Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 01:51:57 GMT
Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Thomas) wrote:
: >My good friend Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Usually, one is described as a "good friend" in the opening of an
: impeachment proceeding; I proceed, on tiptoe, listening anxiously for
: the rustling of a noose being knotted.
: >: >Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: 1. I don't know of multiple kinds of science.
: >
: >That's not the issue. The fact that there is an infinitude
: >of particularizations of a single principle does not detract
: >from the scientific generality of the principle.
: Not principle; procedure. The procedure includes demonstration of the
: repeatability of the model.
The model qua form is repeatable. Where the lines get drawn for
different societies may be different within the model. The
content is society-specific. I have not contended, and do not
contend now, that racial classification boundaries are the same
for all societies.
: If your hypothesis, when tested, gives
: "an infinitude of particularizations", it is a damn sight harder to
: prove that this Brownian Motion is a scientific reality.
You turn a pretty phrase, but empty. The only "scientific
reality" I would claim for the procedure in question would be
its correspondence to reality. That is, if, say, 100% of people from
your society classify you as Black, then my procedure
should likewise classify you as Black with a 100% weight of
membership in the category Black, based on purely external,
observable, and measurable phenotypic features.
: It is usually just a pretty picture, created by lunatic throwing
: baloons filled with paint. The fact that no one wants to clean it up
: doesn't make it science.
Pretty turn of phrase, also empty.
: snip
: >: Do you need obvious examples? An objective observation would be that
: >: a person is bipedal; anyone that could count to two could figure this
: >: out. But how do you say that a person is "short"? "Fat"? "Dark"?
: >
: >Perhaps you should read my "Fuzziness and Probability"
: >(ISBN 0-9649049-0-X). Subjectivity inheres in the attribute,
: >as distinct from descriptors of attribute-value, no matter
: >how fuzzy, like "short", "fat", "dark". I could give you
: >a whole lecture here, but suffice it to say, for example,
: >the attribute for which "short" is one descriptor of
: >attribute-value is height, and you would hardly say that
: >height is per se subjective. Even a fuzzy descriptor,
: >such as "short", conveys objective information, although
: >fuzzy. Think of an eyewitness in court who describes the
: >perpetrator as "short". Would the jury not be correct,
: >believing the eyewitness, to acquit a defendant the height
: >of Kareem Abdul Jabbar?
: Obviously, I need not explain to you, of all people, the fallacy of
: proving a negative.
Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about.
The point I tried to make was that fuzzy does not necessarily
mean subjective. I'll try again. A fuzzy description or
measurement of an object (eg. a crime suspect) according
to an objective, measurable attribute, eg. height, does not
imply anything necessarily subjective about the attribute.
: Abdul-Jabbar is an extraordinary specimen. Were
: he to be the witness, describing a "short" assailant, this could mean
: anything from a midget to someone nearly six feet tall.
: "Who hit you?"
: "A short, dark guy."
: "How short? How dark?"
: "Well, you know, short. And kinda dark, ya know."
: Would you consider this a valid answer, or needlessly fuzzy and
: evasive?
Well, it might rule out Shaq O'Neal as a suspect.
: In attempting to be general enough to include entire cultures in some
: "racial" categorization of behavior, you evade and discount thousands
: of years of history, and the overmagnification of events reaching back
: no more than perhaps six hundred years, which is no way to try to
: describe something that took thousands of years of specialization -
: the superficial characteristics we call race.
Irrelevant. I attempt only to describe a present-day social
reality. I maintain, and I am certain, that I can mimic
*any* society's rules of classification, based on external,
observable, phenotypic variables. Nothing you have said
refutes that. Moreover, nothing you *can* say would refute
it. I know enough of race, on one side, and of fuzziness,
probability and statistics, on the other side, to be so
certain.
: >: Try explaining your racial theories to a Black man in South Africa; a
: >: Zulu, perhaps. My amusement will only be exceeded by his.
: >
: >Try an argument. I was just in Ghana.
: And the result?
You were trying to make a point. If you have one, I'd still
like to hear it. But suffice it to say that there are many
pan-Africanists in Africa, and in particular, Ghana. You
should get and read a copy of Kwame Nkrumah's "Neocolonialism".
I visited his mausoleum in Accra. You might also want to
get and read a copy of du Bois's "The world and Africa".
I visited his memorial library in Accra, also. Get and
read also any of Cheikh Anta Diop's works. He was Senegalese.
See also Kwame Gyekye's "African Cultural Values".
He is Akan. What you call my "racial theories" are owed
at least in part to Africa itself, and to Africans, in particular
the notion of the cultural unity of Black Africa, which
is really all my "racial theories" amount to. It is that
notion of cultural unity that also informs Ani's work
and her concept of asili. Without cultural unity, there
would be no basis for her concept of an African asili.
: >: >Be that as it may, I notice that society finds a way to sort
: >: >out even the fuzzy middle.
: >
: >: Like dismissing the notions of Tiger Woods, or jeering at Mariah
: >: Carey?
: >
: > I do not attempt to dictate society's rules of
: >racial classification, only to describe them.
: And you can't even do that. What is Tiger Woods, anyhow?
By the rules of classification of American society, Tiger
Woods is Black. I did not make those rules. My only
comment on his attempt to cast himself as "Caublinasian",
ie. a mix of caucasian, Black, Asian and more, is that
he is hopelessly naive. The issue is not one of accuracy.
