with an individual's right to declare their own personal identity? Sounds stressful to me. And it stinks just as much as second-hand cigarette smoke residue in clothing.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
. White Privilege is about being a part of psuedo aristocracy, born or allowed to join a group of humans who are recognized for being better and deserving of more rights and benefits not through merit but through luck, subjugation and oppression.