A frank discussion about feminist, marxist and racist *ahem* race ideology etc.

[Pickman's model]

Probably because I never got past the second year of studying it.

if you studied sociology at a level you'd have more knowledge of marx than you've displayed here

 

[winifred]

Given that race ideology tends to pitch races in terms of colour, why is it that 'black' tends to be the identifier of somebody who is of a mixed race heritage? Is this not a Eurocentric means of labelling somebody who isn't completely 'white'? And even if you had a mixed race person who was genetically 'white' in appearance, they'd still have the label of being 'black' placed upon them. And that's why race is technically defunct because it's not even useful as a descriptor of human appearance.

 

[bi0boy]

Given that race ideology tends to pitch races in terms of colour, why is it that 'black' tends to be the identifier of somebody who is of a mixed race heritage? Is this not a Eurocentric means of labelling somebody who isn't completely 'white'? And even if you had a mixed race person who was genetically 'white' in appearance, they'd still have the label of being 'black' placed upon them. And that's why race is technically defunct because it's not even useful as a descriptor of human appearance.

They used to have a very thorough system of describing mixed race parentage in South America, can't say it was much of an improvement on more simple ways:

1. Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
2. Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
3. Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
4. Mulatto: Spanish and black African
5. Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
6. Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
7. Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
8. Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
9. Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
10. Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
11. Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
12. Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
13. Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
14. Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
15. Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
16. Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother
17. etc etc

 

[trabuquera]

..... aaaand yet, people of wholly or partially African descent are still all too often identified, targeted, abused (whether it's a cop kneeling on a girl's back or using lethal force) on the basis of appearance. So you can sort of understand why, despite the obvious 'flaws in the concept' of race, the fact it's still a lived reality for so many people means some reluctance in some quarters to pretend that we can just snap our fingers and magic a postracial world into existence right now?

 

[winifred]

..... aaaand yet, people of wholly or partially African descent are still all too often identified, targeted, abused (whether it's a cop kneeling on a girl's back or using lethal force) on the basis of appearance. So you can sort of understand why, despite the obvious 'flaws in the concept' of race, the fact it's still a lived reality for so many people means some reluctance in some quarters to pretend that we can just snap our fingers and magic a postracial world into existence right now?

Just because I'm highlighting the flaws, doesn't mean to say that I don't also acknowledge the consequences. Arguing for one thing doesn't necessarily mean that it invalidates the reality. It's a case of trying to highlight the fallacy of race, so as to attempt to make a change in peoples' perception of others = based on race. Of course, this probably won't be done any time soon - but it's still worth making a start on, wouldn't you agree?

 

[DotCommunist]

Is this not a Eurocentric means of labelling somebody who isn't completely 'white'?

there is of course the concept I've heard of 'politically black'. I'm not sure how much currency it has today, but I've heard of people growing up in the 70s and 80s using the term

 

[winifred]

I hadn't realised that another poster ('dialetician') had posted themes (in the Dolezal thread) that are similar to what I had tried to touch upon within this thread, albeit in a more articulate and sophisticated manner.

 

[winifred]

They used to have a very thorough system of describing mixed race parentage in South America, can't say it was much of an improvement on more simple ways:

1. Mestizo: Spanish father and Indian mother
2. Castizo: Spanish father and Mestizo mother
3. Espomolo: Spanish mother and Castizo father
4. Mulatto: Spanish and black African
5. Moor: Spanish and Mulatto
6. Albino: Spanish father and Moor mother
7. Throwback: Spanish father and Albino mother
8. Wolf: Throwback father and Indian mother
9. Zambiago: Wolf father and Indian mother
10. Cambujo: Zambiago father and Indian mother
11. Alvarazado: Cambujo father and Mulatto mother
12. Borquino: Alvarazado father and Mulatto mother
13. Coyote: Borquino father and Mulatto mother
14. Chamizo: Coyote father and Mulatto mother
15. Coyote-Mestizo: Cahmizo father and Mestizo mother
16. Ahi Tan Estas: Coyote-Mestizo father and Mulatto mother
17. etc etc

It's a pretty long list. Not sure what a 'throwback father' would pertain to. Could be a sign of respect to somebody who maintains the old traditions, or else somebody who's considered to be a bit old-fashioned?

