RACIST: What's in a name?

[Paul Austin]

But until the 1800s, racism, racial discrimination and conflict between races was considered a correct norm.

Thats not 100% correct. Whilst obviously there are records of racism through out history there are also records of what we'd call multiculturalism today too & racism wasnt really a western wide, universally accepted correct norm untill a Papal Bull in the 15th century, relating to slavery & then it only really grew out of a religious difference, rather than a racial one.

I cant recall the exact date but sometime between the mid & late 15th century the pope issued a papal bull declaring the west couldnt enslave christians, but pagans (deemed inferior because of their lack of faith) were deemed fair game.

Put that into context, given that around 100 years later the trans-atlantic slave trade was going to begin, & need millions of slaves, & the easiest to procure, & abundent source of pagans were Africans, it lead to their wide spread exploitation, & whilst there are records of racism prior to that it is only at that point that the inferiority of races theory became universal across the west (prior to that it was regional & sporadic & frequently non-existant).

So really, western wide, institutionally supported racism only really gained popular traction in around the 16th century, born from religious & economic roots, rather than racial ones, & was in decline within a couple of centuries.

 

[Panopticon]

Thats not 100% correct. Whilst obviously there are records of racism through out history there are also records of what we'd call multiculturalism today too & racism wasnt really a western wide, universally accepted correct norm untill a Papal Bull in the 15th century, relating to slavery & then it only really grew out of a religious difference, rather than a racial one.

I cant recall the exact date but sometime between the mid & late 15th century the pope issued a papal bull declaring the west couldnt enslave christians, but pagans (deemed inferior because of their lack of faith) were deemed fair game.

Put that into context, given that around 100 years later the trans-atlantic slave trade was going to begin, & need millions of slaves, & the easiest to procure, & abundent source of pagans were Africans, it lead to their wide spread exploitation, & whilst there are records of racism prior to that it is only at that point that the inferiority of races theory became universal across the west (prior to that it was regional & sporadic & frequently non-existant).

So really, western wide, institutionally supported racism only really gained popular traction in around the 16th century, born from religious & economic roots, rather than racial ones, & was in decline within a couple of centuries.

Religion was used at that time because there was no existence of the nation state or patriotic nationalism, which are concepts invented after that. It wasnt "born" from that - allegiance with ones group is not new - it changed to that. Who to pay allegiance to was changed from a common God to this new idea of the nation state. Nationalism was basically an invention of "big government" to consolidate groups to the kings who feared the nobility. Thus, the invention of "national borders" as a defining difference between Us and Them was created.

Some scientist feel that race is not a useful, or accurate classification, however other scientist actually disagree & race is routinely used on a daily basis in medicine & science because, despite being a clumsy divide it can be usefull to them (& I'm sure the many people, of many races, who have benefited from that fact are not offended).

The word does not have the same definition in biology as it did a few hundred years ago which is the definition racists still use, any more than physics terms or any other science that has changed its definitions over hundreds of years. Which countries still use the term in science is largely a cultural artifact. For example, the USA still uses "race" in consensus, while general europe does not.

 

[Paul Austin]

The word does not have the same definition in biology as it did a few hundred years ago

Of course it doesnt, words rarely do.

which is the definition racists still use

This line always amuses me, in a world where some rush to dismiss race as to fuzzy, to broad, & to much of a generalization we find the same people lumping racists together in fuzzy, broad, generalisations.

Which countries still use the term in science is largely a cultural artifact. For example, the USA still uses "race" in consensus, while general europe does not.

Actually not true, its used, when & where needed in Europe as well as America (& other countries)

As I previously mentioned, for example, in stress research, where its very useful in seeking a range of products, which are needed because different people react differently & need different remedies.

Btw. the reason I picked the same example twice is because its one Im aware of from real life (not a book, or wikipedia, or anything) & one where I know the classifications are not only used, but useful (& btw that real life experiance is from Europe to, so Im sorry your claim about Europe isnt correct either).

There just isnt this "Science says it doesnt exist" thing, as I said before some scientists, in some fields feel the divides are to fuzzy, to over lapping, or useless for them, but it isnt true that race doesnt exist, or that science has rejected it (as if science was some universal body that could, or couldnt do that in the first place).

