|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 28, 2008 15:37:34 GMT -5
All right. There's a disjunct in communication. I understand what you're saying Dipsy but there will continue to be unproductive argument and more frustration if we don't recognize we're discussing different things: a) what is, b) what should be. Great new paradigm. If I insert your statement below into the context of a), there is a problem (naturally). "No mixed person can be rejected by a mixed community (whatever that is)." This is disbelief (or "rejection") of a person's origins, where they come from, who they are, what they identify with, from another mixed person - let's not pretend mixed people are infallible in being stupidly myopic. Of course this isn't what you're saying. I said that no group of mixed people are going to reject a mixed person as mixed. It's ridiculous that they would. However, this DOES happen to mixies at the hands of blandies on a constant basis. So are you telling me mixed people who don't look mixed are constantly running into other mixies who say, "Hell, no, I don't accept you as mixed! Get out of my face!" I don't believe for a second that happens to any significant degree. I've run into mixies I did not know were mixed but once they told me, I believed them because I have no reason not to. I see no reason to get in their face about it even if for some reason I didn't believe them (one white kid who was about 20 or so told me he was 1/8 Japanese which I found unbelievable but he seemed sincere about it so I just said, "Oh, that's interesting," and maybe he is but I doubt it). It's blandies that will give you dirty or contemptuous looks, who talk to you in the language they have decided you must understand and all that. No mixie has ever given me s*** about being mixed, I can't imagine why any would. On the other hand, mixies who do not consider themselves mixed are not part of any mixed community by their own choice. They have separated themselves from it. That's all well and good and it is their right to do so. But I do not want to hear from them about a mixed race perspective since they don't have one. If they want me to consider them mixed, they have to consider themselves mixed first. It's essential for blandies to adopt it because the old views of race simply don't apply to mixies. It's not black and white anymore. I become irate at media attempts to address race and it's all about blacks and whites. Hey, this isn't the 60s anymore. Race is not just about blacks and whites getting along. Race is now about the fact that whites are becoming a minority and that people of mixed race are increasing and that we will assume the reins of power eventually and it is essential that we have something new to offer the world than the same old tired black and white garbage. It will be a new America and the last thing I want to hear is the same old colonialist, worn-out, racist crap that should have died when white people lost majority status.
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 28, 2008 15:46:53 GMT -5
In my opinion just be your own individual and to hell with any thoughts in regards to acceptance or respect. If you stand up for yourself as an individual, you COMMAND respect. Nothing they can do about it, you command their respect. What I'm saying is that it is not contradictory to accept anyone as mixed even if I don't like that person. The two do not go hand-in-hand. In fact, it is racist to make the two go hand-in-hand. Would you want someone to like you simply because you are mixed? However, if you are mixed but identify only as one race, I will not regard you as mixed because you don't regard yourself as mixed. I may not agree with that but if that's how you want it then that's how it will be. It's not up to me to tell you or anyone how to regard themselves. Besides that, I agree with what you said.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 29, 2008 1:17:55 GMT -5
Old views of race are already disbanded, it doesn't even apply nemore even for purebloods. though the terms are still used for reference in modern day anthropology. This is due to the fact that the only scholarly sources for racial study dates back to it's foundation in 18th century Europe. Those theories are very inaccurate and were mainly used to justify colonisation and slavery yes (racialism replaced religion as a political uniting tool in Europe). However as Anthropologists got more objective in their studies - subraces were developed for classifications due to the sheer amount of diversity in looks and genetics.
Depending on one's level of education, there are either only 3-4 races, or a whole heap. An example of a whole heap is here, written by R. McCullogh in 1994 though it seems he borrowed a lot of information from J.R. Baker's book (1974):
----------------------------------------
Well I can agree with you somewhat, I've noticed though that a lot of people have a very uneducated view of race and if someone doesn't blend in with the stereotypical features of the 3 outdated categories, they are judged as mixed which can be quite offensive to purebloods.
Judging the Turanid race as most being mixed between Europid and Asiatic sub-racial groups is accurate, no one can argue with genetical facts. However, judging the Tungid race to be as mixed as them is false and genetics proves this.
Even though I am mixed I have actually been quite offended quite a few times by people who say my build, tall stature, and even looks are due to caucasoid ancestry. To be honest I find such thinking rather sick, but, I guess people like to keeps things simple. Pffft, then they meet my pureblood cousins and go "What the f***?" Heh so much for my traits being due to mixture.
