NationStates Jolt Archive

So I got into a discussion with a friend the other day about racism - whether it's still prevalent, to what degree it affects us, etc., but more importantly, how we should treat "race" as it is recognized, in our society in the future. There are essentially two kinds of anti-racism, he tells me: your "color-blind" anti-racism, and your "multicultural" anti-racism.

Now, he had read some books on the topic that I hadn't. Everyone who goes to college, in the U.S. at least, has to take some sort of lecture on racism, and he had just recently completed his, giving him the upper-hand in the debate. Most of these classes work to establish two basic points, 1. that "race" has no biological basis, and 2. that "race" as a social construction is very real and affects us every day.

What these clases *don't* uniformly agree upon is how to treat "race" given these two facts.

In my college days the university-decreed conclusion was basically this: given that race exists as a social construction, we should recognize all ethnicities established along racial lines as equally legitimate, none superior to the other. Simple enough - I was on board, andnever really questioned it.

His approach was somewhat more severe than mine, and basically went more like: yes, race exists in society, but the longer we entertain the idea of race, the longer it can be leveraged against us, and used by politicians to ignore the *real* problem of economic inequality - we need to become "color-blind" and disregard race altogether, rather than "celebrating diversity," as his current and my ex-university officially does one month out of the year.

This is quite different than I was taught, so naturally I wanted to know what books he had read in his course - turns out it was basically identical to mine, with the exception of one addition - Walter Benn Michaels's "The Trouble With Diversity," if anyone's interested in a full explanation of his line of reasoning. I'm sure many of you are already familiar with it, so maybe someone can summarize it more neatly here for our benefit. ;)

Anyway, I put the question to all of you: What, given your experiences, is the best approach to dealing with the lingering effects of racism in our society? Should we work to achieve a culture that is "color-blind," or should we strive to live in one that maintains old racial social orders, but at the same time attempts to treat all racial traditions equally?

Perhaps a deceptively simple question. ;)

Colour blind would be ideal.

Colour blind would be ideal.

I disagree. Colour blindness often leads to blindness of other problems, like racism itself. I'd rather recognize that race exists and not think much of it than to ignore it completely.

That, and I happen to like different cultures. I feel giddy about mixing them as I do, because that's so much more interesting than one bland culture.

Colour blind would be ideal.

I argued pretty hard against color-blindness, in favor of the multicultural ideal for a good while, but there does seem, I have concluded, to be a good argument that labeling people as belonging to a certain race sort of forces them to follow a "script," that is, a pattern of accepted behavior based on the race they're told to identify with. Interesting stuff. What reason in particular makes you favor color-blindness?

Color-Blind is better but probably not possible for our retarded species.

Multiculturalism is the second best though.

The masses are divided ultimately more by class than race.

Color-Blind is better but probably not possible for our retarded species.

Multiculturalism is the second best though.

That's exactly what I thought, too. Our need to identify with a group, to belong to a greater social order than simply "citizen" or "Republican" or "French" or "Bulgarian" seems to be quite strong. However, I recall one historic account of race as suggesting that people in antiquity, up until the Middle Ages, didn't really think of race as significant. Hard to imagine, but it could be true.

It'l be a cold day in Hell before I let them Southpaws walk freely in my parks, drinking out of my water fountains, feeding my pidgens, n' riding my busses.

*Shakes fist*

The masses are divided ultimately more by class than race.

That's a good Marxist position, but do you actually observe this to be the case in your everyday life, or is it something you think people should believe, but don't currently?

The book I mentioned, according to the explanation I heard, basically agrees with you - economic inequality is more damaging than racism - but thinks that the average person is much more observant and concerned with racism.

I disagree with color-blindness, you miss out on a lot of artwork and you'll probably wind up with no real fashion sense. Multiculturalism it is!

I prefer the concept of Colour-Blind but not Culture-Blind.

I really, honestly, do not give a flying fuck what colour somebody's skin is. Being part Blackfoot Sioux and part black and part white, being racist would be pretty stupid of me, all up.

