I don't think the mainstream looks down on Italians or Russians buying from Italians or Russians. Sorry.
True.
Dragon Horse wrote:
It might be ironic to you, but the idea of supporting an ethnic culture or grouping has long been seen as fine in America
In most parts of the world as well, especially societies that are still to some degree tribally based.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think what you have to understand is that many people in the U.S. (including blacks) don't want your "we our the world" cosmopolitanism.
I believe most people are not cosmopolitan.
Dragon Horse wrote:
America is not a melting pot in many areas, it is more a "salad bowl". So your moralizing can only go so far, as others don't share your moral beliefs, don't forget that (I don't). In fact I would say a good percentage of Americans don't believe as you (and I) do.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 18 May 2009 15:29 Post subject:
G-Man wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't think the mainstream looks down on Italians or Russians buying from Italians or Russians. Sorry.
True.
Dragon Horse wrote:
It might be ironic to you, but the idea of supporting an ethnic culture or grouping has long been seen as fine in America
In most parts of the world as well, especially societies that are still to some degree tribally based.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think what you have to understand is that many people in the U.S. (including blacks) don't want your "we our the world" cosmopolitanism.
I believe most people are not cosmopolitan.
Dragon Horse wrote:
America is not a melting pot in many areas, it is more a "salad bowl". So your moralizing can only go so far, as others don't share your moral beliefs, don't forget that (I don't). In fact I would say a good percentage of Americans don't believe as you (and I) do.
And becoming more so with each passing decade.
The last part is what worries me and why I share erasmusinfinity ideology (for the most part in regard to this issue) although I might have a more realist perspective on it.
I think in the case of whites, if a white man says they only want to by from "whites" due to "supporting the white race" or "hatred of blacks" that would not be seen as okay. It might be ironic to you, but the idea of supporting an ethnic culture or grouping has long been seen as fine in America and as I pointed out it goes on today and I don't see a lot of mainstream angst over it.
I am sorry to turn accusations around on you, but I think that you are confusing race and ethnicity. For consistency of discussion, consider the following definitions from the forum rules-
Quote:
3.3.1 race (in biology) or bio-race — A sub-division of a species that is identifiable by a cluster of traits that vary together geographically. For example, the key lime and the Mexican lime are two races of Citrus aurantifolia that differ in several traits including peel thickness and color. Synonyms are: subspecies, variety, breed. No cluster of geographically co-varying traits (bio-race) has ever been found in Homo sapiens.
3.3.2 race (in vernacular) — A group of humans seen by the word’s user as somehow different from other groups. The claimed basis of such perception varies between users. For example, although many conflicting U.S. federal regulations enforce demographic classification by “race,” federal agencies disagree on the number and names of “races” and whether Hispanics are a “race.” The excuses most often cited for seeing a group as a “race” are their: appearance, associations, ethnic self-identity, religion, or nationality. Nevertheless, no matter which overt excuse is given in each case, the word’s strong connotation is that “race” is involuntary and genetically predetermined. Because the term has so many contradictory meanings whose only common thread is the user’s view that a group is different in some genetically predetermined way, site members should be extremely cautious in using this term. Its use without quotation marks tells nothing about the subject but reveals the ignorance of the user.
3.3.3 ethnicity — “A group of people with a common tradition and a sense of identity that functions as a subgroup within the larger society; membership is a matter of self-identification.” [Robert F. McNergney and Joanne M. Herbert, Foundations of Education: The Challenge of Professional Practice, 3rd ed. (Boston, 2001), 549.] Synonym: ethnic self-identity. The two essential elements of ethnicity are its positioning within a hegemony and its voluntary nature. First, ethnicity denotes a group’s self-identity within a larger mainstream culture. It does not refer to mainstream national cultures themselves. For example, the customs, traditions, language, and folklore of Spaniards living in Spain are not an ethnicity; they are a national culture. But the rhetoric of unity expressed by Spanish-Americans and their descendants in the United States is an ethnicity. Second, membership in an ethnic community is voluntary and not genetically predetermined. For example, about five percent of the members of the African-American ethnic community have no detectable sub-Saharan DNA admixture, while about thirty percent of the members of the U.S. White endogamous group do have detectable sub-Saharan DNA admixture.
