OG readers of The Commentary will remember Ray. Ray and I went back and forth on racial issues numerous times (Ray was a big fan of the “all white people are racist” rhetoric). So you can imagine how indignant I was when the most eloquent refutation of his ideas didn’t even include me. Ray got into an argument about feminism with a writer named Casira (Ray took a “feminists don’t want equality, they want to oppress men” stance), and Casira had the presence of mind to ask how he’d respond if a white person claimed that “anti-racists” don’t want equality, they want to oppress white people. The hypocrisy was so glaring that even Ray couldn’t miss it.
I have performed electrical, mechanical and plumbing tasks. Connectors for those things are gendered according to physical characteristics that even children understand without explanation. You cannot treat the genders of those things as a social construct unless having your house burn down, flood or your automobile fall apart is OK with you. It took a little time, but I understand that trans people are using words long familiar to me in a new way. I understand that and can get past its dissonance. I won't participate in a debate where someone claims that the mental construct defines the physical with radicals. They do a disservice to the honest trans-people.
Race has a different relationship between the physical and attitudes. My daughter's 23andme DNA adventure makes it quite clear that there is an actual definable physical reality to "race." But my wife and I didn't burst into flames when we had sex and our children were in no way defective because of the racial differences.
In the grand scheme of things those differences are small, even though they are unambiguously observable in my wife and me, our daughters less so as an observable blend. They've heard the words, "What are you?" and "Where are you from?" many times. Asians are thought of as foreign by both black and white Americans.
How small are the differences? We all have more Neanderthal DNA than 90% of the people in the 23andme database, and our daughter has a little more than either my wife or me since some of our DNA is different. You couldn't look at any of us and say, "Neanderthal, Neanderthal!" and that is non-homosapien genome. They have a list of stuff that that DNA might make us more prone to, but they are things that other humans are also prone to without that DNA.
I would say that racism, but not race is a social construct. 𝘐𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵. We 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 completely ignore "race" and I think it possible 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒂𝒚 if we can get past the "Oh woe is me, I'm a victim. You owe me because of the sins of our ancestors" stuff. If that sounds like I'm saying who is the biggest impediment to good change, yes, yes, I am. I mention that because I see the trans-radicals as the biggest impediment to change. If you walk around with a chip on your shoulder, daring people to knock it off, some will see the best way of doing that as knocking you down. And you can count on it, someone will.
All that to say, we cannot honestly deny physical reality, but we can productively shape our attitudes about it (when it matters and when it shouldn't). Unfortunately, that is often difficult even without the radical assholes ruining conversation.
That goes to the heart of the matter. It is imperative that we don't abandon acknowledgement of reality with a dystopian destruction of language to achieve political ends.
While the slippery slope argument is technically a fallacy leading to logical extremes, we now live in a world of those extremes. To be fair and decent humans we do sometimes position ourselves on that slope where the issue becomes, how far down the slope do we dare stand?
The trans movement borrows from many social justice movements. The complaint that they just need to be 'heard' and are 'being shut down' is taken straight from feminism's playbook. I heard the 'women are being silenced' BS so much from the Medium Misandrist Mavens that I wrote an article about how women who can't shut up about how oppressed they feel are always going on about how they aren't 'heard'. Maybe they're just being shut out by people who are tired of hearing the same-old same-old.
There is no group less unheard than the trans movement. In fact, they're way better at feminists at being heard because no one's going to stop a man from saying his piece, whereas women are easier to intimidate. Many women still are unheard, but the ones who are heard the most are the ones who complain the loudest.
It's bullshit that either women or transwomen are not being 'heard'. What they *mean* is that they're not being persuasive.
Their problem is that they want to be seen and believed to be women, or men in the case of trans-men. I can understand that desire, but when it becomes a demand people don't fall in line with what they think is unreasonable. I have a surprising to myself empathy and sympathy for their plight. I've spoken to people still employed in the corporate world, and they have the ear of HR. Misgendering (sic) is reaching a level of a white person using the N-word (escorted out the door with your stuff in a cardboard box). To say that they are not heard is preposterous. It will bring resentment at a level disastrous to their cause.
Gender dysphoria is three times more common in men than women; one in 30,000 men and one in 100,000 women. Yet there has been an enormous surge in young women claiming to be "trans," up 4000% since 2006. I don't believe for a second that this is some environmental factor like earlier breast development (traced to soaring fat content in alleged American food) nor is it more candid reporting.
Said it before, saying it again: no dysphoria, no "trans." The activists call this "medicalizing" what should be a "choice." This infuriates. Well, in real dysphorics the sense of being in the wrong body is so agonizing that some suicide, and if that isn't a medical condition then I don't know what is.
I don't think I've written this here before, I beg pardon if I have but.
I see bigotry as Stage Theory, like Piaget's intellectual development or Kohlberg's moral development.
Stage One; unrepentant mindless bigot. Comfortable using the N-bomb, hates everybody; black and brown people. Muslims, Asians, gays. This needs no further explanation.
Stage Two: What we are calling "woke." Race is a social construct, interfertility and melanin continua mean that there are no races, a "trans" woman is really a woman. There are no categories and any acknowledgement of differences is indistinguishably extreme bigotry. This is better than One but it is likely to collapse under its own falsehood; it's just as false as Stage One.
Stage Three: Differences are real and they are not inferiorities. We accept them, maybe revel in them.
I try to live my life as Stage Three, I don't always succeed. Indians are a real challenge for me.
I may have mentioned this before, but early in my marriage I said, "Steve (actual name forgotten) is a nice guy. I like him." My wife replied, "That doesn't mean anything Honey. You like everybody." I have been burned by that, but it does help me stay in your Stage Three. Not always, I'm as human as everybody, but I think it has been beneficial to me overall. I like the Stage Three that you describe.
I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact and when it breaks down to the difference between biological fact and honoring someone's affectations my eyes begin to glaze over. I will honor the chosen identity of someone committed enough to transition as an adult, because I know that an almost vanishingly small percentage of those claiming transsexuality actually are dysphoric, and dysphoria is a malady no more summoned than diabetes or left-handedness. I wouldn't jump into his shit over it but if he started dictating to me or he was putting pronouns in his work email I would raise a stink.
But I would not tolerate the affectations of someone who cannot leave the topic of gender identity, someone for whom the phrase, along with "correct pronouns" and "misgendered" roll out of their mouths so readily you can hear the dust in the grooves. These are fanatics, and they are tiresome.
And in urging children to take dangerous hormones or even get surgeries. these fanatics are doing significant and tangible harm, and conservatives are exploiting them to foment outrage. Effectively.
"I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact"
Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily affect what I call him. Some black people find it offensive to be called "coloured." I think this is silly. But I still won't call them coloured. I'm not denying reality by avoiding calling someone something they don't want to be called. Trans women are trans women. I'll happily go that far in the name of politeness.
Where I draw the line is calling someone something they're not. I wouldn't call a black person "white." I won't call a straight male a lesbian. I won't call a male a woman. Because women already exist and they are distinct from males.
I didn't mean I would set out to start a fight. Politeness is a virtue but denial of reality isn't.