I do care about, and have respect for, people's cultures and social mores. Some, I'll admit, I consider superior to others - cultures that force girls into slavery or to have clitorectomies, I do not have much respect for. But any society that allows reasonable freedom and general liberty, I'll consider every bit the equal of my own.

I prefer the concept of Colour-Blind but not Culture-Blind.

I really, honestly, do not give a flying fuck what colour somebody's skin is. Being part Blackfoot Sioux and part black and part white, being racist would be pretty stupid of me, all up.

I do care about, and have respect for, people's cultures and social mores. Some, I'll admit, I consider superior to others - cultures that force girls into slavery or to have clitorectomies, I do not have much respect for. But any society that allows reasonable freedom and general liberty, I'll consider every bit the equal of my own.

Do you think it's possible to appreciate different cultures without sort of expecting a certain racial character or history along with it? I agree that we don't want to cram the whole world of culture into one homogenous mold, but it might be hard to just start viewing cultures as non-racial. While many people are mixed-race, you're still going to have largely uniform responses if you put 100 people in a room and ask them to describe what a Hutu is, or what an Irish person is. It might be difficult to simply divorce culture from race where it's strongly linked.

Do you think it's possible to appreciate different cultures without sort of expecting a certain racial character or history along with it? I agree that we don't want to cram the whole world of culture into one homogenous mold, but it might be hard to just start viewing cultures as non-racial. While many people are mixed-race, you're still going to have largely uniform responses if you put 100 people in a room and ask them to describe what a Hutu is, or what an Irish person is. It might be difficult to simply divorce culture from race where it's strongly linked.

Well, I don't see Irish or Hutu as being racial labels in the first place. Most Irish, racially, are Caucasian; most Hutu, either Negroid or Congoid (I'm not certain they still make a distinction there; it always seemed rather tenuous to me). Irish can be a term for a nationality, an ethnicity, or even a social affectation in the case of some North Americans. Hutu is the name of a tribe, and therefore a cultural division in itself.

And I believe the race/culture bonds are breaking down even as we speak. There was a notable advertisement here in Australia (for coffee, of all things) where a woman asks a tall, black man whether they have that brand where he comes from. He replies, with a strong British accent "What, Shropshire?" The idea that everyone of a certain culture is also a certain race is carrying on an undead existence long after the reality was otherwise (if indeed it ever was so).

Well, I don't see Irish or Hutu as being racial labels in the first place. Most Irish, racially, are Caucasian; most Hutu, either Negroid or Congoid (I'm not certain they still make a distinction there; it always seemed rather tenuous to me). Irish can be a term for a nationality, an ethnicity, or even a social affectation in the case of some North Americans. Hutu is the name of a tribe, and therefore a cultural division in itself.

And I believe the race/culture bonds are breaking down even as we speak. There was a notable advertisement here in Australia (for coffee, of all things) where a woman asks a tall, black man whether they have that brand where he comes from. He replies, with a strong British accent "What, Shropshire?" The idea that everyone of a certain culture is also a certain race is carrying on an undead existence long after the reality was otherwise (if indeed it ever was so).

I agree that we're making progress, there's little question that it's tough being openly racist nowadays without facing some serious social sanctions. All I meant to say was that if we want to eliminate race from our consciousness (on the basis that it's scientifically meaningless), we may not progress as quickly by continuing to categorize our fellow citizens as belonging to a culture, given that we're likely to do it on the basis of what we perceive their race to be.

Personally, I'm on the fence regarding the whole multiculturalism/color-blindness concept, but I can see it going either way just as easily.

I agree that we're making progress, there's little question that it's tough being openly racist nowadays without facing some serious social sanctions. All I meant to say was that if we want to eliminate race from our consciousness (on the basis that it's scientifically meaningless), we may not progress as quickly by continuing to categorize our fellow citizens as belonging to a culture, given that we're likely to do it on the basis of what we perceive their race to be.

Personally, I'm on the fence regarding the whole multiculturalism/color-blindness concept, but I can see it going either way just as easily.

I thnk we have less a problem of identification and more one of stereotyping. Thankfully, stereotypes have a way of changing over time.

