Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[Delroy Booth]

I know a family of an afro-carribbean guy married to a white woman. One of their kids has very dark black skin, the other one is ginger.

 

[JimW]

I know a family of an afro-carribbean guy married to a white woman. One of their kids has very dark black skin, the other one is ginger.

Black and ginger would have you ten paces out front of any progressive stack you care to mention.

 

[Delroy Booth]

It's really really stupid looking at a picture of someone and going jumping to the conclusion they're not black because their complexion. If the purpose of putting that picture up there was to make that point (which I'm not saying it is, at all, sihhi's posts are always full of pictures and it'd be unfair to jump to that conclusion) that's really stupid. I accept this is partly to do with the fact word black is as much a descriptive term rather than a technical description of ethnicity, but still. Is a black albino not black? I mean white isn't an ethnicity either. White can mean Dagestani and Scottish, Latvian and Maltese, and an infinite mixture of many different ethnicities. Just as black, as a catch-all descriptive term, can apply to totally seperate ethnic groups. Igbo and Bantu, Acholi and Akan, all might come under the umbrella term black but they're not the same race. It's really silly, I mean I know Portugese people that have darker skin than 2nd and 3rd generation afro-carribean people. There's quite possibly an argumen that the use of the world black in this caucus in itself is part of these problems, as it's really imprecise and reflects a sort of crude eurocentric view of race, a hangover of classical imperialism, that assumes all black people are part of the same, implicitly inferior, race. Crude racialism of this sort really has no basis in reality I seem to find.

And no personally perhaps I wouldn't be as sensitive about these things if they were being directed at white people, if there where people looking at me pictures trying to figure out if I was really white or not. That's mainly coz I'm a white man living in a white man's world, where there isn't systematical racial bigotry (dare I say it white privilege?) built into practically every facet of the societ I live in. Maybe in 200 years when China is world hegemon it'll be a different story and we'll have tumblrs on Han privilege and in such a situation I'd have a different attitude, but right here and now it's something I could brush off my shoulders no problem.

Jim can I ask about Han racism in China? What's the score with that, any experience of it? Sincere question. Not trying to make a daft point about reverse racism or owt.

 

[love detective]

How do you know she ısn't black?

well my starting point was that she does not 'self identify' as black in its general usage - looking at her picture she doesn't look black either, but more importantly regardless of that she does not want to be considered black, so i'm happy to let her be the better judge of whether she is black or not than you or I

identity politics are reactionary and conservative enough and do enough damage as it is without identity being externally imposed on individuals against their will

 

[ViolentPanda]

It means that posting up photos of someone who is clearly quite young on one of the biggest bulletin boards around, makes them unnecessarily recognisable and so puts them at risk.

You mean posting up their publicly-accessible photo that even a BNP bonehead could find with no probs off of her social media profile if they were minded to?

 

[love detective]

It's really really stupid looking at a picture of someone and going jumping to the conclusion they're not black because their complexion.

who did this?

 

[Delroy Booth]

who did this?

It was what cynicaleconomy was insinuating about sihhi's reasoning for putting the picture up, but didn't have the bollocks to openly say.

I accept the rest's a bit of a tangent, but there's no harm in that, surely?

 

[phildwyer]

she doesn't look black

You may be rıght about how she ''self-ıdentıfıes,'' but you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I guess you'll be posting up a photo of your own daughter/sister/etc some time soon then.

The picture of the NUS-wallah was put in the public domain by the NUS-wallah.
If people are daft enough not to pay attention to the security aspects of public life, that's not a fault of someone re-posting a publicly-available picture, it's the fault of the person posting it in the first place. None of this shit is hard to understand - if you don't want images used by people you haven't sanctioned to use them, then think twice before posting up a picture of yourself gurning at the camera next to the personal info on your facebook wall.

 

[JimW]

...

Jim can I ask about Han racism in China? What's the score with that, any experience of it? Sincere question. Not trying to make a daft point about reverse racism or owt.