I keep returning to the fact that the great majority of the "trans" world is fake, and when "trans" stops being edgy they'll find another way to get their extra ration of special attention. Just as there are a lot of gays who are despondent because being gay is no long extraordinary. Or, as they called it. "fabulous."
"Colored" sounds so 1950s.
I won't use "trans" because I refuse to go along with all the ploys that the activists are using to expand their numbers. Think you might be "trans?" Quick! Get sliced before you have time to change your mind! I can choke out "transgendered to female" but that's the best I could manage.
By the away. agreed ant TaraElla. She is the only sane on I ever ran across on Medium. I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software, and after three weeks of not logging in I did so and saw a red box. That's it. I'm done. Most of the articles suck anyway. OK, sour grapes, but it's true.
"I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software,"
What?! That's insane! I cannot get over the social pressure this issue exerts. Even during the height of the "racial reckoning" I don't think people were as touchy about racial wrongthink than they are about trans wrongthink today.
I completely stayed away from the "trans" posts, didn't mention anything in a response. The most objectionable thing I wrote was to tell an idiot who writes hundreds of articles about "code smells" that his title was at least halving his readership. It's a stupid and offensive phrase and the guy is not a very good programmer.
I didn't even get an email saying I had violated anything, no Roger (he/him).
Medium just likes banning people.
How you get away with articles like the "trans" ones is beyond me, the way they kowtow to those people is just shocking.
This could go into a number of sub threads, so I'll just put it here. I don't think that we are a blank slate formed exclusively by environment and culture, but rather a blend of that and genetics including racial genetic characteristics. Genes quickly redistribute but Neanderthals have been extinct for thousands of years and remain in the homosapien genome. The ratio is unknown and most likely variable.
Even at some future date when quantum supercomputers are a thing, I doubt that we will be able to definitively answer that question. I/we don't know. It is therefore difficult to logically dismiss or magnify the importance of either.
The best that we seem to be able to do is observe general observations, but then that is the stuff of stereotypes, and we know where that can lead without proper caution. Does it matter if those observations are genetic or cultural as far as how we navigate life?
You think Barack Obama "identified" as black to gain benefits? You think the colour of his skin was an advantage during his presidential run in a country that had, until that point, only ever elected white men to the office of president or vice president? You have a pretty serious uphill battle to argue that one. 😅
And more to the point, all of these people (with the exception of Dolezal obviously), is 50% black. That's hardly "passing for black." In fact, they'd have been legally required to categorise themselves as black for most of the 20th century. As was anybody with more than one eighth black ancestry (i.e. if they had even one black great-grandparent).
Black people are *identified* as black in America. Often even when it makes very little sense to do so. And bear in mind, it's been less than 60 years since black people were allowed to use the same water fountains as white people. I don't think there are many white people lining up for the "benefits" of being black. Certainly not in America.
I'm old enough (septuagenarian) to have personal memory of "Whites Only", "Colored in back" and interracial marriage being illegal. I've seen tremendous change in my lifetime. Those who deny it are disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
America is a 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙨 and there is nothing that I can do by law that a black person cannot, so I sometimes quibble about "systemic racism." The system has been corrected, but at the same time some level of racial bias persists to a degree that it could be considered to be ubiquitous. People do find ways to get around the system and exercise discriminatory practices. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒘.
When all is said and done, white people would overwhelmingly choose to stay white if a magic genie in a bottle offered them the opportunity to be black. I call bullshit on anyone denying that.
Man, I'm sorry, I know you'd rather I didn't "jump in" to your other conversations. But it's rare that I see somebody be so wrong with such utter confidence. It feels as if you've spent zero time talking to black people or thinking about what it's like to be black beyond a few silly stereotypes, but nonetheless formed all these firm opinions on the topic.
Yes, of course some black people wish they were white. Or, to least, have wished it when they were younger and figuring themselves out. Many black people have even written about it (though obviously, I think many others keep those thoughts to themselves). Here are a few examples.
I suspect this is true of any marginalised group. I'm sure some gay people wish they were straight just because it would make certain aspects of life easier. Many pubescent teenage girls wish they were boys, again, because life is easier in many ways. The sharp rise in trans and non binary identifying females is evidence of this.
Being a straight, white, man, even with the grief you'll occasionally get if you spend too much time on Twitter or Medium, is still the easiest configuration of traits to have. This isn't some kind of accusation. You're not a bad person because of this. I have two of those three myself. And of course, there are a bunch of other traits like being intelligent or good-looking or having a good family that factor in as well.
But yeah, seriously, I find it very difficult to believe you've ever had a conversation with a black person about race with any intention other than to explain why you're right about racism and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that black people have it all correct because they're black. But they have an experience that you lack. So at least give them an honest listen. And give what they say some honest thought.
"Hey, he’s probably been to LA and NYC. Thats like all of America"
😂I know what it's like to be black in America because I've spent a lot of time living in America. Most of my extended family is in America. And this, for the record, is an ad hominem. An ad hominem based on no actual knowledge of me or my life to boot. The only reason you know who I am is because I write about race, often about race in America, and I do so accurately enough that I've got quite a large audience.
I have to find links on the internet for you because how else am I supposed to demonstrate anything to you? Certainly you're not going to take my word for it. And clearly you've not spoken to any black people about it yourself. I didn't say that they spoke for everybody. That, as we're talking debate fallacies, is a straw man. You said that the number was zero percent. It's not.
But yes, you've reduced the entire black experience in America to college diversity admissions, rap music, and sagging pants. In the first of these areas, yes, there are some advantages to being black. But if this represents being black in America to you, I'm not sure I'll ever get through to you.
Stop treating this like a fight. Accept the possibility that you might be missing something here. Recognise that even if you are, nothing bad is going to happen. In fact, you'll come away with a broader understanding if you allow yourself to.
Your case? I'm not trying to debate with you. I think you are a troll so that would be an exercise in futility. I just remarked about something I've observed over the years.
Perhaps too abstract since there is no genie to do the magic. What do you think the percentage of people (all of us, not restricted to one ethnicity) are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America? Notice that I said easier, not easy. There are poor white people and I see them sleeping homeless in the park in the morning when I go out for a walk, and I have friends in my circle who are black with more wealth and success than me. There is obviously a broad spectrum. The question again, what do you think the percentage of people are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America?
"You’re telling me a European American with almost no experience and pedigree could waltz into the presidency cause he gave one good speech (no red/blue America, just a purple America)"
How can you possibly ask this question after a Trump presidency?! He didn't even have to give a good speech!😅 What experience and pedigree did he have? Do you think for even a second that a black man could have behaved as Trump did and won the presidency? Obama "waltzed" into the presidency? Seriously? I'm not saying white people didn't vote for Obama. I'm saying it's wild to claim that being black gave him an advantage and then to admit that "pale faces pick presidents" in a largely pale face country. Obama lost the white vote, remember?
And are you saying that segregation only existed in the Deep South? Sure, de jure segregation was limited to the south. But de facto, it was practiced all over America. The fact that black people could drink at some water fountains isn't really the point is it? Considering the state sponsored discrimination they faced.
You wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America before, at the very least, 1968. And realistically speaking much later than that. There is a lot of room between antebellum America and the civil rights act. And none of it was good for black people.
I'd be the first to admit that some people overstate claims of racism nowadays. Things today are nothing like 60 years ago. But it's mind-boggling to me that some people believe the playing field has been levelled. Never mind that black people now have the advantage.
As I've been at great pains to point out racial and trans issues are categorically different (I think I'll write an article specifically about this at some point soon). And one of the key reasons is identification. Trans people identify as something that, biologically speaking, they aren't. They have to ask to be referred to in the way they prefer and use makeup and hormones and surgery to appear more like the sex they identify as, because otherwise, everybody would refer to them by their biological sex.
The comparison here is Dolezal and only Dolezal. And she was widely vilified for her dishonesty.
Black people, even mixed-race people like Obama or Smullett, are identified *by other people* as black. If they asked to be referred to as white, they'd be seen as self-hating and dishonest by black *and* white people. African ancestry is visually obvious at a quarter or so (or an eighth sometimes, hence octoroons) and because of the black/white dichotomy in many people's thinking, people with that ancestry are usually categorised as black in America. Elsewhere in the world that's not so common. You're acting as if the classification is their choice and this is 100% backwards.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry, I only very rarely take disagreements personally.😁
Before the Proclamation to have a single black great-great grandparent, 1/16 black, meant that one was automatically a slave. People who from every appearance were as white as the plantation owner were still classified as black.
And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
You're trying to draw a conclusion from a single piece of numerical data in a field that is vastly more complex than that.
In 2008 the other choice was McCain/Palin. The choice of Palin as VP nominee did a lot to cast McCain's judgment into doubt. Had he chosen a less preposterous person to put a heartbeat away from the launch/Rapture codes, he might have won.
In 2012 Obama had the advantage of incumbency and had shown himself to not be the leftist firebrand that the right had never stopped howling about, and Romney was just too unpalatably "retail" for too many voters.
Yes I have left his race out of the formulation because it had the same effect on both elections so it kinda cancels out.
In spite of my other comment about race playing a role, I do believe that the things you mention also played a big role. Sadly, the "parties" are increasingly willing to display their contempt for the electorate with the choices we get. A megalomaniac vs a man in obvious cognitive decline. WTF!? We got rid of the offensive midnight tweeter and got a man who is a danger to all of humanity. He has made it clear that it purpose in Ukraine is regime change and the 101st is now there, ready to participate in active combat. I'll be amazed if Putin doesn't resort to nukes.
That is on top of the stupidity of voters. America is incredibly dumbed down. Flat earthers can vote! You only need to do a little Twitter reading of political comments to see that democracy is doomed to failure. A lottery might serve us better.
My father, a retired Navy Captain who became a Democrat as an answer to the Willie Horton ad, was one of your #3.
Yeah I don't want Biden to run again, were he only 25 years younger. I don't think his cognitive issues are all that serious yet but each passing year is going to take a worse toll on him. But I think Trump was a far greater danger to the country and world, I don't think he would have hesitated to get millions of Americans killed just to create another opportunity to boast about his magnificence. Every time I see him leading the applause to himself I am creeped out all over again.
If you really need to get depressed, watch that video of the GOP voters talking about how 1/6 was just freedom of speech, and BLM, and all that. I despair.
I'm not a doctor and if I was, I would not likely give a diagnosis on Biden's mental state on the internet. My grandfather lived with my mom while he had Alzheimer's until it was unmanageable. My mother lived with me for a time when she had Alzheimer's until we couldn't manage it. My non-authoritative opinion, based upon my experience with the tragedy of loved ones who are no longer cognitively competent is that Biden is unfit to be POTUS at this time.
25 years ago, he was Mr. Law & Order and too conservative to be in today's Democratic Party. We all change with age, I have, but my concerns about him are not just a matter of political view. We are in times too dangerous for him to be POTUS. My opinion of course.
I would not even dream of arguing with you. I had an uncle die of Alzheimers but the last time I spoke with him it had not begun yet. Then he asked his brother, my father, "are we related?"
But I have a special knack verging on paranormal for listening to and reading people and figuring how their minds work. And in my estimation Biden is not there yet. But he hasn't long.
I have always formed friendships with people who have common interests and politics has never been a factor. I don't forsake them when I fand that some of their views are in radical opposition to mine. They might not remain as close, but I maintain contract and communication even when it is depressing. As a result, I hear honest thoughts of people I know pertaining to other issues beyond the political or worldview, rather than some isolated thoughts they write on the internet. It keeps me out of echo chambers and gives me a lot to consider.
One of those things is that I get to see why they hold beliefs that I don't agree with and would consider them to be nutcases if I didn't know more about them. A common theme is that they live in an echo chamber where I am a turd in their punchbowl that they allow out of friendship.
I am not a mind reader, and I don't view members of racial, national or political tribes to be a monolith. My diverse group of friends reenforces that view strongly.
I should add that some of my MAGA friends are not just friends, they are kin. From a long line of Democrats, the party changed. They moved away from the city of their childhood, St. Louis, which became what Trump would properly call a shithole. In many ways what they see as a redeeming value of Trump falls under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Democratic Party became what lower/middle class white people, even the ones with black children like in my family, now think of as their enemy as far as values go.
They know that the far right is not all that the left says that it is, but they believe that the far left is thanks to its own words. Things that you have mentioned about the right using. Call them racist, fascist, haters enough and Christan as they may be, they'd vote for Satan himself to vote against a Democrat. Along came Trump. They are the twins of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
and
“Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” -unknown
Governments have refrained from using nuclear weapons because that has been a door nobody wanted to see opened. But using even low-yield tactical nukes would move that "window of propriety" toward their use and the chances for life on earth would be a lot more grim than they already are.
I could write something long and at risk of being classified, so I won't. I'll just say that all those low yield nukes exist because of the idea of proportional response.
Massive use of the big ones would result in a pyrrhic victory at best. Someday, someone is going to gamble that limited use will will not go there and response will be proportional and limited.
Very dangerous for the reason you gave. But when clowns are kings the palace becomes a circus. Disheartening indeed.
I didn't say it was minor, and it wasn't. I said it cancels out.
The reason for that, which I left unstated because of my elevated expectations for other readers on here, is because anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he was black was already someone who wouldn't vote for him because he was a Democrat.
1. There were black people who voted for him because he was considered to be black.
2. There were non-black (not just white people) people who against him because he was considered to be black.
3. There were white people who voted for him so they could be a part of the populace who elected the first black president.
4. There were also people who didn't vote race but voted "blue no matter who" or "never a commie Democrat."
5. All of that was filtered thru him having a white mother, having lived outside the US and while in the US raised by white ultra-leftists.
I don't know the percentages. Whatever it was, it worked for him, he won. The point being race did matter. It just didn't get everyone the result they wished for.
And Obama isn’t? Herschel Walker hasn’t behaved a tenth as badly as Trump. And wouldn’t stand a chance if he were running for president.