 

[winifred]

there is of course the concept I've heard of 'politically black'. I'm not sure how much currency it has today, but I've heard of people growing up in the 70s and 80s using the term

I would liken being 'Black' with a political movement/struggle, especially as it's pretty much useless as a descriptor. I've tended to use 'black' (lower case) in previous discussions around race, because of its historical basis as a racist 'science' re: categorising people on the basis of their outward appearance.

 

[Pickman's model]

I would liken being 'Black' with a political movement/struggle, especially as it's pretty much useless as a descriptor. I've tended to use 'black' (lower case) in previous discussions around race, because of its historical basis as a racist 'science' re: categorising people on the basis of their outward appearance.

for the hard of thinking RACE IS NOT ALL ABOUT OUTWARD APPEARANCE as anyone who had read the title of john lydon's first autobiography would know. not to mention anyone who had followed the unfortunate events in rwanda in 1994.

 

[Pickman's model]

From what I posted previously, I'm obviously not an expert on Marxist ideology, but I do have a basic understanding. In any case, my main point re: marxist philosophy is that a capitalist system typically creates great amounts of wealth for a minority of people at the expense of the vast majority of people. I would also argue that race and racism has it's roots in the development of capitalism within Western societies re: the slave trade, where black people were effectively regarded as 'commodities'. The subsequent development of a race 'science' gave credence to and legitimised the wholesale abuse and exploitation of African peoples' who were forced into slavery.

1) that the capitalist system creates great amounts of wealth for a minority of people at the expense of the vast majority of people doesn't really separate it from previous economic systems, does it? it's hardly the defining characteristick of capitalism.
2) i don't think you can really say that the notion of race has its roots in the development of capitalism in western societies as a) the slave trade was widespread long before capitalism had replaced feudalism; b) racism - and race - emerged in the encounters of europe with africa and asia during the 'age of exploration': even though there had been e.g. ambassadors from africa in europe from at least the 16th century.
3) i don't think you can say that any society in which every medium or large employer has a human resources department regards anyone as not a commodity.
4) the development of the pseudo-science of race (in the later nineteenth century) post-dated the abandonment of slavery by pretty much all european countries bar belgium (and even then it was i believe only in the congo, which was the personal fief of the king of the belgians before it became a belgian colony proper); if race science was used to give credence to (a curious phrase) and legitimise the wholesale abuse and exploitation of african peoples who were forced into slavery it was very much an ex post facto argument.

 

[winifred]

yes. but as you note there are traditions which say a man can be a feminist which winifred denies.

Again, I have to say you're misrepresenting me. Seems to be a continual theme with you. Let me put my point across through another source other than using 'wikipedia', (as you previously did), to argue the toss:

"Any movement for social justice would be doing itself no favours if it deliberately excluded its own supporters from the ranks, but while many feminists welcome men's championship of the cause, there's still a great deal of debate over their entitlement to call themselves feminists. The argument rages even amongst pro-feminist men, with some arguing that gender should be no barrier to full and active participation, and others arguing that as feminism is rooted in the women's liberation movement, a movement founded by women for the advancement of women, men have no right to lay claim to the tag." source

 

[winifred]

for the hard of thinking RACE IS NOT ALL ABOUT OUTWARD APPEARANCE *snip*

How very patronising. And yet another example of you misrepresenting my views/opinions.

 

[winifred]

[Edit: Doube post]
On the subject of colour, I noticed a flippant poster relating a person with jaundice as having the right to refer to themselves as 'yellow'. And again, this is an example of the illogical terminology that is based on race.

You wouldn't call a Chinese person 'yellow' or an Indian or Pakistani person 'brown', because it would be identified as racist. So why are we so comfortable in referring to people as either 'white' or 'black'?

 

[Pickman's model]

How very patronising. And yet another example of you misrepresenting my views/opinions.

strangely, i agree with you. i represent you as having views and opinions whereas it is becoming apparent you don't.

 

[Pickman's model]

[Edit: Doube post]
On the subject of colour, I noticed a flippant poster relating a person with jaundice as having the right to refer to themselves as 'yellow'. And again, this is an example of the illogical terminology that is based on race.

You wouldn't call a Chinese person 'yellow' or an Indian or Pakistani person 'brown', because it would be identified as racist. So why are we so comfortable in referring to people as either 'white' or 'black'?

perhaps you should reread the board faq which state that taking an argument across threads is a bad idea.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I don't believe I did get into any 'trouble' within that thread. The fact that mine was one of a few dissenting voices doesn't mean say that I was wrong to post up what I did.