You seem to me to be assuming that non-immigrant "whiteness" is necessarily a race and a race only - that it can not be an ethnicity. But that is not so. As I said before, there are a plethora of "my grandpappy came over on the Mayflower" types who feel that their culture is the one true (feel free to insert the word "white" here) American culture. If "whites" were to behave in the manner of this article, which they did during Jim Crow for example, then it would equally so be an expression of their sense of ethnicity as opposed to their sense of race. Or else it would be equally so the other way around. Whether dwelling in the world of race or ethnicity, "black" and "white" are inseparably linked. Indeed, they need each other in order to exist as concepts.
Also, I also don't think that most persons in America who identify as either "white" or "black" understand the phenomena of race and ethnicity well enough to distinguish as we are doing. Most people, I think, do confuse these concepts. At least in the practice of how they live.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't think the mainstream looks down on Italians or Russians buying from Italians or Russians. Sorry.
Agreed. But it does look down upon "whites" doing so, and this is a more consistent basis for comparison. Italian, Russian, etc. might be meaningfully contrasted with Nigerian or Senegalese, etc. It would be more rational to contrast "black" with "white" as they are two sides of the same coin, whether we are speaking of "black" and "white" ethnicity or race.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think what you have to understand is that many people in the U.S. (including blacks) don't want your "we our the world" cosmopolitanism.
I know that they don't. I think that most of the people in the U.S. are content hating one another for their supposed differences.
Dragon Horse wrote:
That is a moral judgment, I'm not interested in that, as there is no right or wrong answer to me.
Perhaps we have different concerns then. Morality is of interest to me. I think that there can be right or wrong answers. Perhaps that is a separate discussion.
Dragon Horse wrote:
America is not a melting pot in many areas, it is more a "salad bowl". So your moralizing can only go so far, as others don't share your moral beliefs, don't forget that (I don't). In fact I would say a good percentage of Americans don't believe as you (and I) do.
When you appeal to the notion of respecting other beliefs, you are also moralizing.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 18 May 2009 17:33 Post subject:
erasmusinfinity wrote:
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think in the case of whites, if a white man says they only want to by from "whites" due to "supporting the white race" or "hatred of blacks" that would not be seen as okay. It might be ironic to you, but the idea of supporting an ethnic culture or grouping has long been seen as fine in America and as I pointed out it goes on today and I don't see a lot of mainstream angst over it.
I am sorry to turn accusations around on you, but I think that you are confusing race and ethnicity. For consistency of discussion, consider the following definitions from the forum rules-
Quote:
3.3.1 race (in biology) or bio-race — A sub-division of a species that is identifiable by a cluster of traits that vary together geographically. For example, the key lime and the Mexican lime are two races of Citrus aurantifolia that differ in several traits including peel thickness and color. Synonyms are: subspecies, variety, breed. No cluster of geographically co-varying traits (bio-race) has ever been found in Homo sapiens.
3.3.2 race (in vernacular) — A group of humans seen by the word’s user as somehow different from other groups. The claimed basis of such perception varies between users. For example, although many conflicting U.S. federal regulations enforce demographic classification by “race,” federal agencies disagree on the number and names of “races” and whether Hispanics are a “race.” The excuses most often cited for seeing a group as a “race” are their: appearance, associations, ethnic self-identity, religion, or nationality. Nevertheless, no matter which overt excuse is given in each case, the word’s strong connotation is that “race” is involuntary and genetically predetermined. Because the term has so many contradictory meanings whose only common thread is the user’s view that a group is different in some genetically predetermined way, site members should be extremely cautious in using this term. Its use without quotation marks tells nothing about the subject but reveals the ignorance of the user.