And come on now, my reference to water fountains (I didn't say "universal") was just an artful way of saying "segregation." This is just a casual conversation, I'm assuming a degree of common understanding here. And if you’re quibbling about how *many* water fountains black people weren’t allowed to drink from, might I suggest that you’re on the wrong side of this one? Again, you wouldn’t have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it.
And no, I don’t think the playing field is level today. I really don’t understand this, you said it yourself; America is a majority “pale faced” country and that leads to people with pale faces ending up in positions of power more often. I’m not mad about that. The same dynamic exists in majority Asian countries and majority black countries.
But I find it so weird that’s some white people try to deny that it’s the case in majority white countries. Being white in America is a socioeconomic advantage. Just as being male is an advantage and being presumed straight is an advantage and being a native English speaker is an advantage. Admitting this doesn’t make you a bad person.
There’s also the small percentage of white people who consciously discriminate against and/or hate black people. Even if you claim that there’s the same percentage of black people who feel the same about white people, that’s still a larger number of people by your own “pale faces” argument. Which means it’s a disadvantage to be black.
And lastly, yes, in America, there’s also the question of the legally enforced discrimination that black people faced until sixty years ago. It’s just ridiculous to argue that as soon as the ink was dry on the civil rights act, all of that discrimination and all of its impact just vanished.
Today, *I*, as an individual, don’t feel disadvantaged because I’m black. This is partly because I’m lucky enough to have a number of advantages that more than outweigh the very occasional racism I might encounter. And partly because, in 2022, racism is a far, far smaller problem than it once was. But that doesn’t mean that black people as a demographic aren’t discriminated against.
Black people are more likely to be poor (both in terms of wealth and income), more likely to live in high crime neighbourhoods (even though the overwhelming majority of black people aren't criminals), more likely to be rejected for employment (even when you control for education and qualifications), more likely to go to jail for longer terms (even when you control for the crime committed), on and on. And all of this can be traced, in part, to the discrimination black people as a demographic faced and still face. The idea that people who are 50% black opt-in to it because it’s “cool” is just such a wrongheaded take when you actually consider the real world.
Lumping Dolezal in with Obama even more so. Again, mixed race people are *identified* as black by other people just as often as they identify that way themselves. And Chatterton-Williams has stated numerous times that he doesn't want to be associated with race at all. So much for the "cool points" argument. At least as regards him.
BLM did more harm to black people than help. If you think BLM represents the reality of black people in general, you've been brainwashed by Fox News.
p.s. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I'm Nigerian and I’m not in England. You’ll make your head spin trying to figure out what time-zone I’m in at any given moment. I can barely keep up myself. Nice sleuthing though.😉
You use Commonwealth spelling. I figured you were in England as well. But that's just a default; I'm sure you write jewellery instead of jewlry and I know you write colour, honour, etc.
"Seriously We’re going to argue who is worse, trump or walker?"
What do you want from me here?😅 You brought Walker into this conversation! I responded, and you ridicule me for mentioning him? And you keep mentioning personal attacks and ad hominems. Where have I done this?
Pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Nor is a single sarcastic reference to Fox News an ad hominem. I'm happy not to mention Fox News if it offends you. But given that I force myself to watch Fox News semi-regularly, it's hard not to notice the influence. Perhaps not first hand, but yeah.
Anyway, my apologies. No more Fox News references.
And yes, you're absolutely right, there were disadvantages to being any number of ethnicities in the past. Irish and Jewish in particular. But those disadvantages smoothed out in a few generations in ways that the disadvantages of being black didn't. Do you really not see that when you look at history? Do you really not understand why that is?
You say that being black had "challenges." What time period are you talking about here? Slavery? The Jim Crow era? Your use of the past tense suggests you're not talking about today. Would you describe sundown towns and lynchings and cross burnings or the very real fear of these things, as "challenges"? What degree of misery is necessary before we can admit that it was a terrible problem? And misery relative to whom? White people?
I know that white people aren't "at the top" by many metrics. I also know that white people are wildly disproportionately at the top by some others. And I *also* know that on the metrics where white people aren't at the top, black people aren't either.
Which brings us back to what we're *actually* discussing. Namely, the notion that people pretend to be black for all the "benefits." Or the fact that you don't seem to understand why mixed race people are often referred to as black in America. Yes, some white people mimic "black culture" because they think it makes them look cool (they're wrong 100% of the time by the way). But they're still white. Wearing saggy pants isn't "identifying" as black. And hey, don't blame me that country music sucks.😉
"I don’t know how calling someone ignorant and dishonest isn’t ad hominem"
1. There's a difference between valid criticism and an ad hominem. 2. I didn't call *you* ignorant or dishonest.
Again, pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody, ANYBODY, to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Depending on how you define lynching, the last one was Ahmed Arbery I guess? Do mass shootings like the Buffalo shooting or the Charleston church shooting count? Or if you want a case where there's absolutely no room for debate, try the murder of James Byrd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.).
The last cross burning that I'm aware of was in 2020 (https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/04/22/marion-man-pleads-guilty-following-2020-cross-burning/). You think this is all a century ago because you have no understanding of the experience of black people in America. And, frustratingly, seem uninterested in gaining an understanding. I'm guessing your first instinct as you read these was to try to think of counterexamples. I'd be happy to be wrong.
"Black people are at the top" *citation needed.
"Numerous really shitty journalists and fake intellectuals have jobs and megaphones because they are BLACK and bring the BLACK perspective."
Finally! We agree on something. Yes, Candace Owens and Ibram X Kendi are all the evidence you could need of this. But do you think there are no shitty white journalists and "intellectuals" out there? Do you think Alex Jones or Tucker Carlsen and many others would have their platforms if they weren't shouting the WHITE perspective? Do you think Trump would have become president?!
Although, of course, it's not the white perspective, it's the racist perspective. Same as the black grifters. Tucker Carlsen doesn't speak for white people in general. Ibram X Kendi doesn't speak for black people in general. And lest we forget, the number one best-selling grifter on anti-racism is, you guessed it, a white woman.
But yes, as I said, finally we agree. Thoroughly mediocre black people are now also able to be successful. What you don't seem to understand is that white people have had the monopoly on that mediocre success for quite some time now. As the saying goes, when you're used to 100%, having to share feels like oppression.
And lastly, I care about Daniel Shaver and Duncan Lemp and Tony Timpa. I've written about them. I'd be the first to admit that the media falls over themselves to report white cops shooting black people and says nothing when cops shoot white people. Or, especially when black people shoot black people. I've written about this problem many times.
It's very difficult to take you seriously, Jason, in fact I am not going to make the attempt.
If you think being nonwhite confers some sort of advantage in American politics then you need to stop watching Tucker Carlson and read about the intensity of opposition to Obama. You might start with McConnell leaving a Supreme Court bench empty for a year.
You probably think that affirmative action was intended to give unfair advantage to academically and occupationally (if not intrinsically) inferior black people. You'd be wrong. It was intended to compensate for unfair admissions and hiring practices that didn't allow blacks and others to be fairly treated. There were a lot of black men with doctorate degrees who couldn't get better than janitorial work.
To "beat a straw man" means to rebut a point that the other has not made. Where did I do that? You mean the paragraph that opens with "you probably think?"
