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

[MochaSoul]

and it may be indicative of something worse than that - a 'we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps like I did' attitude that self-made people often have, where they may see underachievement in education at lower levels as something that makes you in some way 'undeserving': 'work hard at school, lad, because if you don't you can't expect any help, certainly not from me'; such rich benefactors may be the last people who want to really tackle inequality - they may be actively seeking to reproduce it.

Yes, it could and I have few doubts that very often is. I'd posit though that in the case of many Howard luminaries (and other institutions of its kind) it may well be simply a form of thanks to the institution for, not only educating them but also educating them personally for a problem they encounter their whole lives. Very often they go on from Howard to carry on doing the same work that Howard does in their professional spheres precisely because it touches them personally. I'm not saying that helping all kids earlier in their development is not important but then it's hardly going to happen if the people in the very schools are not sufficiently well versed in the issues that affect those kids. I'd add their support to Howard means, more than anything else, that it carries on doing precisely the kind of work they thank it for.

 

[Patteran]

Get in there! Three people (at least) bothered. (Took me ages to do that too).

Terrific piece - but I had little to add other than 'terrific piece', so substituted an answer for a phatic 'like'. Led me to this by the same author, covers some of the same points, & talks about the difference between generic anti racism and fighting for specific concrete targets (i.e. employment discrimination) within a wider context of change - http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Antiracism.html

Race is one of the legal classes protected by anti-discrimination law; poverty, for instance, is not. But this makes identifying “racism” a technical requirement for pursuing certain grievances, not the basis of an overall political strategy for pursuit of racial justice, or, as I believe is a clearer left formulation, racial equality as an essential component of a program of social justice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not saying that helping all kids earlier in their development is not important but then it's hardly going to happen if the people in the very schools are not sufficiently well versed in the issues that affect those kids. .

It's not only important, I would say, it's the way to effect real change. And no, it's far from an easy problem to tackle. I have read studies that looked at teacher actions where those teachers sincerely don't see themselves as a problem and aren't trying to discriminate, in fact may be actively trying not to discriminate. That discrimination can come in subtle ways, such as a tendency to accept black boys who are disruptive as 'disruptive by nature' rather than punishing them for their disruption. Internalised prejudices that the teachers often aren't aware of. One thing is very clear - something goes wrong with large numbers of black boys between, irrc, the age of around 6-7, when there's no observable difference, and the age of 11-12. They end up living up (down) to expectations that are communicated to them in many subtle ways.

Perhaps the most important issue that affects those kids is their teachers!

 

[two sheds]

Not sure that this belongs here but disturbing article on Traumatic Brain Injuries in the US.

a recent article in the Huffington Post posits that a different group may make up the majority of those living with TBI. Melissa Jeltsen writes that survivors of domestic violence are now thought to experience these injuries in numbers that eclipse previous estimates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's haveestimated that 1.7 million people experience TBI every year, and 2 percent of the population, or 5.3 million Americans, are living with a disability caused by it. But experts speculate that as many as 20 million women each year - up to 6% of the population - could have TBI caused by domestic violence.

http://www.alternet.org/why-traumatic-head-injuries-are-urgent-feminist-issue

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not sure that this belongs here but disturbing article on Traumatic Brain Injuries in the US.



http://www.alternet.org/why-traumatic-head-injuries-are-urgent-feminist-issue

Unsurprising. This pretty much builds on earlier research that showed that a significant minority of recidivist criminals had evidence of a traumatic brain injury (which is not to say that the TBI is responsible for their criminality!). People tend not to realise quite how easy it is to suffer a brain injury, and we're not talking "baseball bat to the head"-style stuff here. We're talking about getting elbowed while playing games in the playground - that sort of everyday stuff - and it possibly causing mayhem for you down the road because it's subtly altered your personality, or the way you process emotion.

 

[butchersapron]

A sort of follow up to the piece i posted earlier:

Interview with Barbara J. Fields and Karen E. Fields in the jacobin today with specific emphasis on the dolezal case (really useful thoughts on the difference between identity and identification esp - disappointed by the private school though):

How Race Is Conjured: The fiction of race hides the real source of racism and inequity in America today.