There's all sorts of ethnic conflicts and a fair amount of xenophobia, but not much of it has the same historical roots as racism in the Western colonial context so I tend not to bracket them the same. I mean, some of it does come from the local version of colonialism. Where I worked in the southwest there's a major minority ethnic group called the Yi who were only loosely under central control if at all until 1949 and there was a lot of use of disparaging ethnic terms among Han about them. There's also the patronising official attitude to the recognised national minorities despite a rhetoric of equality (like the way when they have an NPC conference the ethnics have to wear colourful national dress at the opening while Han people are in suits, telly shows where all the Mongols or Tibetans are good for is song and dance etc) which combines with some cack-handed preferential policies akin to our top-down multiculturalism to create resentments(preferential placements at scarce college places, perceived police unwillingness to tackle e.g. Uighur pickpocket gangs).
Then there's xenophobia against foreigners and that is complicated by the post-colonial history too. Some of it is pretty reasonable resentment of preferential treatment for white Westerners while local people get trampled all over - in service provision, by police etc. But you meet a fair few who buy into that colour-grading hierarchy - might not like whites but think they're advanced, repeat racist nonsense about Black people etc. Been interesting to see responses to what is now a fairly large established Black African community in Guangzhou (lot of traders go there to source cheapo goods), which has led to some racism but it's not entirely straightforward. One African lad died in police custody not so long back which led to community demos outside the cop shop, and Chinese response was as much good on 'em and 'we should be more like that when they kill a worker' as the racism, which was there too.
Err, that's just some random stuff off top of my head, it's a big topic as you can imagine.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I doubt that a small photo buried deep within a 677 page thread is gonna add to whatever risk she might already face for being a public feminist activist.

A minute escalation of risk, maybe.

But Redwatch? Fuck Off.

Kind of presupposes that the main couple of muppets who lackadaisically update Redwatch have the gorms to "sweep" the net, fishing for "reds". Most of their info and pics probably still come from the OB.

 

[Idris2002]

Margaret Mead was never accused of academic fraud. The argument was that she had been spoofed by her informants when she was a very young anthropologist working in Samoa.

The accusation came from an ex-student of hers, Derek Freeman, a person who had 'issues', let's say. He claimed that when Samoan women told Mead of their liberated sex lives they were having her on. It's a long, long, long time since I looked at this debate, but some of it revolves around what the definition of sexual activity might be in Samoa as distinct from the United States. If it was more broadly than defined than mere penetrative intercourse, then there may be more truth in the stories Mead collected than Freeman thinks.

One point Freeman dwelt on at length was the existence of a ritual for the symbolic restoration of virginity in Samoa. He argued (again, this is from memory) that this in turn indicated that virginity was a highly valued condition in Samoa. Yet surely if you have to have a ritual to restore that state, wouldn't that indicate that some people at least have a more free and easy attitude to same?

The other point is that by the time Freeman did his own work in Samoa, evangelical missionaries had worked their unique brand of magic on the place.

Should Mead have been more sceptical in her work? Probably - but she was trying to build an entire discipline out of nothing.

The points about privilege, elitism and working for the Rand corporation are true. However, in her defence, I would say that she was no Laurie Penny.

(and she was never really important in UK anthropology)

E2A: Interesting link here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=margaret-meads-bashers-owe-her-an-a-2010-10-18

Paul Shankman's book on the Mead-Freeman controversy is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132562536...-Studies-in-American-Thought-and-Culture-2009

It looks like he rescues her reputation and destroys that of Freeman. . .

 

[frogwoman]

there's all sorts of politics around the "one drop rule" and people not being white enough in the USA ..

 

[love detective]

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

thanks prof

i also heard something the other day about the pope having some kind of tendency/inclination towards catholicism - maybe you can say a few words on that as well

fairly disingenuous though that out of my response to your original question of 'How do you know she ısn't black?' , which was the below:-

well my starting point was that she does not 'self identify' as black in its general usage - looking at her picture she doesn't look black either, but more importantly regardless of that she does not want to be considered black, so i'm happy to let her be the better judge of whether she is black or not than you or I

you decide to only quote this part:-

she doesn't look black

and then reply as if that was the point I was making with some 6th form truism about race & biology

I know there's not a lot in your toolkit these days, anxious as you are, but i'm sure you can do better

 

[JimW]

Here's a classic old text for fans of ethnic dynamics in the Celestial Empire: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/EKVALL.htm

Ekvall was a really interesting figure - son of Swedish (?) missionaries who grew up in the Chinese northwest, fled the massive Muslim rebellion there in the '20s (? dodgy dates) and ended up living in a tent with Tibetan nomads for about a decade. This is his anthropological work looking at relations between Tibetans, Hui Muslims and Han in south Gansu interface area. He later ended up as an interpreter at the Korean War peace talks too.