Like Ive said to people before just because some people are racist there is no need to retreat to the absurdities at the other extreme.

If racial classifications can be useful theres no need to ditch them just because some idiot goes around kicking people in the head because of their skin color. What you do is prosecute the thug, lock him away, & educate people, not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Panopticon]

This line always amuses me, in a world where some rush to dismiss race as to fuzzy, to broad, & to much of a generalization we find the same people lumping racists together in fuzzy, broad, generalisations.

Of course categorizations can be clumsy and often are, but this doesnt mean that categorizations can never be used again. That would be ridiculous and make much communication impossible. Quite clearly and quite obviously, racism has enough general beliefs for categorizations. Such as qualities like crime being inherent to some races. You will find this very common stereotype among an easily large enough sample of racists to categorize. As long as one is aware that categorizations are a construct of the human mind and thus will always have fuzzy edges to various degrees, you'll go less wrong than those who think categorizations have definite borders and are set in stone. You just said yourself that racial categories can be useful.

Actually not true, its used, when & where needed in Europe as well as America (& other countries)

Actually completely true in the example I mentioned. And completely true that this is a cultural artifact.

Btw. the reason I picked the same example twice is because its one Im aware of from real life (not a book, or wikipedia, or anything) & one where I know the classifications are not only used, but useful (& btw that real life experiance is from Europe to, so Im sorry your claim about Europe isnt correct either).

Im sorry, it is. Some years back, I even had a college project of comparing consensus from different regions and thus have researched the use of "race" in consensuses in different parts of the world. Largely, it is not present in european consensuses.

There just isnt this "Science says it doesnt exist" thing, as I said before some scientists, in some fields feel the divides are to fuzzy, to over lapping, or useless for them, but it isnt true that race doesnt exist, or that science has rejected it (as if science was some universal body that could, or couldnt do that in the first place).

I didnt say any of that. I said the derogatory definition, the racist definition, is not used in science at all anymore. The word means something different today. Racists continue to define it in a similar manner to proto-anthroplogy+slave trade centuries back. I.e., skin color is a signal of inferior or superior mental qualities. Race, to many people, is also misunderstood and actually often indicates linguistic, cultural, geographical and other groupings which get confused with genes.

Sorry, I meant "census," not "consensus," thus, cultural artifact. Too early.

http://www.understandingrace.org/lived/global_census.html

 

[Paul Austin]

Of course categorizations can be clumsy and often are, but this doesnt mean that categorizations can never be used again. That would be ridiculous and make much communication impossible.

Exactly my point, thank you.

Im sorry, it is. Some years back, I even had a college project of comparing consensus from different regions and thus have researched the use of "race" in consensuses in different parts of the world. Largely, it is not present in european consensuses.

I'm sorry but read my post again. I dont care what your college paper said youre talking to someone who has real life European experiances that prove youre not right.

I dont care if you chose to believe me or not but youre not going to convince me that your college paper knows more about my real life European experiances than I do.

I didnt say any of that. I said the derogatory definition, the racist definition, is not used in science at all anymore.

There isnt a racist defenition, there is racism based on various defenitions.

The word means something different today. Racists continue to define it in a similar manner to proto-anthroplogy+slave trade centuries back. I.e., skin color is a signal of inferior or superior mental qualities.

Massive sweeping generalization thats even more contrived than the catagorization of race itself.

I will concede that its rare that racists & scientists agree on a defenition of race, but then its rare that two racists agree exactly with each other, or even two scientists, because it is fuzzy & contrived & there are overlaps.

But none the less, regardless of who defines it how, it is defined & does serve purpose (& in Europe as well) contrary to some claims.

 

[Panopticon]

Exactly my point, thank you.

I dont care if you chose to believe me or not but youre not going to convince me that your college paper knows more about my real life European experiances than I do.

Lol, I bet I can compete with your years in europe and probably win

 

[Paul Austin]

Lol, I bet I can compete with your years in europe and probably win

Well I am European so that would depend on your age.