|
|
|
Post by avax on Dec 29, 2008 5:42:34 GMT -5
All right. There's a disjunct in communication. I understand what you're saying Dipsy but there will continue to be unproductive argument and more frustration if we don't recognize we're discussing different things: a) what is, b) what should be. Great new paradigm. If I insert your statement below into the context of a), there is a problem (naturally). "No mixed person can be rejected by a mixed community (whatever that is)." This is disbelief (or "rejection") of a person's origins, where they come from, who they are, what they identify with, from another mixed person - let's not pretend mixed people are infallible in being stupidly myopic. Of course this isn't what you're saying. I said that no group of mixed people are going to reject a mixed person as mixed. It's ridiculous that they would. However, this DOES happen to mixies at the hands of blandies on a constant basis. So are you telling me mixed people who don't look mixed are constantly running into other mixies who say, "Hell, no, I don't accept you as mixed! Get out of my face!" I don't believe for a second that happens to any significant degree. I've run into mixies I did not know were mixed but once they told me, I believed them because I have no reason not to. I see no reason to get in their face about it even if for some reason I didn't believe them (one white kid who was about 20 or so told me he was 1/8 Japanese which I found unbelievable but he seemed sincere about it so I just said, "Oh, that's interesting," and maybe he is but I doubt it). It's blandies that will give you dirty or contemptuous looks, who talk to you in the language they have decided you must understand and all that. No mixie has ever given me sh*t about being mixed, I can't imagine why any would. On the other hand, mixies who do not consider themselves mixed are not part of any mixed community by their own choice. They have separated themselves from it. That's all well and good and it is their right to do so. But I do not want to hear from them about a mixed race perspective since they don't have one. If they want me to consider them mixed, they have to consider themselves mixed first. It's essential for blandies to adopt it because the old views of race simply don't apply to mixies. It's not black and white anymore. I become irate at media attempts to address race and it's all about blacks and whites. Hey, this isn't the 60s anymore. Race is not just about blacks and whites getting along. Race is now about the fact that whites are becoming a minority and that people of mixed race are increasing and that we will assume the reins of power eventually and it is essential that we have something new to offer the world than the same old tired black and white garbage. It will be a new America and the last thing I want to hear is the same old colonialist, worn-out, racist crap that should have died when white people lost majority status. White people are still a large majority in more areas than I can count with both hands and feet. There is also a fixation on purely american media/politics that's used to blanket (global) racial dialogue. I don't see any black v. white race wars in my media/tv box. We disagree based on demographics and geography. You have also twisted my words and meaning of "rejection". I explicitly remarked about disbelief and even expounded on that kind of disbelief. Nowhere in there did I hint at violent "get out of my face" nonsense. Existing on the periphery exists mixed or not. Whether it's significant to you, is your prerogative. The use of "blandies" implies something lacking in the negative sense - wanting, without taste or flavour, lack-luster, sub par, subhuman, even inhuman. It strips the non-mixed from their own identity and whether you are aware of it or not, it's a value judgment that reeks of intolerance. It also suggests non-mixed individuals are racially inferior. If it were a joke at a party, I'd be one to laugh, but your online persona seems a rather adversarial and serious chap. All the lofty ideals (as tempting as they are to the attention-starved thing that apparently is the mixed person in "media" and "politics") cannot hide a dialogue that demoralizes another population.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 29, 2008 6:10:11 GMT -5
The minute people start treating each other as individuals rather then what 'race' they are in, you've conquered racism and every single 'mixie' problem. HA! That aint going to happen looks like
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 29, 2008 10:52:54 GMT -5
White people are still a large majority in more areas than I can count with both hands and feet. There is also a fixation on purely american media/politics that's used to blanket (global) racial dialogue. I don't see any black v. white race wars in my media/tv box. We disagree based on demographics and geography. You have also twisted my words and meaning of "rejection". I explicitly remarked about disbelief and even expounded on that kind of disbelief. Nowhere in there did I hint at violent "get out of my face" nonsense. . Whether it's significant to you, is your prerogative. You're not clear when you post anything. You did not make clear who is doing the disbelieving. You do not make clear whether this is some enormous problem. I did my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had some valid point but once again you failed to make clear what it is you are actually saying. Who is disbelieving whom about what? What kind of problem is this causing? Where is this happening? What is your source so I can get a handle on the scope of the problem? "Existing on the periphery exists mixed or not..." What does that mean? Existing on what periphery? Where? And don't try to relate it to race either since you've already made clear "mixed or not" so what are you talking about?? I was trying to nice before but I'm starting to lose patience. You're sounding suspiciously like someone wasting my time for your own amusement. For the last time, what are you are talking about? Oh my, that's just so hurtful. Then you should have no problem explaining how. So if I make a joke that non-mixed people are racially inferior, you'd be the first one to laugh??? Do you ever read what you post before you post it? If someone jokes to me that anyone is racially inferior to anyone else, I'd tell him he was out of line. And if I heard you laugh, I'd tell you the same thing. Oh please!! Demoralizes. Sure. All the non-mixed folks out there are throwing themselves out of windows and jujmping in front of moving cares because I called them blandies. I mean, really. Get real. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by dipsydoodle on Dec 29, 2008 10:54:33 GMT -5
The minute people start treating each other as individuals rather then what 'race' they are in, you've conquered racism and every single 'mixie' problem. HA! That aint going to happen looks like And it's generally the people who call for this kind of "let's all just be nice to each other" crap who practice it least.