You are misrepresenting that thread and the voices/opinions on it. What were you dissenting about?

This thread is basically inspired by the 'White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years' thread. The reason I haven't carried on posting within that thread is because it has been pretty much dominated by peoples' online vitriol towards Rachel Dolezal, (either rightly or wrongly).

And I get that people are outraged by a 'white' person identifying herself as being 'black'. But setting aside the fact that this thread is inspired by that story, I really want to get a discussion going about the influence that gender, class and race have on societies around the world - rather than getting into a protracted argument about somebody allegedly 'blacking up'.

...and why have you continued to misrepresent RD by carrying over to this thread a dishonest account of what she has done?

I prefer to be more optimistic about things. You can always try to find some positives from a seemingly bad situation - even if it's to bring various issues to the fore so as to learn from each other, and to potentially educate others (as in the 'White civil rights leader has pretended to be black for years' thread).

That's right, you come here to educate others because you are more 'optimistic'. How condescending can you get?

Let me tell you that until you can be honest in your presentation of what we already know to be true about RD and why people have the opinions they do yours is nothing more that a theoretical lesson in dishonesty.

There are positives to have come out of that discusson and the wider discussion people are having about the constructs of 'race', they are not happening though because of dishonesty..they are happening despite that.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Just because I'm highlighting the flaws, doesn't mean to say that I don't also acknowledge the consequences. Arguing for one thing doesn't necessarily mean that it invalidates the reality. It's a case of trying to highlight the fallacy of race, so as to attempt to make a change in peoples' perception of others = based on race. Of course, this probably won't be done any time soon - but it's still worth making a start on, wouldn't you agree?

But you haven't even done that in your OP...you have redacted then and winifred-washed them to position yourself as some kind of authority or transcended peacemaker.

 

[winifred]

1) that the capitalist system creates great amounts of wealth for a minority of people at the expense of the vast majority of people doesn't really separate it from previous economic systems, does it? it's hardly the defining characteristick of capitalism.

I never said it was. But it does mean that rather than the so-called 'white guilt' being applicable to white populations in general, it really applies to the minority of whites who perpetuated racism and the associated slave trade to satisfy their own greed. (And what's with sticking 'k's' on the end of your words e.g. characteristick and statick??)

2) i don't think you can really say that the notion of race has its roots in the development of capitalism in western societies as a) the slave trade was widespread long before capitalism had replaced feudalism; b) racism - and race - emerged in the encounters of europe with africa and asia during the 'age of exploration': even though there had been e.g. ambassadors from africa in europe from at least the 16th century.

"...slave-capital proved indispensable to the emergence of industrial capitalism and to the ascent of the United States as a global economic power. Indeed, the violent dispossession of racialized chattel slaves from their labor, their bodies, and their families — not the enclosure of the commons identified by Karl Marx — set capitalism in motion and sustained capital accumulation for three centuries." Source

3) i don't think you can say that any society in which every medium or large employer has a human resources department regards anyone as not a commodity

Don't be so disingenuous! Commodity as in treating people like objects that can be bought and sold.

4) the development of the pseudo-science of race (in the later nineteenth century) post-dated the abandonment of slavery by pretty much all european countries bar belgium (and even then it was i believe only in the congo, which was the personal fief of the king of the belgians before it became a belgian colony proper); if race science was used to give credence to (a curious phrase) and legitimise the wholesale abuse and exploitation of african peoples who were forced into slavery it was very much an ex post facto argument.

Yes, that's why I referred to it as the, "...subsequent development of a race 'science' gave credence to and legitimised the wholesale abuse and exploitation of African peoples' who were forced into slavery". Also, what's wrong with my use of the word 'credence'? 'Scientific racism' gave credence to peoples' perceptions that 'black' people were somewhat subhuman, and therefore deserving of the treatment that they got.

 

[winifred]

You are misrepresenting that thread and the voices/opinions on it. What were you dissenting about?

My 'dissent' was to hold an opinion which was at variance to the vast majority of people who had sought to vilify Rachel Dolezal within that thread. How am I misrepresenting anything by stating that fact?

...and why have you continued to misrepresent RD by carrying over to this thread a dishonest account of what she has done

Please refer to what I posted in my OP = "...I really want to get a discussion going about the influence that gender, class and race have on societies around the world - rather than getting into a protracted argument about somebody allegedly 'blacking up'."