Politics in America is a sick joke. I write in a protest "no acceptable candidate" so often it is hardly worthwhile for me to vote. The only thing that could fix it is for that to be a valid choice and if no acceptable candidate got the most votes, they vacated the office until the next election. That might cause them to take the voters seriously.
As for how black people are doing now, while my circle is too small to be a statistic, but it includes people from the Caribbean islands. Their ancestors arrived on slave ships liked the ones in America. Two observations about them. (1) They are on average more successful. (2) They are on average less inclined to wear a chip on their shoulder.
One might be left to wonder, is there a relationship and if there is an element of cause and effect, in which direction?
I've started muting the Medium authors who write a new article nearly every day and always with the world "white" in the title, so I don't start thinking they are the real voice of black people and go out and find a klu Klux Klan claverin to join. (O,K, that's hyperbole, but not by enough to feel good about)
"Unlike biological sex, which predates humans by eons, race is a social construct and is fairly arbitrary. Yet "woke" activists claim the exact opposite, talking about sex as if it's something we can take on and off like a sweater, and race as if it determines every facet of our being."
Absolutely nailed it. I'm going to write about his at some point soon.
Your son, a trans man, didn't bubble up in the conversation. Perhaps trans men are not thought to be threatening, or as vocal, but I've really heard very little about them. Some time when it fits into the conversation it could be informative. Issues different from the issues of trans women. Does he share your views on the separation of sexual biology and gender dysphoria? Part of a trans community or living life as "normally" as possible? By that I mean not having "trans" as a primary focus. Is that possible in today's zeitgeist? If it's too personal, feel free to ignore my questions.
Race is no more a "social construct" than biological sex.
The fact that there is something of a continuum in melanin content doesn't justify this soft-headed notion because there is more to race than melanin. Had the major races been geographically separated long enough they would be mutually infertile and literally different species.
What terrible times we are living through, so barren.
*actual* transgender people, OK. I will not use those "cis" and "trans" words except in derision. I've known several genuinely transgendered people and know them to be real. I've been intimate with two. And I know the medical statistics on dysphoria and am away that about a thousand times as many are making the claim than those statistics would predict. So it is statistically defensible to take the default position that "they're all fake," which I would but for those few I have actually known. Because "fake" is over 99%
Ig dysphoria is not prerequisite for transgender then transgender is elective and to so elect is to adopt what is clearly nothing more than a fad, an adoption for the sake of attention. I don't like fads, I don't like attention whores, and I detest people who feel the need to tell everyone what pronouns need to be used to refer to them .... when they aren't around. I'm glad to not live in a country where I am likely to run into this crap, I couldn't stand it.
"Race is no more a "social construct" than biological sex"
I mean, it pretty trivially is. Even if you just consider the fact that if people from two "races" have a kid, that kid will always be a mixture of the two "races", you see how quickly the concept becomes fuzzy. This in contrast to biological sex where no such ambiguity exists except in vanishingly rare cases.
Also I've no idea where you're getting the idea that if the "major races" had remained separated (the "five races" concept of humanity has been throughly debunked. We all came from the same place) we'd be mutually infertile. This is an absolutely extraordinary claim! Homo sapiens were able to mate with neanderthals despite evolving separately for hundreds of thousands of years. Modern humans haven't faced anything like enough evolutionary pressure to make us into different species.
Whatever ideas people have in their heads about race, it's probably fair to say that there is no such thing as a racially "pure" human being on the planet today. But 99.98% of us are unambiguously male or female.
As for transgender being elective, I think we agree that there are many people, especially young people today, who don't have gender dysphoria but identify as trans. I'm more inclined to see these young people as confused or simply struggling to find identity than attention seeking. Though, I guess, most teenagers are attention seeking to some degree. We just didn't used to unthinkingly medicalise them for it.
But whatever the percentages are, I don't want genuinely dysphoric people to suffer because of the idiots. Precision in how we talk about trans issues will help genuine trans people as much as it will help the confused teens. Everybody wins if we can shut down the fanatics.
I can't completely get on board with the 'race is a social construct, but sex is not' train. Sex sets limits biologically. The purpose of life, from the very beginning of primordial soup, is to perpetuate more life, by any evolutionary means necessary. Today, we mammals are a sexually binary species. We've evolved to reproduce in a specific, widely spread way because it's been so successful. We have specific roles to play regarding impregnation and gestation/production. Biology says transwomen can't have babies and transmen can't get anyone pregnant, even if they buy the best vagina/penis money can buy.
The 'limitations' of race are different, and less remarkable. There's very little black and white people can do that the other can not and only one 'limitation' I can think of: Producing a baby other than what they look like. White people can't produce black or Chinese babies, black people can't produce white or Chinese babies, Chinese people can't produce white or black babies.
And when two people of different races get together, they produce a baby that isn't strictly one race or the other, regardless of how it looks. How that baby gets treated is due to the construct of humans deciding that one look/race is superior to another. But men and women have much more pronounced biological differences. Biology rules in the end.
And eventually, I think transracialism will become a thing, and it will be much easier to accomplish than convincing gender-switching. Like it or not, it's coming. For everyone.
"And when two people of different races get together, they produce a baby that isn't strictly one race or the other, regardless of how it looks."
I mean, you've pretty much made the argument for race being (mostly) a social construct here. I'd just go a step further and point out that pretty much nobody is strictly one race of the other in 2022. Regardless of how they look.
There are biological realities to ancestry, of course. I don't think any serious person is denying this. But the notion of "race" (note how you slipped into calling Chinese people a "race" here) is a lazy, scientifically debunked and largely counterproductive way of addressing the actually complexity of geographical ancestry.
I could get into this in detail and not only bore most readers but risk being called a racist. But I do believe that there are racial differences that are not explained away by upbringing. Dave mentioned his wife's nose for the freshness of food. I have seen that too. It is beyond doubt. OK, freshness has been an imperative for 2500 years if not longer. That is enough to have a genetic effect.
I will name another, and I am as certain on this.
We all love to eat, and we love food that tastes good. But for Asians of all cultures, as unlike as Japanese and Hmong, food can entail what I will call arousal. I am an astute observer of this; I see Asians abruptly ordering another dish in restaurants because they are aroused by what they are eating. It's usually a seafood dish.
I've never once in my life seen anyone do that, unless still hungry.
"But for Asians of all cultures, as unlike as Japanese and Hmong, food can entail what I will call arousal."
We've talked about this before. I've seen this in Asian people. But I've also seen it in Caribbean people and African people and Italian people. I really don't see the argument for a love of food, even a particularly acute love of food, being genetic. It seems much more likely to be about home environment and culture to me.
I'm not talking about loving good food. Who doesn't? I am talking explicitly about a state of arousal, an excitement. But I don't want to get any more into it save to say that I am sure what I've seen. I have after all had thirty years of watching.
What do you want to call the mildly interesting limitations the thingy formerly known as 'race' was? It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us and while they *should* be no more remarkable than hair colour or eye shape, there are a few biological limitations to what our bodies can do. I can only think of a few, and they don't account for much in this day and age but here it goes: Black people's skin is better at protecting against skin cancer, white people's skin is better at facilitating Vitamin D production, my nose is probably better designed for northern climates, your nose might be better designed for African climates (I don't know what it looks like but as I understand it, the broad African nose evolved in response to some need to respire better. Same with my peeps.)
