Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:57:45 GMT
Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Thomas) wrote:
: >Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: On Sat, 7 Feb 1998 23:41:35 CST, "ray wood" wrote:
: >
: >(( cuts ))
: >
: >: Society taught me different, but again, to each his own. But Thomas
: >: says that science can define race. How is that? He's not being real
: >: successful in explaining it, and since you like what he has to say, I
: >: was hoping you could help me out.
: >
: >Actually, starting with the fact that race is a social construct, I
: >am certain that I can devise a scientific protocol for
: >racial classification that would mimic the unstated societal rules of
: >classification.
: That is a bold assumption. Although it's been tried for millennia, I
: don't see where anyone is using a system we all accept as valid.
Racial classification is "valid" only in the sense that there is
usually near-unanimity about how any one of its members is
classified. This ability of society to so classify has been
valid in this sense, for millenia.
: Besides, the societal constructs used in this country don't match
^^^^^^^^^^^
: those used elsewhere, which is something that isn't true of other
: scientific assumptions.
I never claimed that they do, or that they have to.
Whether or not "scientific assumptions" match across
countries is a question of what kind of science we
are talking about. The mimicing scheme that I propose
could be made to work in any country. But, in any
given country, the scheme would only attempt to
mimic the racial classification scheme used in that
country.
: The societal constructs here don't match the ones used in France, or
: Russia, or Northern India, or Samoa. It is all subjective.
Again, I make no claim about matching. As to subjectivity,
you are wrong, otherwise there would not be unanimity,
at least in my case, as to the racial classification society
chooses to box me into.
: You would like for the subjectivity of race to be subsumed by the
: relationship of Europeans to Africans, and the interactions of each in
: the New World.
Say what?
: While I admire the hubris of your aspirations, it is
: far outweighed by my amusement when I think of your chances of
: success.
Your amusement is amusing, and my hubris is in your
imagination only.
: >t is a problem of pattern recognition, in this case
: >of chosen phenotypical features, each of which is susceptible of
: >measurement--skin color, hair texture, width of nose, degree of
: >prognathism, etc. Conceivably, the chosen set of phenotypical
: >features sufficient to mimic society's rules of classification
: >could be replicated at the genotypic level, if the right genes to look
: >at could be isolated. But--and this is the fundamental difficulty--there
: >is no classification scheme that will not suffer from the problem of the
: >"gray" area, if only because all members of the human race are
: >related to some degree, so whether by phenotype or genotype, any
: >classification scheme is going to give you boxes with, at best, fuzzy
: >boundaries.
: Fuzzy is putting it mildly. Traits found on the "observable feature"
: level can be totally confused within a couple of generations of
: intermixing, reducing the entire construct to a muddle of subtleties
: important only to the fantasy of race.
Be that as it may, I notice that society finds a way to sort
out even the fuzzy middle.
: Emphasizing the need - or desirability - to place human beings in such
: boxes is why people find grounds for oppression in finding value in
: appearance. The notion of racism predates by centuries the knowledge
: of gene structures and whatnot.
We are talking about racial classification. Racism is another
question. I do emphasize neither the need nor the desirability
of either racial classification, or racism. I merely take
society the way I find it, and try to make sense of it at
some level. I certainly do not endorse racial oppression. And
I deny that the possibility of racial classification entails
as a matter of moral necessity the odious practice of racism.
That some groups of people think so, however, is an interesting
phenomenon in and of itself, and I am very much interested in
probing the depths of the moral debility in those that think
so.
: No one cares about that. They only care if they can find some
: construct by which they can claim superiority, like the size of ears
: on Easter Island clans. It's all nonsense.
At some level, yes. But you seize on the surface--the evident
possibility of racial classification--rather than going beneath
the surface and acknowledging, so what if racial classification
is possible, why should that form the predicate on which a
morally repugnant system of oppression is based?
: The truth is, a system that tried to use the skin color and features
: of African people as an "indelible marker" of slave status has been
: perpetuated by a diseased culture based in Europe. The disease is
: racism; the cure is acknowledgement that racism is a disease.
Quite.
: We can't combat racism by denying race unilaterally. What we can do
: is simply acknowledge, unilaterally, that what we are talking about is
: culture; the combination of factors that make a people use a certain
: set of beliefs to live by.
No disagreement there.
: In America, this includes assumptions of
: race, and what it is, and when we try to legitimize race, we simply
: infect ourselves with a mutant strain of the oppressor's disease.
You confuse categories. What you call "legitimizing race"
I would call "acknowledging the possibility and reality of
racial classification." To "legitimize" race in this sense
is not the same as "legitimizing" racism. I just refuse to
get hung up on a false denial, because to do so is to make it
more difficult to focus on the core issue, which is the
soul of the race, and the moral debility within.
: >Still, for most of us, we and society know what box
: >we are in. That of course is the fundamental reality, no matter
: >how silly, and what makes the odious practice of racism possible,
: >again no matter how silly.
: True.
: Wayne "The problem is, the box does not define the person at all"
: Johnson
: ciacon@ix.netcom.com
But that is not the issue, is it?
"The beginning of Wisdom
Is Knowing who you are.
Draw near and listen."
--Swahili Proverb
Contents | Previous | Next