I thnk we have less a problem of identification and more one of stereotyping. Thankfully, stereotypes have a way of changing over time.

That's true. I don't see open racism lasting into the far future. :) It always spooks me when an easy conclusion turns complicated, as mine did in this case. Sometimes a gut-check is in order. :p

...we don't want to cram the whole world of culture into one homogenous mold...

I do.

I do.

You don't think just a *little* variety might be beneficial? ;)

You don't think just a *little* variety might be beneficial? ;)
One world culture would be quite varied, I think.

What this planet needs is some good old-fashioned alien invasion to make us realise we're all human.

Where's a good alien invasion when you need one, bets are on that after all this waiting, 3 will turn up at the same time - typical!

Multiculturalism. I think it works pretty well in Melbourne & I really enyoy the amazing variety of food available here. :)

You don't think just a *little* variety might be beneficial? ;)

There is greater variety, as a whole.

If you combined all of the ethnicities and most of the cultures (some would cease to be) and periodically recombined culture groups and ethnicity you would have an incredible genetic variety and enable a multicultural society that is about combining, rather than keeping seperate.

The masses are divided ultimately more by class than race.

The problem with that preconstructed viewpoint is that with the Marxist-Leninist political groups, race issues are merely a subordinate issue to the class struggle, and the groups inevitably try to tie racism to the capitalist socioeconomic system solely for political benefit. A black former member of the Communist Party USA wrote a book a couple years ago about how many Leninist organizations used the race issue in a Machiavellian sense.

I prefer the concept of Colour-Blind but not Culture-Blind.

I really, honestly, do not give a flying fuck what colour somebody's skin is. Being part Blackfoot Sioux and part black and part white, being racist would be pretty stupid of me, all up.

I do care about, and have respect for, people's cultures and social mores. Some, I'll admit, I consider superior to others - cultures that force girls into slavery or to have clitorectomies, I do not have much respect for. But any society that allows reasonable freedom and general liberty, I'll consider every bit the equal of my own.

i agree with you.

it always seems to me that color blind means "pretend everyone is white" or "pretend that we are all the same" when there are wonderful cultural differences in our countries that should be respected and encouraged.

of course the law shouldnt codify and enforce these differences. there should come a time when there is no need for concern that blacks, native americans or hispanics are discriminated against because sometime in the future they WONT be.

but the cultural differences shouldnt be wiped out in an effort to enforce the idea that we are all the same. we would lose too much.

One where each individual retains part of their heritage, but no one thinks anything of that heritage.

I'm suprised at the number of racists.

I disagree. Colour blindness often leads to blindness of other problems, like racism itself. I'd rather recognize that race exists and not think much of it than to ignore it completely.

That, and I happen to like different cultures. I feel giddy about mixing them as I do, because that's so much more interesting than one bland culture.

being colour-blind oneself does not require that one ignores racism in others. and it doesn't require that one should not embrace diversity, it just disregards the division of culture along the lines of skin tone.

I vote color blindness, I see race as a purely social construct. We can be multicultural and it can have nothing to due with what color your skin is. Running around saying "I am black!" or "Whoo-hoo white people" seems as idiotic as if I were running around saying "Whoo-hoo for the gingers!"

it's nothing I really have control over, surely my identity is more than the amount of melanin in my skin?

If minoritys are anything but one group (lets say white males[the majority in this case]) then the majority is the only majority. Being the only of something makes you a minority. So now we have everyone as a minority. You can't help or focus on minorities so now everyone is a minority. Thus the majority, because there are mostly (all) minorities. So minorities are now for the majority. But if your the majority of anything your no longer a minority your a majority. Being the only majority you form a minority and so the circle begins again. Thus everyone is equal. There are no hate crimes (well I mean technically yeah 'cause you could still kill someone 'cause there black,jewish,gay,etc. but it'd sure be harder to tell with no minorities) Hate groups live(like the KKK), but there a minority too.(Although there really a minority already,a minority of hate groups).You can make anyone a minority or a majority with this (I suppose kinda stupid) logic.