Those 'limitations' are considerably less pronounced than a biological man who wants to have a baby and a transman who wants to impregnate a woman with her seed. Also, as we've all noted, transmen aren't exactly scrambling to get onto men's sports teams. Gee, I wonder why.
So yes, 'race' or whatever is mostly a social construct, and yes, I doubt any of us are 'pure' at this point, and I don't care if the Chinese are a 'race' or not, but they are also a biologically distinct type of human who can't produce anything except Chinese babies if they only reproduce with other Chinese. And yes who the hell knows what 'pure' Chinese is.
I don't think we should pretend there are NO differences between people of - race, haplotype, genotype, whatever. The diffs are there and instead of pretending they're not, let's just accept them for what they are. Racially speaking, they're not all that remarkable in the long run, but they're there - biological limitations on various things that sex also imposes on us.
Maybe I'll just start calling all of us 'skin critters' :)
What's on my list of 2-writes is an article about how we need to bring back asking each other where we're from, because it's interesting, and is often a conversation piece, and since we can't shut up about race adn differences we might as well talk about them freely, and I suspect they'll start to matter a lot less.
"It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us"
Of course! But there are *lots* of differences between us. Again, no serious person is pretending there are no differences based on geographical ancestry. I'm certainly not. My issue is, and always has been, that too many people think that skin colour is some kind of special, unique and defining difference.
Also, I don't understand why you describe the traits you identified as limitations. They're just inherited traits, no? What's limiting about them? Many black people don't have broad noses. Look at a typical Somali or Ethiopian nose. Some white people have huge noses. Look at some Geek or Italian noses. Again, geographical ancestry. Not "race." I think people get so fixated on skin colour sometimes that they don't actually look at people's faces. There's huge diversity in how black or Asian or European faces look.
UV protection is literally the only reliable trait all black people have in common.
p.s. Chinese people produce Chinese babies in the same way that German people produce German babies. That's a nationality issue, not a genetic one, right? If a white Belgian and a white Australian have a baby in Australia, that child isn't Belgian.
They're 'limitations' in the sense that one skin colour is good for facilitating Vitamin D, which means the darker-skinned folks might have to take supplements, and the lighter-skinned folks have to use more sunscreen since white skin isn't conducive to skin cancer prevention. They're minor inconveniences. They don't limit who we are as human beings, or our value, just certain things we can and can't do, because of biology. It's just more dramatic when you compare male to female, because men clearly are much stronger and historically far more of a threat to women (and also other men).
Noses evolved to suit the environment, as did eyes & other features. It only makes you 'better' at living in that environment. Look, dude, I put on sunscreen when I go to the beach because I'd be an idiot not to. Have you ever had your D levels checked? From what I found the other day when I got to wondering, "Are black people at risk for Vitamin D deficiency?" it was yes, although I couldn't be arsed to find out if that meant you got anemic, or grew a second head out of your shoulder, or what.
Why is it such a big deal to accept that there are certain differences between people with The Element Formerly Known As Race Before It Became A Political Clusterfuck? Call it whatever you like, it's evolutionary differences that exist between people and they're clearly an obsession for some and engage Sudden Visual Blindness in others. "What? What? the guy in the red shirt! The guy with the poufy hair! The guy in the red shirt and the poufy hair! That guy there! By the water fountain! That's the guy who can help you!"
'Race' differences are clearly a thing, one side wants to talk about them and the other side doesn't...and I say, why not just acknowledge it and move on. Why argue about whether 'race' is a social construct or not when in fact what we call 'race' is surficial differences that will only stop being a big deal when we stop making it a big deal. But let's not pretend those differences aren't there because they clearly are. Maybe we'd all care more if Josh Hawley tried to join the Nation of Islam and Kanye West tried to join the Klan. (Well, they'd find common ground on Jews anyway, I guess.)
Pretending 'race' doesn't exist strikes me as bizarre as claiming 'sex' doesn't exist or isn't real.
There's nothing wrong with saying "the black guy." I've never even hinted at the idea that there is. Black, in this case, is a descriptor. Like 'tall" or "blond." I'm not being touchy about being called black.
We've had this same conversation numerous times over the months, and I'm not sure how to be any clearer. I don't deny that there are differences between black people and white people. I never have. My point is that there are also differences between black people and black people. And between white people and white people.
My issue with the race is nothing to do with the politics, it's not the word, it's that the entire concept is simplistic and reductive. Or better yet, flat out wrong and scientifically debunked.
When people talk about race, generally speaking (maybe you're not doing this and we're talking past each other), they mean White, Black, Asian, Native American and what? Maybe South East Asian?
My point is that there is no meaningful sense in which white people are a "race." There is huge diversity across the different ancestries of white people. Same for black people. Same for Asians. Are you the same "race" as somebody from Iceland just because you both have white skin? I don't think the makes any sense.
The point you make about the nation of Islam and the KKK is salient. The reason Kanye and Josh would have a hard time joining these groups is that they're both *virulently racist groups*! They too believe, incorrectly, that race is meaningful concept. I don't think we can use them as support for the idea.
And as for sex vs race, I already explained why they're different. When a man and a woman have a baby, it will be immediately obvious that it's a boy or a girl 99.98% of the time. Not a mixture, one or the other. The only exception is when something goes wrong.
If people of two "races" have a baby (and as I think we've agreed, there's no such thing as a racial pure person anyway), their baby will be a mixture of these two races 100% of the time. No exceptions. It's immediately impossible (and simplistic) to racially categorise that child as simply one or the other.
I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race? Which I think would be silly. But even here, how many races are there then? Is this making sense? I really don't understand how I'm not being clear. Race is nothing like sex.
"I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race?"
Interestingly, to those who make such distinctions, my daughters would be Eurasian (a mixture of European and Asian stock). In Saudi Arabia a Saudi man asked me if my daughters were Saudi, thinking that I was their martial arts teacher rather that their father. They were 2nd Poom in Taekwondo with a box full of medals and popular in the expat martial arts tournament community. I sometimes taught rich kids, including little Prince Turky at the Ritz Carlton in Al Khobar.
Of course, due to politics and the shame of the children GIs left behind there was another name, Amerasian. I hated that word. I suppose Chris could say a bit about those children's fate. I only heard stories perhaps not reliable.
I get why you don't like differentiating between people, but it sort of sounds a little like the folks who deny sex is real. What's important is not that we come in a lot of colours that are sure, yeah, really mixed but you look black and i look white and Dave's wife looks Asian. Isn't that interesting, but not a good argument for enslaving, bombing, or genociding anyone. I say the differences are there and you can call it race or not, but the diffs are there, the groups are there, and why is it such a clusterfuck to find the language for that?