 

[phildwyer]

fairly disingenuous though that out of my response to your original question of 'How do you know she ısn't black?' , which was the below:-

My questıon was ın response to thıs comment of yours:

I thought the photo was posted to illustrate the fact that someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage or in terms of 'self-identifying' as black is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

In the above you state that on the basıs of her pıcture alone, she ıs ''clearly not black... ın ıt's (sıc) general usage.''

So obvıously you meant that she ıs not black because she doesn't look black.

That was a sılly thıng to say because, no matter how quıckly you may try to back-pedal now, ıt assumes that race ıs a functıon of bıology.

And apart from anythıng else, she does look black. So you are wrong agaın.

 

[love detective]

she does look black.

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

That was a sılly thıng to say because, no matter how quıckly you may try to back-pedal now, ıt assumes that race ıs a functıon of bıology.

 

[TruXta]

How many minutes was that phil?

 

[phildwyer]

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

That was a sılly thıng to say because, no matter how quıckly you may try to back-pedal now, ıt assumes that race ıs a functıon of bıology.

Oh my Gawd, I'm dealıng wıth nothıng but ıllıterates here.

Lookıt. You saıd that she ''clearly ısn't black.''

I saıd ''she looks black.''

Do you really not see the dıfference? Don't you see ıt? Serıously?

Alrıght, one more tıme.

You made a comment about her race, based on her appearance.

I made a comment about her appearance based on her appearance.

So your comment was wrong, whıle mıne was rıght.

Do you see the dıfference now?

 

[Delroy Booth]

A new low.

 

[love detective]

I said:-

someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage or in terms of 'self-identifying' as black is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

I then said:-

looking at her picture she doesn't look black either

You replied directly to the comment above with :-

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

You then said:-

she does look black

I then said:-

muppet

 

[8ball]

Ted, I'm horribly confused.

 

[el-ahrairah]

fuck off dwyer, etc.

 

[phildwyer]

I said:-

someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage or in terms of 'self-identifying' as black is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

I then said:-

looking at her picture she doesn't look black either

You replied directly to the comment above with :-

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

You then said:-

she does look black

I then said:-

muppet

Wrıggle all you lıke. You merely ımpale yourself yet more fırmly on the hook.

You saıd she ''ıs clearly not black ın eıther ıt's (sıc) general usage or ın terms of ''self-ıdentıfyıng'' as black.''

So you had obvıously decıded unılaterally that she was not black on the basıs of how she looks.

That was bad enough. But you then compounded your error by allegıng that she does not even look black.

In realıty the sıtuatıon ıs precısely the reverse of the one you descrıbe.

She may or may not be black, contrary to what you allege. And also contrary to your claım, she looks black based on her appearance.

And so you have been proved wrong not once but twıce. Do you want to go for the trıple crown?

 

[love detective]

did you write this post or not? (and do you actually know what unilaterally means?)

Interesting as well that you continue to seek to deny her the right to self identify as whatever she wants to self identify as - something that I have supported in every post on the matter whereas you in turn seek to reduce it all to the basis of how someone looks whilst brushing aside what the person involved has to say about it - classy and reactionary

Once again

I said:-

someone who is clearly not black in either it's general usage or in terms of 'self-identifying' as black is considered 'black' for the purposes of the NUS black caucus

I then said:-

looking at her picture she doesn't look black either

You replied directly to the comment above with :-

you can't tell whether someone ıs black from theır appearance. Race has nothıng to do wıth bıology.

You then said:-

she does look black

I then said:-

muppet

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Hang on I've lost track of a few pages is Laurie now saying she is black?

 

[love detective]

Laura is saying she doesn't self identify as black, but Phil claims she looks black (why he considers that to be important or relevant i've no idea)

 

[ViolentPanda]

A new low.

Phil believes in constantly thwarting our expectations that he's reached the nadir of his commentary.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

It was what cynicaleconomy was insinuating about sihhi's reasoning for putting the picture up, but didn't have the bollocks to openly say.

I accept the rest's a bit of a tangent, but there's no harm in that, surely?

I wasn't insinuating anything at all. If I want to say something, I'll say it straight. Read the thread again.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ted, I'm horribly confused.

Small.

Far away.

See?