Well I mean actually hating hate groups and racists makes you racist. You aren't respecting there culture (of racism). So to say well I really dispise racists means your techniclly racist. You are not respecting what the racists believe in

I don't like the idea of racism. I don't get why you would hate a black person because there black, Jews because there Jewish, gays because there gay and so on. Hating someone (or worse killing) for something like there skin colors different. So what? I mean ohhh he believes in a different God than you lets kill him. Ohhh he lives 3000 miles away from you lets kill him. I don't respect the idea of racism. Then again I am not respecting the racists beliefs making me threfore a racist. Sucks doesn't it??

I voted "multicultural". "Color blind" seems to infer you don't believe black and white people don't exist only people. I somehow just don't like the idea of that . I don't know why. I suppose its not a bad one. I mean I want people to be just people. I don't want to seperate people, seperate but equal is wrong, yet I can't see not acknowledging that a race exists. I don't seperate people by European,Latin American, African , Asian, Native American. I would just say oh that guy over there is my friend, not my Asian friend or my Black friend just my friend.People are people, but why shouldn't we say the Ioquois are Native American. If it was in fact a "color bind" world our Hstory books would read the people whom lived on the continent of Europe sailed to the Continent of North America. The people seeking religous freedom (they were persecuted because the were people) made a pact on the boat. There was a harsh winter, luckily the people originaly from Europe got help from the people who Already lived in North America. We're all humans but are from a certain place thus making us a certain reace. We shouldn't seperate or hate specific races, I just believe we shouldn't not acknowledge there is a group. Are bathrooms gonna be the people's restroom and the people's restroom. Only the little stick figure giving a cluee as which is man's and which is women's. There couldn't be politiclal parties. Imagine 'I don't see people as Republicans or Democrats just a sizeb;e number of people who believe one thing and a sizeable group of people who believe in another.' Bush is a person who belives in.... You get the point. Saying one person is black and his friend is white doesn't seperate them, make tham unequal it merely states that that guy's black and his friend over there is white.

One world culture would be quite varied, I think.

If it's even possible to have one world culture. Even in the US, we have many different subcultures that are thriving.

Most of these classes work to establish two basic points, 1. that "race" has no biological basis, and 2. that "race" as a social construction is very real and affects us every day.


Hmm, I really think that your impression is limited and mistaken. Which university? Which classes? I think they would probably be sociological classes, instead of biological or genetical classes because those points betray ignorancy about the current debate in scientific community. There is no consensus when it come to race. Eg:


Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctiveness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of 'biological'. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation.

A forceful presentation of the second point - that racial differences are merely cosmetic - was given recently in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: "Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological difference between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clinical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appearance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intricacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug." The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. For example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).

Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. For example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

If it's even possible to have one world culture. Even in the US, we have many different subcultures that are thriving.

Subcultures will always exist, I'm sure. It's the idea of culture based on race or ethnicity that's at issue. I can choose to become a member of many subcultures, but I can't just decide to be asian or mexican, etc. That's the issue, I think.

I'm suprised at the number of racists.

It's not too surprising to me - everyone wants to believe they're better than they're neighbor, even if it means clinging to obsolete race science.

If it's even possible to have one world culture. Even in the US, we have many different subcultures that are thriving.
Precisely.
but the cultural differences shouldnt be wiped out in an effort to enforce the idea that we are all the same. we would lose too much.
But wouldn't we gain so much more?
The problem with that preconstructed viewpoint is that with the Marxist-Leninist political groups, race issues are merely a subordinate issue to the class struggle, and the groups inevitably try to tie racism to the capitalist socioeconomic system solely for political benefit. A black former member of the Communist Party USA wrote a book a couple years ago about how many Leninist organizations used the race issue in a Machiavellian sense.
Every serious revolutionary communist I've ever known is quite Machiavellian about everything.
There is greater variety, as a whole.

If you combined all of the ethnicities and most of the cultures (some would cease to be) and periodically recombined culture groups and ethnicity you would have an incredible genetic variety and enable a multicultural society that is about combining, rather than keeping seperate.

Hear, hear. (Or is that here, here?)