I mean yeah, we can talk about the diversity within what we 'look' like - hey, let's have a 23andMe Reveal Party where we all get together, open our envelopes and reveal our genetic ancestry for the first time. We'll have some laughs, esp about what we 'think' we are or what we 'think' others look like, and then we'll go home and watch Netflix. The diffs are visual, and all I'm arguing for is saying that we're going to classify people in groups (just like we classify birds as flying, swimming, flying/swimming, strictly land/useless wings, etc. Ostriches aren't 'better' than songbirds, they're both different but but they're still birds. It's what we *do*. We sort stuff, critters and people. 'Race' differences aren't as obvious as sex differences but they're still there and we can talk about 'race' stuff, but we can't call it anything? How about 'The Concept Formerly Known As Race'?
"I get why you don't like differentiating between people"
This is so crazy!! 😅 My whole point is that we *need* to differentiate between people more precisely. And that race does a horrible job of this. I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself and I'm not sure why.
I'm saying that calling everybody with black skin or white skin or whatever skin a particular "race" is the failure to differentiate. It's like saying that everybody with blond or brown hair is the same race. No! They're not! It would be incredibly simplistic to claim this.
I have ancestry form Sierra Leone. If you lumped me in with all other Sierra Leoninans, I'd understand where you were coming from. It still wouldn't quite be accurate, but much more sensibly differentiated than simply saying, "oh, his skin is black, so we can just lump him in with every other human being on the entire continent of Africa and anywhere in the Caribbean and the Aboriginies in Australia."
Again, I have no issue with the notion of differences Of course there are differences. But "race" is far too blunt a concept to understand these differences.
Speaking of 23andMe, I just shared this link with Chris. Maybe it will do a better job of explaining than I have.😅
As to what to call "the concept formerly know as race" other than "wrong" or "simplistic" I'm not really sure. It's not easy being a race writer and knowing that the concept of race is completely wrong.😄
It's such a commonly understood term that I just say "race" usually with scare quotes. But whenever possible, I avoid it. I talk about skin colour because really, that's what people usually mean when they mention it.
That continuum from poles to equator directly reflects equilibria established by the balance between promoting ergosterol to vitamin D and insulation from melanoma.
Slightly tangential. Years ago, my melanated wife who could tolerate the sun laughed when I got a sunburn and "peeled like a snake." A strange thing to her. Now, with age and less collagen in her skin (thinning skin comes with age) she wears long sleeves and a brimmed hat in the Arizona sun. She can burn now. Has little to do with adaptive racial traits except that they give tendencies rather than gold plated imperviousness.
About ten years ago I went to the Pride Parade with a very black-skinned friend and I offered him some of my sunscreen, which he refused. And I said, "Doctors think *everyone* should be wearing it now, even black people, even really black black people, they're not 100% impervious to skin cancer either." He refused. It was a bright, hot day that day. I do wish they'd come up with sunscreen that doesn't make you feel dirty while it's on.
Take macaws. Every species can mate with any other, even between genera, and produce hardy and fertile offspring. I had a Harlequin Macaw, Blue and Gold x Scarlet.
Yet there are still distinct macaw species, no question about it, though they rarely hybridize in the wild, sometimes they flock together.
To say that race mixing invalidates the idea of race is not an argument.
As for "trans," if they are nor dysphoric then they are fake. Pitiable desperate people but not transgendered. And, from all I have seen, attention freaks.
Why on Earth are we talking about macaws? Are you arguing that black people are a different species to white people? I suspect not. So I'm not sure what point you're making here. I'm not saying that race mixing invalidates the concept of race. The point I was making there is that race is different to sex.
The idea of race has already long been invalidated by the fact that we understand genetics far better than we did when these concepts originated.
Although I hate the racism that falls out of othering people of different racial groups and I am a race mixer, I like the beauty of the diversity. I do not wish to see the logical extreme of vanishing race thru that mixing. That's not some replacement theory crap. There is so much beauty in the shades of skin tones, the various colors of hair and eyes, facial features, etc. that I do not relish the idea of it all vanishing. I think we should be able to rid society of the bigotry without ending all that beauty in its splendid diversity.
"I think we should be able to rid society of the bigotry without ending all that beauty in its splendid diversity."
I don't think mixing will eliminate diversity, there's plenty of variation amongst people of the same "race" today. Though yes, it will inevitably smooth off the extremes. But I think we have plenty of time before we've even come close to mingling out our diversity. Hopefully we'll have long since gotten rid of the bigotry before then.
Darwin's finches ended up as separate species. As it happens we were never separated geographically at all.
Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species. There is no reason to think humans would be any different.
I had a good smeck when that supremacist learned he was 17% black.
Your last graph got to the point I have been trying to make. The fakes are taking resources that the authentically transgendered need. I saw one video about some idiot girl who had storned out of work in tears because her coworker refused to "they" her. I wanted to slap her face SO bad.
"Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species"
😁 I know that. I'm just saying that evolution is far more complex than you're portraying it. Yes, some species diverge to the point where they can't interbreed. Others, lions and tigers for example, are still able to breed despite significant time evolving separately.
Yes, it's *possible* that some groups of humans might, after an enormous amount of time and under some currently unknown evolutionary pressure, have become mutually infertile. This is just as likely to have happened within groups of humans we erroneously think of today as the same "race." But I see no justification at all for the certainty with which you made the claim.
Well the fact that we were able to cross vast distances in boats assured that it didn't happen.
I am a firm believer that humans are just as much an animal species as any other. and not exempt from any biological factors. And if groups of humans had been separated for 25, 50,000 years then there would have been enough diversification to result in mutually infertile species.
Don't forget that humans are known to have had at least seven distinct species. Species are not defined by mutual infertillity, there are even mutually fertile genera, maybe even families. We know that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were compatible; I have a distinctly Neanderthal look myself.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have, for example, instincts but that we don't. Like Dave I find the diversity of humanity to be enriching.
"I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have"
I know you more than well enough to know you're not a racist. I just think you're making assumptions without grounds.
I share your conviction that humans are an animal species like any other. But while I'll take your word for it that there were at least seven human species, all modern humans, regardless of their skin colour or geographical ancestry, are the same species.
Would we become mutually infertile if enough time passed? The only honest answer is "who knows?" But again, for that to happen, we'd almost certainly need to experience some currently unknown evolutionary pressure. Or wait millions and millions of years, in which case the point is kind of moot, since nobody knows what could happen over the course of millions of years.
Humans aren't finches. So it's not a simple matter of assuming that what's true for one species is true for another.
Some of these varieties are known from a small number of fossils and so mutual fertility is guesswork. But, yes, there have been at least seven species of humans.
Know why ours ended up at the top?
Because we could imagine. We could invent stories. We could do fiction.
You put a lot of effort into that. The fly in the ointment is that the genes that go with nothing about human traits that a value can properly be assigned to are the ones that make "race" visible. Racists latch on to that.
I have performed electrical, mechanical and plumbing tasks. Connectors for those things are gendered according to physical characteristics that even children understand without explanation. You cannot treat the genders of those things as a social construct unless having your house burn down, flood or your automobile fall apart is OK with you. It took a little time, but I understand that trans people are using words long familiar to me in a new way. I understand that and can get past its dissonance. I won't participate in a debate where someone claims that the mental construct defines the physical with radicals. They do a disservice to the honest trans-people.