|
|
|
Post by avax on Dec 29, 2008 12:49:53 GMT -5
White people are still a large majority in more areas than I can count with both hands and feet. There is also a fixation on purely american media/politics that's used to blanket (global) racial dialogue. I don't see any black v. white race wars in my media/tv box. We disagree based on demographics and geography. You have also twisted my words and meaning of "rejection". I explicitly remarked about disbelief and even expounded on that kind of disbelief. Nowhere in there did I hint at violent "get out of my face" nonsense. . Whether it's significant to you, is your prerogative. You're not clear when you post anything. You did not make clear who is doing the disbelieving. You do not make clear whether this is some enormous problem. I did my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that you had some valid point but once again you failed to make clear what it is you are actually saying. Who is disbelieving whom about what? What kind of problem is this causing? Where is this happening? What is your source so I can get a handle on the scope of the problem? "Existing on the periphery exists mixed or not..." What does that mean? Existing on what periphery? Where? And don't try to relate it to race either since you've already made clear "mixed or not" so what are you talking about?? I was trying to nice before but I'm starting to lose patience. You're sounding suspiciously like someone wasting my time for your own amusement. For the last time, what are you are talking about? Oh my, that's just so hurtful. Then you should have no problem explaining how. So if I make a joke that non-mixed people are racially inferior, you'd be the first one to laugh??? Do you ever read what you post before you post it? If someone jokes to me that anyone is racially inferior to anyone else, I'd tell him he was out of line. And if I heard you laugh, I'd tell you the same thing. Oh please!! Demoralizes. Sure. All the non-mixed folks out there are throwing themselves out of windows and jujmping in front of moving cares because I called them blandies. I mean, really. Get real. LOL! Sorry, Dips. I won't be buying the new "paradigm" at news stands today. If you'd like to be taken seriously, then perhaps choose your vocabulary with care.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Dec 29, 2008 13:21:01 GMT -5
"Didn't you get the memo? I just got elected President of the United States of America" Colonialist America would not have done this.
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Dec 30, 2008 0:58:42 GMT -5
I think both are true.
RACE has dominated US society and politics throughout its entire history. Racist policies and ideologies can be traced back to the colonial era and it will not disappear overnight.
In fact, I think even Obama's becoming president still highlights many of the racist ideologies still present in America from colonial times. I think of him as having a mostly *white* background and upbringing (certainly much more than me), but he is nevertheless heralded as the first BLACK president-elect of the USA.
Indeed, we are at a turning point -- certainly a large part of the country is eager to get PAST race and we are certainly moving in another direction. This turning point is helping to fuel the splintering in the RNC, but even they will evolve to become another entity.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 30, 2008 3:16:33 GMT -5
I doubt US racialism will disappear at all. To be honest sometimes I believe that only by letting it get bad enough with enough innocent people getting killed will the US acknowledge the problem seriously. However, those who are 'politically correct' are slowing down this process by trying to combat racism itself when it's already the very soul of 'America'. As for Obama, he is already half white, yet already you have nationalists going "OMG This is an obamanation!" "America must be saved from the most dangerous man in American history" Hahaha because he's also half black. It's rather entertaining to watch
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Dec 30, 2008 17:58:10 GMT -5
Sure.
But when people in the USA look at Obama, they see a black man. And he was elected, by both a popular vote majority and an electoral landslide.
So you can choose to look at that as positive, since CLEARLY this required many white Americans to vote for him, or you can say it highlights the racial divide that has existed and likely will always exist, since "in-group out-group" division has been around since we first clawed our way out of the primordial soup.
I choose to think of it in a good way.
Though I will freely admit I did not vote for the man, since I disagree with his politics even more than that of the Republicans. Though the difference is almost negligible.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Dec 30, 2008 20:13:28 GMT -5
I do believe it is very possible that Americans do wish to have a new face to the world. Already many Australians utterly despise Americans due to their racial ideologies. Especially when Americans try to condemn Aussies for the way Aboriginals are treated - pushing the blame elsewhere, Aussies explode in anger, knowing that the African-Americans suffered way more.
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Dec 30, 2008 20:36:09 GMT -5
Wow hasn't this thread taken a couple of turns! Dipsy really is a very serious chap.
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Jan 1, 2009 12:00:27 GMT -5
Sure. But when people in the USA look at Obama, they see a black man. I think that you are overwhelmingly generalizing. I am an American, and I see something other than simply a *BLACK* man, even when I am in the USA -- his close association with his white granparents, his Indonesian stepfather, his years of anguish of where his identity really lied. And, based on the extensive reading I have done and given the stir that such events such as "Barack the Magic Negro" has caused, I think that many whites and blacks in the US do not see him as simply a "black" man. However, he often (but not always or purely) identifies himself as "black" and the media often does too, so many people think of that when they think of Obama. But I think that many people think a helluva lot of different things as well. But one thing it does do, it *sorta* reinforces the concept of the one-drop rule in the USA. If many people in the USA simply see him as a black man, then it validates that the one-drop rule is still operating, which, in itself, is yet a racist ideology. As I said, it is both and people are free to see it as they see fit. Saying that some of the existing racial divide is being highlighted is not saying that it is being seen in a *bad* way. In fact, I think it is merely an informed way of seeing it -- noticing that some racial obstacles have been hurdled and some are still being highlighted as continuing to exist. We are simply nowhere near being "PAST" race anytime soon in America.
|
|