Well I mean actually hating hate groups and racists makes you racist. You aren't respecting there culture (of racism). So to say well I really dispise racists means your techniclly racist. You are not respecting what the racists believe in

I don't like the idea of racism. I don't get why you would hate a black person because there black, Jews because there Jewish, gays because there gay and so on. Hating someone (or worse killing) for something like there skin colors different. So what? I mean ohhh he believes in a different God than you lets kill him. Ohhh he lives 3000 miles away from you lets kill him. I don't respect the idea of racism. Then again I am not respecting the racists beliefs making me threfore a racist. Sucks doesn't it??
Fail. A belief is not a race, therefore, you cannot be racist against racists.

People are people, but why shouldn't we say the Ioquois are Native American. If it was in fact a "color bind" world our Hstory books would read the people whom lived on the continent of Europe sailed to the Continent of North America. The people seeking religous freedom (they were persecuted because the were people) made a pact on the boat. There was a harsh winter, luckily the people originaly from Europe got help from the people who Already lived in North America. We're all humans but are from a certain place thus making us a certain reace. We shouldn't seperate or hate specific races, I just believe we shouldn't not acknowledge there is a group. Are bathrooms gonna be the people's restroom and the people's restroom. Only the little stick figure giving a cluee as which is man's and which is women's. There couldn't be politiclal parties. Imagine 'I don't see people as Republicans or Democrats just a sizeb;e number of people who believe one thing and a sizeable group of people who believe in another.' Bush is a person who belives in.... You get the point. Saying one person is black and his friend is white doesn't seperate them, make tham unequal it merely states that that guy's black and his friend over there is white.

Ah, but I do think, more or less, the way you describe it would be fairly ideal, if not refering to their races but their nations: that is, saying settlers in some colony from, say, England, were helped by the native population of the, say, Cherokee nation. That is, more or less, what you do with history in many cases. You say, for example, that Makedonian forces under Alexander fought against an army of the Persian Empire, under Darius, at the battle of Guagamela-- again, refer to the relevant tribe/nation/city-state/whatever.

Having sex with as many different people, of different ethnicities as possible. That's my brand of anti-racism.

Fail. A belief is not a race, therefore, you cannot be racist against racists.
Try telling that to our "irony" (and I use that term here as loosly as they do) obsessed culture.

I sweat to God if i hear one more person say anything along the lines of, "I hate racists," and then chuckle, I will fucking loose my God damned mind.

Note: I said "hear" smartasses.

Hear, hear. (Or is that here, here?)

Hear, hear I think.

Creole! intermarriage on the cultural, philosophical, religious, linguistic, and biological level. containing some characteristics of all races.

And everyone in Balenciaga gowns with red corsages, and bit dance palaces full of music, lights and racial impurity and gender confusion,and all the deities are creole, mulatto, brown as the mouths of rivers... Race. taste and history finally overcome.

While colour blind seems good, I opt for multi-cultural because there are aspects of different cultures which are quite beneficial to society as a whole. Like... food for example. :)

While colour blind seems good, I opt for multi-cultural because there are aspects of different cultures which are quite beneficial to society as a whole. Like... food for example. :)

*cough*INDIAN FOOD FTW*cough*

yeah, some aspects of other cultures just completely rule. my ideal country would be governed by Swedes, (or possibly 17th century Venetians) catered by Indians, engineered by Turks, and populated by Brazilians...and we'd speak Bengali because Bengali poetry is awesome.

*cough*INDIAN FOOD FTW*cough*

yeah, some aspects of other cultures just completely rule. my ideal country would be governed by Swedes, (or possibly 17th century Venetians) catered by Indians, engineered by Turks, and populated by Brazilians...and we'd speak Bengali because Bengali poetry is awesome.

Yours sounds lovely but... personally for me, the government would be Dutch, the food would be handled by the Italians and Greeks (joint effort), engineering by the Germans, populated by hmmm... don't know and we'd speak Japanese. :)

My objections are not based so much in race as culture; I abhor "Gangsta" culture, and anything that might claim association with it, with a passion. The race of those who belong to such a culture is of no consequence to me.