That's right, you come here to educate others because you are more 'optimistic'. How condescending can you get?

I was talking about everyone educating each other actually.

 

[Pickman's model]

I never said it was.

oh but you did, in post 16

In any case, my main point re: marxist philosophy is that a capitalist system typically creates great amounts of wealth for a minority of people at the expense of the vast majority of people.

as opposed to i suppose a feudal system

 

[winifred]

perhaps you should reread the board faq which state that taking an argument across threads is a bad idea.

But I never argued with anyone on that thread re: a jaundiced person referring to themselves as 'yellow'. Therefore, how can I be taking an 'argument' across threads, when there wasn't an argument in the first place??

Again, please stop misrepresenting me - it's getting really tedious now!

 

[Pickman's model]

"...slave-capital proved indispensable to the emergence of industrial capitalism and to the ascent of the United States as a global economic power. Indeed, the violent dispossession of racialized chattel slaves from their labor, their bodies, and their families — not the enclosure of the commons identified by Karl Marx — set capitalism in motion and sustained capital accumulation for three centuries." Source

it is interesting that the industrial powerhouse of the united states was the NORTH then and not the south. tbh i'd say that the liberation of the slaves and their subsequent employment as wage slaves was perhaps of greater moment: but imo of greater moment still was the civil war as war, which had profound effects on the industrial development of the united states as a whole and the north in particular. everyone knows - or ought to know - that the railways in this country were built on slave compo - the compensation the former slave owners received, e.g. (among others) the north london line which runs through hackney.

 

[Pickman's model]

But I never argued with anyone on that thread re: a jaundiced person referring to themselves as 'yellow'. Therefore, how can I be taking an 'argument' across threads, when there wasn't an argument in the first place??

Again, please stop misrepresenting me - it's getting really tedious now!

you have argued with me elsewhere and taking a contentious point and er misrepresenting it seems to me to be taking something out of context. why not simply say sorry before you are sorry?

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't be so disingenuous! Commodity as in treating people like objects that can be bought and sold.

yes. and that's how we're treated, isn't it.

 

[winifred]

oh but you did, in post 16

Do I need to spell it out to you? I wrote "subsequent" as in, Coming after something in time; followinghttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/subsequent

If you insist on being a tiresome pedant, at least get your facts right before making such allegations.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, that's why I referred to it as the, "...subsequent development of a race 'science' gave credence to and legitimised the wholesale abuse and exploitation of African peoples' who were forced into slavery". Also, what's wrong with my use of the word 'credence'? 'Scientific racism' gave credence to peoples' perceptions that 'black' people were somewhat subhuman, and therefore deserving of the treatment that they got.

you've got your tenses mixed up. perhaps if you didn't misrepresent yourself so other people might not do so too.

 

[winifred]

But you haven't even done that in your OP...you have redacted then and winifred-washed them to position yourself as some kind of authority or transcended peacemaker.

You're really quite a judgemental person aren't you? I won't respond any further to what you've just posted as it's really not worth the effort.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do I need to spell it out to you? I wrote "subsequent" as in, Coming after something in time; following

If you insist on being a tiresome pedant, at least get your facts right before making such allegations.

if you insist on being a turgid twat please at least get what you're supposed to be defending here. at present we are talking about your claim that the specific feature of capitalism is it makes a few people rich at the expense of everyone else. no fucking subsequent comes into it.

 

[Treacle Toes]

My 'dissent' was to hold an opinion which was at variance to the vast majority of people who had sought to vilify Rachel Dolezal within that thread. How am I misrepresenting anything by stating that fact?

She was not being 'villified' she was being held accountable for her actions and disceptions. The discussion went into detail about the implications of those actions and what the real life consequences are for people. Just because you didn't want to engage with those facts and still don't, proven by your redacted repesentation of that thread and what she has done doesn't make you an optimistic martyr.

Please refer to what I posted in my OP = "...I really want to get a discussion going about the influence that gender, class and race have on societies around the world - rather than getting into a protracted argument about somebody allegedly 'blacking up'."

There you go again, misrepresenting the discussion, silencing the real life experiences that people shared and the wider implications that were being discussed. IMO it's you who is doing the protracting by not representing or acknowledging the truth in terms of the discussion that has been had. Honesty is a starting point.