In a racist (white supremacist) world, you really are
either with the oppressed, or you are a tool of the oppressor.
In a non-racist world, he would be merely human, and the
issue would never arise. In a racist world, you do not
give aid and comfort to the oppressor by making it easier
for him to play the divide-and-conquer game. It occurs
to me that as America's demographics changes, and whites
become also a minority in this land, you can be *sure*
that a buffer group of "coloreds" would emerge, exactly
as in So. Africa and elsewhere, precisely to protect
the white supremacy program.
: What
: behavior would you predict for someone whose ancestry includes genes
: from what you describe as a European and an African? (Just for the
: heck of it, toss in an Asian and a Native American, for the fun of
: it.)
I do not claim to be able to "predict behavior".
I do claim that there is descriptive validity to
Ani's concept of cultural asili, and furthermore
that there are differences between the African
and the European asili, the European one being
pathogenic in a sense that is easily understood,
since it has given us the social pathologies of
feudalism, imperialism, slavery, colonialism,
neo-colonialism, sexism, and other aberrations that
are absent from the African asili, and moreover
unthinkable within it.
: While I, too, would venture some guesses, I wouldn't for the life of
: me try to claim any measure of accuracy or scientific validity.
You keep throwing about the phrase "scientific validity",
apparently without any concept of what it means.
Something is scientifically valid, if and only if it
corresponds to reality.
: >: Have you ever watched the gyrations of the people who want to make
: >: claims for reparations against the government?
: >
: >???
: What red herring? Race is the descriptor used by slavers in stealing
: humans; race is to be the descriptor used in compensating the
: descendants of those same humans. It is an actual dollar value issue,
: important to all Black people in this nation.
: You call your OWN ideas red herrings, now? Or just mentioning them in
: uncomfortable contexts?
If you want to discuss reparations, and who is owed, and
how much, that is a perfectly valid subject for discussion.
That is not what this thread is about. Now, having
said that, I will indulge your red herring only to say
that if you are descended from Africans enslaved in
America, then you have a reparations claim. There.
Where are the gyrations?
: >: Society has done a pretty bad job; even among Black people, we see
: >: craziness over being "color-struck", and comments about not being
: >: Black enough, either in appearance or attitude. No, I think society
: >: hasn't got a clue how to deal with it, and your notion that you can
: >: come up with a scientific method is both idealistic and unrealistic.
: >
: >I said a scientific protocol, merely to describe society's own
: >classification schemes, based on a finite number of observable
: >and measurable physiognomic variables.
: I am reminded of the best efforts of the phrenologists. Then there
: was the fella that could tell a lot about a person from the shape of
: the nose; he found those with a groove at the tip to be extremely
: untrustworthy. I forget the science he coined to describe it.
If you have an argument with phrenologists, I am not the
one to pursue it with.
: >: For what purpose is anyone interested in racial classification, other
: >: than to justify racism?
: >
: >When I was growing up, I used to go to the "Chinee shop" in
: >the village. Everybody called it the "Chinee shop", and there
: >was no racist connotation in the usage; it was merely descriptive.
: Of course. But it could have been "Ying's Shop", or "The Pigtail
: Hairdo Guy's Shop", or "That Foreign Guy's Shop" or whatever.
: The name wouldn't change if you bought it; and you're not Chinese.
: That is not the point.
: The point is, what did the descriptor mean beyond a simple identifier?
The point is, race exists. Evidently to the discomfort of
white liberals who fancy themselves color-blind, and to
occupiers of the muddled middle who, brainwashed by the
oppressor, wish to distance themselves from the oppressed.
: >:...Were you to make a medical examination of
: >: Tiger Woods, without knowing his ancestry, you wouldn't be able to
: >: tell whether or not he was Samoan, or any details about his origin -
: >: except that he wasn't Caucasian, or whatever. Race classification is
: >: only important to people who want to know what the subject is NOT -
: >: "He's not white", or "She's not Black," or whatever.
: >
: >I do not deny that race is *a* predicate of racism. I merely
: >deny that racism is a *necessary* consequence of race. Nothing
: >you have so far said refutes that simple, and logically
: >sound proposition.
: Considering your penchant for glossing over the human traits, good and
: bad, of people of either African or European cultures to fit some
: preconceived notion of "asili", I can't use your statements to
: validate your comment.
Pretty turn of phrase, also empty.
: I am not trying to refute anything. I am trying to find a coherent
: theory that has enough substance to refute. For right now, the notion
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: that race is valid is something that even you fail to find palatable;
: and trying to defend a notion that you can't define seems like a
: classic cart-before-the-horse quandary.
A theory that has not enough substance to refute also has not
enough substance either to agree or disagree with. So far,
you have been doing a lot of disagreeing, vacuous to be sure.
: >: Wayne "At some point, we have to ask what it all means" Johnson
: >: ciacon@ix.netcom.com
: >
: >No question. Moral debility.
: >When will the muddled middle see it?
: Perhaps when some value from the knowledge can be derived.
: Wayne "The notion of counterbalancing racist theories seems doggedly
: self-defeating" Johnson
: ciacon@ix.netcom.com
Who is counter-balancing? Who is racist?
The only thing that is doggedly self-defeating
is failing to acknowledge REALITY.
"Adopt ye not the ways of the oppressor."
Contents | Previous | Next