3.3.3 ethnicity — “A group of people with a common tradition and a sense of identity that functions as a subgroup within the larger society; membership is a matter of self-identification.” [Robert F. McNergney and Joanne M. Herbert, Foundations of Education: The Challenge of Professional Practice, 3rd ed. (Boston, 2001), 549.] Synonym: ethnic self-identity. The two essential elements of ethnicity are its positioning within a hegemony and its voluntary nature. First, ethnicity denotes a group’s self-identity within a larger mainstream culture. It does not refer to mainstream national cultures themselves. For example, the customs, traditions, language, and folklore of Spaniards living in Spain are not an ethnicity; they are a national culture. But the rhetoric of unity expressed by Spanish-Americans and their descendants in the United States is an ethnicity. Second, membership in an ethnic community is voluntary and not genetically predetermined. For example, about five percent of the members of the African-American ethnic community have no detectable sub-Saharan DNA admixture, while about thirty percent of the members of the U.S. White endogamous group do have detectable sub-Saharan DNA admixture.
You seem to me to be assuming that non-immigrant "whiteness" is necessarily a race and a race only - that it can not be an ethnicity. But that is not so. As I said before, there are a plethora of "my grandpappy came over on the Mayflower" types who feel that their culture is the one true (feel free to insert the word "white" here) American culture. If "whites" were to behave in the manner of this article, which they did during Jim Crow for example, then it would equally so be an expression of their sense of ethnicity as opposed to their sense of race. Or else it would be equally so the other way around. Whether dwelling in the world of race or ethnicity, "black" and "white" are inseparably linked. Indeed, they need each other in order to exist as concepts.
Also, I also don't think that most persons in America who identify as either "white" or "black" understand the phenomena of race and ethnicity well enough to distinguish as we are doing. Most people, I think, do confuse these concepts. At least in the practice of how they live.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I don't think the mainstream looks down on Italians or Russians buying from Italians or Russians. Sorry.
Agreed. But it does look down upon "whites" doing so, and this is a more consistent basis for comparison. Italian, Russian, etc. might be meaningfully contrasted with Nigerian or Senegalese, etc. It would be more rational to contrast "black" with "white" as they are two sides of the same coin, whether we are speaking of "black" and "white" ethnicity or race.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think what you have to understand is that many people in the U.S. (including blacks) don't want your "we our the world" cosmopolitanism.
I know that they don't. I think that most of the people in the U.S. are content hating one another for their supposed differences.
Dragon Horse wrote:
That is a moral judgment, I'm not interested in that, as there is no right or wrong answer to me.
Perhaps we have different concerns then. Morality is of interest to me. I think that there can be right or wrong answers. Perhaps that is a separate discussion.
Dragon Horse wrote:
America is not a melting pot in many areas, it is more a "salad bowl". So your moralizing can only go so far, as others don't share your moral beliefs, don't forget that (I don't). In fact I would say a good percentage of Americans don't believe as you (and I) do.
When you appeal to the notion of respecting other beliefs, you are also moralizing.
I'm not confusing race and ethnicity.
The rules say:
Quote:
First, ethnicity denotes a group’s self-identity within a larger mainstream culture. It does not refer to mainstream national cultures themselves.
What you are talking about as a "white American ethnicity" is WASP, the dominant culture in America.
Italians, Greeks, Russians are not WASPs.
African Americans, it has been understood, even legally, as Frank has pointed out, generally means a black person who can trace their ancestry back to North American slavery, that being said we often do group all blacks into "African American" but reality is that African Americans have separate culture from Nigerians, Jamaicans, etc. Those people can acculturate into African American culture, just as Italians, and Russians acculturate into WASP culture, but that does not mean they are one and the same.
I can not prove it, but I"m almost certain these people in the article are speaking about "African Americans", they aren't consider Ethiopians in DC, Nigerians in NYC, etc.
When I say "race" I'm speaking about the U.S. census definition of "race" not of biology.
When I speak of ethnicity, I speak of the ethnic groups/nationalities that come from the regions that the U.S. census define as the geographical domain of a "racial group", such as blacks trace their ancestry from Africa, whites from Europe and the Middle East (according to the U.S. government). Obviously there are thousands of "black" elasticities and dozens of European elasticities. WHen I say ethnicities I'm refering to how they are viewed when they come to America.
Italians are considered a sub-grouping of whites and as a white "ethnic" in the United States, for example.