Too many good bits to pull a few emblematic quotes from.

 

[Pickman's model]

Unsurprising. This pretty much builds on earlier research that showed that a significant minority of recidivist criminals had evidence of a traumatic brain injury (which is not to say that the TBI is responsible for their criminality!). People tend not to realise quite how easy it is to suffer a brain injury, and we're not talking "baseball bat to the head"-style stuff here. We're talking about getting elbowed while playing games in the playground - that sort of everyday stuff - and it possibly causing mayhem for you down the road because it's subtly altered your personality, or the way you process emotion.

equally it may be many criminals come from backgrounds where dv was the norm, be it violence against partner or violence against children

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A sort of follow up to the piece i posted earlier:

Interview with Barbara J. Fields and Karen E. Fields in the jacobin today with specific emphasis on the dolezal case (really useful thoughts on the difference between identity and identification esp - disappointed by the private school though):

How Race Is Conjured: The fiction of race hides the real source of racism and inequity in America today.

Too many good bits to pull a few emblematic quotes from.

Good stuff a lot of nails on heads.

ETA:

I hadn't realised the significance of 'racecraft', but it's a well-judged metaphor: race as 'magic', effectively, a magical explanation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

equally it may be many criminals come from backgrounds where dv was the norm, be it violence against partner or violence against children

I wouldn't say "many" - way too unquantified for my tastes! - but it's certainly the case that, for example, the volume of sex offenders who witnessed or suffered physical, verbal or sexual "intra-familial abuse" is higher than the population average in most states where criminologists have attempted research on the roots of sex offending.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dunno where else to put this, but within about five minutes, Sloane Stephens has been described as a 'natural athlete' twice by the commentator on Wimbledon just now.

Unexamined racial stereotypes bingo card...

Correction.

Four times now. Four!

 

[butchersapron]

Dunno where else to put this, but within about five minutes, Sloane Stephens has been described as a 'natural athlete' twice by the commentator on Wimbledon just now.

Unexamined racial stereotypes bingo card...

Correction.

Four times now. Four!

Was it that inverdale twat by any chance?I know they've moved him out to the lesser and later courts...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Was it that inverdale twat by any chance?I know they've moved him out to the lesser and later courts...

No, I recognise the voice vaguely, but it's not him. The other commentator, who I'm guessing is an ex-player, is talking about skill and technique. He appears to be able to say nothing other than 'natural athlete'. I'm not kidding, four times and it's still the first set. Fuck me.

 

[8ball]

I hadn't realised the significance of 'racecraft', but it's a well-judged metaphor: race as 'magic', effectively, a magical explanation.

Not too sure about it myself. I get how the delineation are culturally defined etc. and we see what we 'learn' to see, but the visible differences between groups of people are down to the way people look like their parents, who look like their parents etc. etc.

Some of the apparent denial of this basic fact of biology is problematic to me.

Variation in susceptibility to disease is also a simple fact - the sickle cell gene on one side of my family fell out of favour in the meiotic draw a couple of generations back, but the individual that got the test for it was easy to spot.

I see how it is well-intentioned, but claiming there is no biological element to race feels like handing a stick to the enemy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I see how it is well-intentioned, but claiming there is no biological element to race feels like handing a stick to the enemy.

I think we cracked this on another thread, though. Racial categories are defined primarily by culturally significant visual markers. In the particular case of the US, though, things are complicated by history and the legacy of the 'one-drop' rule. I do think the speakers make a very pertinent point about correlation and causation, and how ideas about race lead to mistakes in seeing the former meaning the latter. And these mistakes are not spotted because racial thinking is so ingrained, so normalised, that it automatically assumes primacy as a 'magic' explanation. The correlation is actively sought in studies, and, once it is found, causation is taken for granted.

 

[butchersapron]

Not too sure about it myself. I get how the delineation are culturally defined etc. and we see what we 'learn' to see, but the visible differences between groups of people are down to the way people look like their parents, who look like their parents etc. etc.

