User loginLive Discussions
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog NathanNewman.org Tech Notes |
Google searchTip jarDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Link CollectionsNews sourcesOn CultureReality checksThe Public LibraryWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 124 guests online.
Online users:
...Syndicate |
The return of the sonby Prometheus 6
June 22, 2003 - 9:45am. on Old Site Archive The return of the son of… oh, nevermind… Here's the fun part; responding to comments on the fly. Generally, I'll respond to comments in the comments. But sometimes not. Yvelle has asked how I define race. The literal answer (a social construct) is so general that it's somewhat unhelpful. So: Race is the first cut in the American caste system. You don't get bonuses for passing, you get demerits for failing. Other points, wealth, education, personal bearing, can affect your final placement but race is the first thing applied. Race is contextual. A few years ago I worked with two white guys, one born in Cameroon, the other in the Union of South Africa (the folks who introduced him to me expected me to react to him as a South African. The disappointment on their faces of was amusing). They did, however, make the error of running that old saw past me: is a white naturalized citizen who was born in Africa an African American? I told them the only way to be sure who was African American was to ask a cop standing three block away. Race is self-identifying. A person that says he's Black and means it, is Black. There's no real reason or benefit to claiming to be Black and all the idiots that whine about Black preferences wouldn't trade places with me for ten minutes. Not that I'd offer the opportunity if it were possible. Ya feel me? Tiger, the (locally) world famous blog reviewer at Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin', gave me the following grade of "Racism, or, Why They Don't Understand Us": 4.5~Prometheus 6: Racism or Why They Don't Understand Us ~I actually had a hard time trying to peg where this one fit on the rating scale. I loved the test, I loved what the author had to say, but it really did not have as much to do with racism or why we do not understand them or they understand us, depending on which side of the fence you stand on, as it did about what I am always saying: "Truth is relevant to perception." People see and hear what they want to see and hear, and all of us are very often programmed to see and hear things a certain way by how we grew up. I think this author agrees, and attempts to convince people not to do so. I am just not sure it is possible. I finally decided it was not among the very best posts in this week's contest, but was really close. I checked out several of the other posts on the blog, and the writing is consistently good. In his comments I explained a bit about my scattershot approach to this topic (it would be cheating to tell you here). Then I came back and saidBTW, consider your italicized statement in your review of my post in terms of what "members" of one race "know" about "members" of another.
Tiger posted a response to that suggestion on his page, in regard to which I'd like to make the following points:
posted by Prometheus 6 at 6/22/2003 09:45:07 AM | Trackback URL for this post:http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/678
|