I disagree that most Americans hate one another. I think a minority actually "hate" each other, but that is my opinion. The idea that people don't form one group and intermix at high rates, or some people want to hold on to ethnic identity does not equal hate. If that is true, then every single nation hates its neighbor. Ties that bind people are usually not appearance, that is the lowest common denominator, what keeps "Italians" in many areas "Italians" is tradition, family, language, religion, etc. Those things don't mean a self described Italian American hates other whites, hates blacks, etc.
I think that if you want to see a world where cosmopolitanism reigns you should talk more about the utility of it as compared to what currently exist in terms that won't alienate people, as in make them feel "immoral" or "primitive"...for example you can talk to an Italian about the fact that Italy was not even a nation 200 years ago and that various peoples came together (or were forced) to form an Italian nationality and that would also be good for the U.S., since none of us are going anywhere, etc...
Well OK, but it seemed to me that you were assuming that "whiteness" chould only be regarded as a race and not an ethnicity, whereas "blackness could be regarded as an ethnicity (and therefore have a special claim that "whiteness" does not have to all of the respects and appreciations and such that many Americans feel ethnicities deserve).
Dragon Horse wrote:
What you are talking about as a "white American ethnicity" is WASP, the dominant culture in America.
If you want to call it WASP then fine. Although I don't suppose that a typical American who identifies as "white" or is identified by others to be "white" is necessarily at all Anglo-Saxon in terms of genetic ancestry, or protestant for that matter. Many "black" Americans are these things too, and some more so then some so-called "white" Americans.
Dragon Horse wrote:
African Americans, it has been understood, even legally, as Frank has pointed out, generally means a black person who can trace their ancestry back to North American slavery, that being said we often do group all blacks into "African American" but reality is that African Americans have separate culture from Nigerians, Jamaicans, etc.
Yes. And so it can be said that "white" (or WASP) American culture is distinct and separate from Anglo-Saxon or European culture. Many "white" Americans also have African ancestry that can be traced back to slavery. I believe that Frank's book sites the figure at between 20 and 30 percent (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Dragon Horse wrote:
I can not prove it, but I"m almost certain these people in the article are speaking about "African Americans", they aren't consider Ethiopians in DC, Nigerians in NYC, etc.
I agree. I think that they are talking about the African-American (or "black") culture group, or ethnic identity. That is why it is most appropriate to contrast this to the "white" American culture group (or ethnic identity), as opposed to comparing it to some immigrant population or some even more vague notion of "race."
Dragon Horse wrote:
When I speak of ethnicity, I speak of the ethnic groups/nationalities that come from the regions that the U.S. census define as the geographical domain of a "racial group", such as blacks trace their ancestry from Africa, whites from Europe and the Middle East (according to the U.S. government).
I'm sure you'll agree that these are convoluted concepts.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I disagree that most Americans hate one another.
Yeah. I did take that too far. Sometimes there is hate... sometimes a moderate disliking... sometimes a relative state of peace and sometimes even a genuine concern for the interests of one another. What I was trying to get at was that people who see themselves as belonging to one group are likely to prioritize the interests of that group over the interests of those who are outside of that group, as is the case in this article. And that people who see themselves as not belonging to these special interest groups are likely to feel threatened by other groups acting so exclusively. They are likely to react by behaving in kind and are thus legitimized in doing so.
Moreover, this is bad for the disempowered minority group.
Dragon Horse wrote:
I think that if you want to see a world where cosmopolitanism reigns you should talk more about the utility of it as compared to what currently exist in terms that won't alienate people,
Sure, but there is also an important role to truth seeking. We must first determine what is the right package to sell before figuring out the best way of selling it. I haven't gotten that far yet.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 18 May 2009 22:11 Post subject:
I'm going to end this conversation here, because you get making something simple ridiculous ad infinitum and I have no idea why.
I will say this one more time and then I will leave it because it is not worth arguing after that.
According to the rules an ethnicity is a minority group in a country, that is other than the dominant majority, so for example and ethnic Frenchman is only a ethnicity outside of France, in France they are the majority culture.