Some of the apparent denial of this basic fact of biology is problematic to me.

Variation in susceptibility to disease is also a simple fact - the sickle cell gene on one side of my family fell out of favour in the meiotic draw a couple of generations back, but the individual that got the test for it was easy to spot.

I see how it is well-intentioned, but claiming there is no biological element to race feels like handing a stick to the enemy.

They talk about the falsity of biological racism. Not biology.

 

[8ball]

They talk about the falsity of biological racism. Not biology.

True. But to say there is no biological element to race is to invite the buttressing of biological racism with biological facts imo. This cannot be done when the biology is seen in its proper context, but it can be done when the biology is simply denied.

I see people saying "scientifically, there is no such thing as race". That is true for certain meanings of the word, but it's dangerous to leave the field open for conflation in an area where racists feed on conflations.

Some of the articles people are posting up deal with the objections I'm raising really well, but when reduced to sound bites that wind up on Facebook and similar places... it leaves too much ground open, if you see what I mean.

 

[8ball]

I think we cracked this on another thread, though. Racial categories are defined primarily by culturally significant visual markers. In the particular case of the US, though, things are complicated by history and the legacy of the 'one-drop' rule. I do think the speakers make a very pertinent point about correlation and causation, and how ideas about race lead to mistakes in seeing the former meaning the latter. And these mistakes are not spotted because racial thinking is so ingrained, so normalised, that it automatically assumes primacy as a 'magic' explanation. The correlation is actively sought in studies, and, once it is found, causation is taken for granted.

Yeah, it's the problem of multiple meanings and the struggle for control of the meanings.
It worked out on that other thread because there was a lot of good faith there, and even then appreciation of context and nuance was often needed.

I think it pays to be more careful in an adversarial situation. Especially where there are possible allies that could be brought round. One thing it did educate me on was how many meanings one little word can have. Especially across the pond.

 

[butchersapron]

True. But to say there is no biological element to race is to invite the buttressing of biological racism with biological facts imo. This cannot be done when the biology is seen in its proper context, but it can be done when the biology is simply denied.

I see people saying "scientifically, there is no such thing as race". That is true for certain meanings of the word, but it's dangerous to leave the field open for conflation in an area where racists feed on conflations.

Some of the articles people are posting up deal with the objections I'm raising really well, but when reduced to sound bites that wind up on Facebook and similar places... it leaves too much ground open, if you see what I mean.

Aren't you doing exactly what they say is absurd - arguing biological differences are racial differences rather than biological differences?

 

[winifred]

No, you are not... Misrepresenting is how I view your starting a thread based on some other thread while distorting its thrust as well as variety of opinion on the original thread. You kept serving chips whilst every one else was talking rice and even the chips you served were of the kind I refuse to enter McDonalds for. The fact you post this without putting as much as a courtesy note on the original thread that you'd opened a follow up adds duplicity to an already dishonest endeavour.

Please refer to my response to Rutita1 in post #92. Also, I didn't want to publicise this thread within the Dolezal thread, because I didn't want a continuation of the petty squabbling that went on within that thread to interfere with the issues I wanted to raise within this thread. Unfortunately, that didn't quite work out, but hey-ho, it's to be expected on an online forum.

I refused to engage with Diamond on rich thread precisely for the intellectually disingenuous dishonesty. I don't debate for kicks. I debate to get feedback and learn to think and express myself clearly. I won't be wasting my time here for the same reasons.

That's all well and good, but I would really appreciate it if yourself or Rutita1 could answer the question I posed to you both in post #84:

*snip* ...what I'd really like to know is what Rutita1 and MochaSoul's opinion is on men having the right to label themselves as feminists. Would either of you agree with this?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Mochasoul or me? Either or? Like we probably have the same views or only one need respond?

Don't make demands of me, ever. You want questions answered, set shoddy boundaries, misrepresent other threads and their contents and are none to great at answering questions yourself. I decide when I post, how I post and what I post.