So tell me, how old are you, & how many years have you lived in Europe, & how many years have you worked in relative fields there?

 

[Panopticon]

Well I am European so that would depend on your age.

So tell me, how old are you, & how many years have you lived in Europe, & how many years have you worked in relative fields there?

several decades, born and bred in europe and have also lived in the USA. Im not going to reveal my age and this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Panopticon]

p.s. It always amuses me, in a world where some rush to dismiss categories as to [sic] fuzzy, to broad, & to much of a generalization to group racists, we find the same people lumping race together in fuzzy, broad, generalisations.

 

[Paul Austin]

several decades, born and bred in europe and have also lived in the USA. Im not going to reveal my age and this has nothing to do with the topic.

It was your bet. Im guessing your not as confident of the facts now though.

Im also guessing that the omission of any mention of it, in response to the question, suggests you have no practical experience in a relative field?

I thought so. I am sorry, this isnt a racist v's anti-racist conversation here, there is no political agenda, its just the simple case that what you thought at college simply isnt whats born out in real life environments.

Its like me saying to a French man that I have a college paper that says no one says "Oui", no matter what I say, no matter how much I argue, I am never going to convinve him that something he sees and hears on a regular basis doesnt exist.

Its the same here, we're not discussing hypotheticals we are discussing something real, tangible, & experienced on a daily basis (eg. a fact) & youre college paper is never going to convince me that my very real work place experiences were some kind of hallucination, or are unreal in some other form.

 

[Panopticon]

It was your bet. Im guessing your not as confident of the facts now though. Im also guessing that the omission of any mention of it, in response to the question, suggests you have no practical experience in a relative field?

Youre guessing really incorrectly. If anyones not as confident about his european experiences, that surely would be you for making the claim that you had more relevant knowledge of europe than I. Im continuing an academic career which I left in my early years
in a sociology phd program. But Im getting bored of your ad hominem and you switching the topic to my personal life all the time and I have to get back to work.

 

[Paul Austin]

p.s. It always amuses me, in a world where some rush to dismiss categories as to [sic] fuzzy, to broad, & to much of a generalization to group racists, we find the same people lumping race together in fuzzy, broad, generalisations.

Do we see that?

I personally do lump various racist groups together, but there are limits, where beyond that it becomes meaningless. This is why we have divides, like race.

I appreciate that was probably an attempt at a clever put down but I had to answer in a straight fashion as you dont seem to have grasped the point (eg. dont mistake missclassification for classification being of no use).

 

[Panopticon]

Im sorry, but you dont get to be the official arbiter of classification and missclassification [sic], based on your personal preferences

 

[Paul Austin]

Youre guessing really incorrectly. If anyones not as confident about his european experiences, that surely would be you for making the claim that you had more relevant knowledge of europe than I.

Actually you made the bet, if you recall.

What I actually claimed was that real life experiences demonstrated a college paper was wrong.

It was only at that point that you tried to turn it into a pissing contest (that you quickly retreated from).

But Im getting bored of your ad hominem

Surely they have to exist for you to be bored of them?

and you switching the topic to my personal life all the time.

I didnt, you voluntered your college paper, & then you brought the subject of comparetive experiences into it with your bet.

I only enquired as I did to establish the credability of your bet.

I did notice there was nothing of relevance in this post of yours so it is perhaps best the exchange ends here as it looks like the discussion is over anyway, in any meaningful sense.

 

[Paul Austin]

Im sorry, but you dont get to be the official arbiter of classification and missclassification [sic], based on your personal preferences

Its perhaps as well that no ones ever claimed I do then?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Oh man, I love the way there are always these dark origin stories that can be traced back to Marxist Jews.

he was actually a black marxist jew

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

its interesting watching the racists trying to socially outlaw being called racists and trying to make calling a racist a racist politically incorrect.

I imagine some of the traction the issue receives is due to blatant abuse of the label. It's certainly sad that it happens, but it happens none the less and tends to cause people to become cynical of the claim in general

Such attempt occur on this very board on the regular. In fact, I would say such mealy-mouthed accusations serve as a staple argument for some members