I do not believe there is a such thing as "white culture" nor do I think there is "black culture". There is no cultural norm that unites all whites in the world (white according to U.S. census, such as all Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterns, etc). There is no cultural norm that unites all SubSaharan Africans, African Americans, blacks in Latin America, etc.
black and white are just supra groups based on nothing, but some vague notion of phenotype (I say vague for a reason)
When the nation started, the majority of people today we would call white were WASPs. The majority of people we now call black were African slaves/indentured servants and their descendants.
American culture has always been dominated by WASPs and still is. Old WASP families still dominate the American elite, and WASP traditions are still very much synonymous with American culture. Are there 'blacks' who practice WASP culture? Yes. Are there other whites who are non-WASP who acculturate into WASP culture? Yes.
It is that African Americans have traditional culture to themselves, which is not shared by Nigerians, Jamaicans, etc. Some times those blacks (Caribbeans often in U.S. history like Malcolm X, Stokley Carmichael, Obama) acculterate into African American culture. However all said people are black.
So lets make it simple.
The dominant U.S. cultural norm is WASP, WASPs are white, but not all whites are WASP, although many (if not most whites) accept most WASP cultural norms.
The vast majority of blacks are African Americans, although all African Americans are also considered black, all blacks are not now African American.
Whites having African ancestry has nothing to do with this. Even in Europe in most countries but for the most North East areas of Europe there is a small amount of African ancestry to be found. You can look in the genetic section there are posts on this. This is about culture and American identification of groups.
Most Americans will say Italians are white but recognize Italians are not WASP, French, Romanian, or Lebanese. However, the government agrees all the said groups are white, obviously they don't share a common culture.
Also, as I said before, Italian-Americans are not necessarily immigrants. We have a Supreme Court Justice Scalia who calls himself Italian-American and he was born here, and I believe his parents were too. Irish-Americans are rarely from Ireland they are usually 3rd or even 4 or 5th generation. So I'm not necessarily talking about "immigrants" as in 1st or even 2nd generation. Now most of these people are acculturated to WASP norms and are just "white" with no special ethnic affiliation anymore, however there are communities in New York, Chicago, etc where they are very much ethnically active and affiliated. Irish Americans, for example, used to give large sums of money to the IRA in Northern Ireland although most of these folks were not born in Ireland.
Quote:
What I was trying to get at was that people who see themselves as belonging to one group are likely to prioritize the interests of that group over the interests of those who are outside of that group
Oh this is very true, but this country was also created with the idea that competing groups would occur and vie for power...I think the U.S. will test how flexible this system is in the next 50 years. Truth is though, it has always been that way in America. In the big cities, politics often came down to ethnicity. In Chicago it was known if the mayor was an Irishman he would "hook up" his people, if he was Italian they would "hook up their people", same with the blacks...same with the Jews. New York is similar. The thing is we don't fight over it (usually, we just accept we lost the election and that happens, in some nations like Kenya you get your guns and knives and go kill each other...that has happened in America but not for over 100 years to my knowledge) (not counting racial riots between whites and blacks).
Historically this has not been bad for the minority group, to the contrary that is how most minorities built themselves up, fighting for their own bit of power...it doesn't matter if it is the Chinese in San Francisco's China town, the Irish in Boston, NY, Chicago, the Italians, the Jews...Hispanics in the Southwest to some extent and Texas...I do see a point and time where it will lose its utility, but I'm not sure that has happened yet.
The dominant U.S. cultural norm is WASP, WASPs are white, but not all whites are WASP, although many (if not most whites) accept most WASP cultural norms.
The vast majority of blacks are African Americans, although all African Americans are also considered black, all blacks are not now African American.
What do you mean by "whites?" Do you mean persons with Anglo-Saxon genetic ancestry? What do you mean by "blacks?" Are you talking about persons with sub-Saharan African Ancestry?
Dragon Horse wrote:
Whites having African ancestry has nothing to do with this.
If you are using the terms "black" and "white to refer to genetic ancestry then it certainly does. Some "blacks" have no sub-Saharan African ancestry at all. Some "blacks" have a great deal of European ancestry. Many have more European than African ancestry. Many "whites" have more sub-Saharan genetic ancestry then many "blacks" do. These points illustrate that "black" and "white" identities are not so much matters of genetic ancestry. At least not any more so then in the most vague of senses.