Appreciate that.

 

[MochaSoul]

That's all well and good, but I would really appreciate it if yourself or Rutita1 could answer the question I posed to you both in post #84:

Well... That's all well and good but you don't seem to have got the gist of the post you quote. Please read it again. After you do that I'd appreciate it if you stopped tagging me and quoting me. Thank you!

I refused to engage with Diamond on rich thread precisely for the intellectually disingenuous dishonesty. I don't debate for kicks. I debate to get feedback and learn to think and express myself clearly. I won't be wasting my time here for the same reasons.

 

[8ball]

Aren't you doing exactly what they say is absurd - arguing biological differences are racial differences rather than biological differences?

No. They are just trying to police language to a degree that leads to absurd conclusions.

 

[winifred]

have you read any of the debates arguing that a lot of the british landgrabbing of the mid-late victorian era was driven by influence of the anti-slavery movements?

I previously spoke about the transatlantic slave trade and wholesale racism, which can also be accounted for with your example of the anti-slavery movement.

I'm well aware that a lot of the "british landgrabbing" that you eluded to was justified as a means of bringing 'civilisation' to black peoples'. Therefore, colonialism combined elements of organised slavery and a 'civilising' agenda, which was based on a racist premise i.e. that black peoples were subhuman/an inferior species. This kind of thinking gave legitimacy to the forced subordination of black peoples' through the slave trade, and the appropriation of land as part of the white civilising agenda.

 

[MochaSoul]

No. They are just trying to police language to a degree that leads to absurd conclusions.

I read the whole interview as an appeal to caution regarding language. Not as policing it.

 

[toggle]

I previously spoke about the transatlantic slave trade and wholesale racism, which can also be accounted for with your example of the anti-slavery movement.

I'm well aware that a lot of the "british landgrabbing" that you eluded to was justified as a means of bringing 'civilisation' to black peoples'. Therefore, colonialism combined elements of organised slavery and a 'civilising' agenda, which was based on a racist premise i.e. that black peoples were subhuman/an inferior species. This kind of thinking gave legitimacy to the forced subordination of black peoples' through the slave trade, and the appropriation of land as part of the white civilising agenda.

i'm talking about the landgrabbing that happened after abolition.

 

[MochaSoul]

Mochasoul or me? Either or? Like we probably have the same views or only one need respond?

Pfft!

 

[8ball]

I read the whole interview as an appeal to caution regarding language. Not as policing it.

Yeah, like I said in #136 the specific links on here deal with things in a more rounded way, but I don't think boiling the message down to sound bites and slogans to be 'liked' on Facebook works so well.

 

[winifred]

Mochasoul or me? Either or? Like we probably have the same views or only one need respond?

Pretty silly to make out as if I'm singling you out/pairing the two of you together based on your mixed race credentials; (or that's how it seems from your post). I put the question to both of you because you've both been pretty much tag-teaming me in previous posts, re: my alleged misrepresentation of the Dolezal thread, and not getting why black people would be so incensed with a white person allegedly blacking up etc etc.

Don't make demands of me, ever. You want questions answered, set shoddy boundaries, misrepresent other threads and their contents and are none to great at answering questions yourself. I decide when I post, how I post and what I post.

Appreciate that.

I'm not making demands. I'm simply asking what yours and MochaSoul's opinion is on the question that I posed to you both. Is it too much to ask for you to give an opinion, or are you just wanting to ignore a perfectly reasonable question?

 

[winifred]

i'm talking about the landgrabbing that happened after abolition.

Okay, but I wasn't talking about colonialism as exclusively relating to the slave trade.

 

[winifred]

Well... That's all well and good but you don't seem to have got the gist of the post you quote. Please read it again. After you do that I'd appreciate it if you stopped tagging me and quoting me. Thank you!

Sounds like you're just dodging the question to me.

In fact, I've had to read your numerous shitty posts in which you've often quoted me and misinterpreted what I've had to say - so why are you so fucking precious about me quoting your own posts?