Dragon Horse wrote:
This is about culture and American identification of groups.
Then why assert that WASPs are "white" are African Americans are "black?"
Dragon Horse wrote:
Historically this has not been bad for the minority group, to the contrary that is how most minorities built themselves up, fighting for their own bit of power...
What about 19th century slavery and later Jim Crow?
Dragon Horse wrote:
American culture has always been dominated by WASPs and still is.
Is this the reason that you allow for the existence of a "black" (African-American) ethnicity but not a "white" (WASP) ethnicity? According to our forum definition for ethnicity, the size of an ethnic group is not a relevant factor-
Quote:
A group of people with a common tradition and a sense of identity that functions as a subgroup within the larger society; membership is a matter of self-identification
An ethnicity is determined by persons so choosing to self-identify with it, and upon a common sense of tradition. To be "a subgroup within the larger society" does not exclude a group that constitutes a large size or even a majority.
You may feel the private interests of such a majority group to be irrelevant, or not worthy of the sorts of special considerations that you feel minority ethnicities deserve. But I wouldn't hold my breath expecting persons who identify with that majority group to agree with you. I would expect them to be looking out for their own interests, at least as much as they buy into the idea that it is OK for each to just look after his own. As you might say, I'm just being a realist.
You did also make an important error of interpretation. I suggest that you reread this statement.
Dragon Horse wrote:
The rules say:
Quote:
First, ethnicity denotes a group’s self-identity within a larger mainstream culture. It does not refer to mainstream national cultures themselves.
What you are talking about as a "white American ethnicity" is WASP, the dominant culture in America.
This quote clearly does not mean what you were trying to use it to say. Mainstream national cultures, here, are not simply relatively large cultures or even the dominant culture that exists within the whole. They are the whole itself. The sum total of all aggregate cultures combined.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 24 May 2009 04:09 Post subject:
Interesting quote from mulatto.org:
Quote:
Manning Marble in one his books points out that Mobile Oil company could buy all Black-American major corporations combined. That's just one "white" major company.
In other words... there's no escape... if they want the black dollar bad enough, they WILL get it.
Mobile Oil company could buy all Black-American major corporations combined. That's just one "white" major company.
How can a corporation have a "race"? For a mom-and-pop business, you could presumably observe or question the owner. But a large corporation typically has hundredsof thousands of owners. Some of these shareholders will be White, some Black, and many are neither of the above. I doubt that every single one of the shareholders of any large corporation all share the exact same self-identity (either identity). So how do you decide what "race" a corporation is? Specifically, why is Mobil Oil deemed to be "White"?
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 425 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Sun 24 May 2009 11:59 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Manning Marable wrote:
Mobile Oil company could buy all Black-American major corporations combined. That's just one "white" major company.
How can a corporation have a "race"? For a mom-and-pop business, you could presumably observe or question the owner. But a large corporation typically has hundredsof thousands of owners. Some of these shareholders will be White, some Black, and many are neither of the above. I doubt that every single one of the shareholders of any large corporation all share the exact same self-identity (either identity). So how do you decide what "race" a corporation is? Specifically, why is Mobil Oil deemed to be "White"?
I assume that the author of that particular post is more than likely referring to the founders and/or executive leadership of the corporation.
I assume that the author of that particular post is more than likely referring to the founders and/or executive leadership of the corporation.
How many of the "executive leadership" must be Black to qualify? Is American Express a Black corporation because the CEO is Black, although the board of directors are not Black? What about a coporation where half of the board are Black but the CEO, CFO, and COO are not Black? What fraction of the management team must be women to qualify the firm as a "female" corporation? Are there homosexual corporations?
All in all, I think that Mr. Marable is usually thought-provoking and persuasive. But the attempt to assign ethnopolitical self-identity to large corporations just makes him look silly.
Incidentally, there is no such corporation as "Mobile Oil." And I believe that ExxonMobil (the world's largest publicly traded international oil and gas company) is owned mostly by Arabs. Are Arabs White?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