Race has a different relationship between the physical and attitudes. My daughter's 23andme DNA adventure makes it quite clear that there is an actual definable physical reality to "race." But my wife and I didn't burst into flames when we had sex and our children were in no way defective because of the racial differences.
In the grand scheme of things those differences are small, even though they are unambiguously observable in my wife and me, our daughters less so as an observable blend. They've heard the words, "What are you?" and "Where are you from?" many times. Asians are thought of as foreign by both black and white Americans.
How small are the differences? We all have more Neanderthal DNA than 90% of the people in the 23andme database, and our daughter has a little more than either my wife or me since some of our DNA is different. You couldn't look at any of us and say, "Neanderthal, Neanderthal!" and that is non-homosapien genome. They have a list of stuff that that DNA might make us more prone to, but they are things that other humans are also prone to without that DNA.
I would say that racism, but not race is a social construct. 𝘐𝘧 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵. We 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 completely ignore "race" and I think it possible 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒂𝒚 if we can get past the "Oh woe is me, I'm a victim. You owe me because of the sins of our ancestors" stuff. If that sounds like I'm saying who is the biggest impediment to good change, yes, yes, I am. I mention that because I see the trans-radicals as the biggest impediment to change. If you walk around with a chip on your shoulder, daring people to knock it off, some will see the best way of doing that as knocking you down. And you can count on it, someone will.
All that to say, we cannot honestly deny physical reality, but we can productively shape our attitudes about it (when it matters and when it shouldn't). Unfortunately, that is often difficult even without the radical assholes ruining conversation.
Imagine if we were forbidden to call plugs and pipe fittings male and female.
That goes to the heart of the matter. It is imperative that we don't abandon acknowledgement of reality with a dystopian destruction of language to achieve political ends.
While the slippery slope argument is technically a fallacy leading to logical extremes, we now live in a world of those extremes. To be fair and decent humans we do sometimes position ourselves on that slope where the issue becomes, how far down the slope do we dare stand?
The trans movement borrows from many social justice movements. The complaint that they just need to be 'heard' and are 'being shut down' is taken straight from feminism's playbook. I heard the 'women are being silenced' BS so much from the Medium Misandrist Mavens that I wrote an article about how women who can't shut up about how oppressed they feel are always going on about how they aren't 'heard'. Maybe they're just being shut out by people who are tired of hearing the same-old same-old.
There is no group less unheard than the trans movement. In fact, they're way better at feminists at being heard because no one's going to stop a man from saying his piece, whereas women are easier to intimidate. Many women still are unheard, but the ones who are heard the most are the ones who complain the loudest.
It's bullshit that either women or transwomen are not being 'heard'. What they *mean* is that they're not being persuasive.
"It's bullshit that either women or transwomen are not being 'heard'. What they *mean* is that they're not being persuasive."
Yep. Or to put it even more bluntly, they're not getting everything they demand.
Or to put it even more bluntly, they're not getting everything they demand"
... right away,
Their problem is that they want to be seen and believed to be women, or men in the case of trans-men. I can understand that desire, but when it becomes a demand people don't fall in line with what they think is unreasonable. I have a surprising to myself empathy and sympathy for their plight. I've spoken to people still employed in the corporate world, and they have the ear of HR. Misgendering (sic) is reaching a level of a white person using the N-word (escorted out the door with your stuff in a cardboard box). To say that they are not heard is preposterous. It will bring resentment at a level disastrous to their cause.
Gender dysphoria is three times more common in men than women; one in 30,000 men and one in 100,000 women. Yet there has been an enormous surge in young women claiming to be "trans," up 4000% since 2006. I don't believe for a second that this is some environmental factor like earlier breast development (traced to soaring fat content in alleged American food) nor is it more candid reporting.
Said it before, saying it again: no dysphoria, no "trans." The activists call this "medicalizing" what should be a "choice." This infuriates. Well, in real dysphorics the sense of being in the wrong body is so agonizing that some suicide, and if that isn't a medical condition then I don't know what is.
“I see exactly the same problem with ‘anti-racist’ activism.”
Substantively off topic, but Steve, I love you for saying “exactly the same” rather than “the exact same.” I am literally over the moon.
Haha! Given that we've found this linguistic common ground I won't comment further on you playing fast and loose with the word "literally"😉
hat tip
I don't think I've written this here before, I beg pardon if I have but.
I see bigotry as Stage Theory, like Piaget's intellectual development or Kohlberg's moral development.
Stage One; unrepentant mindless bigot. Comfortable using the N-bomb, hates everybody; black and brown people. Muslims, Asians, gays. This needs no further explanation.
Stage Two: What we are calling "woke." Race is a social construct, interfertility and melanin continua mean that there are no races, a "trans" woman is really a woman. There are no categories and any acknowledgement of differences is indistinguishably extreme bigotry. This is better than One but it is likely to collapse under its own falsehood; it's just as false as Stage One.
Stage Three: Differences are real and they are not inferiorities. We accept them, maybe revel in them.
I try to live my life as Stage Three, I don't always succeed. Indians are a real challenge for me.
I may have mentioned this before, but early in my marriage I said, "Steve (actual name forgotten) is a nice guy. I like him." My wife replied, "That doesn't mean anything Honey. You like everybody." I have been burned by that, but it does help me stay in your Stage Three. Not always, I'm as human as everybody, but I think it has been beneficial to me overall. I like the Stage Three that you describe.
"I wouldn't call a trans woman a "man."
I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact and when it breaks down to the difference between biological fact and honoring someone's affectations my eyes begin to glaze over. I will honor the chosen identity of someone committed enough to transition as an adult, because I know that an almost vanishingly small percentage of those claiming transsexuality actually are dysphoric, and dysphoria is a malady no more summoned than diabetes or left-handedness. I wouldn't jump into his shit over it but if he started dictating to me or he was putting pronouns in his work email I would raise a stink.
But I would not tolerate the affectations of someone who cannot leave the topic of gender identity, someone for whom the phrase, along with "correct pronouns" and "misgendered" roll out of their mouths so readily you can hear the dust in the grooves. These are fanatics, and they are tiresome.
And in urging children to take dangerous hormones or even get surgeries. these fanatics are doing significant and tangible harm, and conservatives are exploiting them to foment outrage. Effectively.
"I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact"
Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily affect what I call him. Some black people find it offensive to be called "coloured." I think this is silly. But I still won't call them coloured. I'm not denying reality by avoiding calling someone something they don't want to be called. Trans women are trans women. I'll happily go that far in the name of politeness.
Where I draw the line is calling someone something they're not. I wouldn't call a black person "white." I won't call a straight male a lesbian. I won't call a male a woman. Because women already exist and they are distinct from males.
I didn't mean I would set out to start a fight. Politeness is a virtue but denial of reality isn't.
I keep returning to the fact that the great majority of the "trans" world is fake, and when "trans" stops being edgy they'll find another way to get their extra ration of special attention. Just as there are a lot of gays who are despondent because being gay is no long extraordinary. Or, as they called it. "fabulous."
"Colored" sounds so 1950s.
I won't use "trans" because I refuse to go along with all the ploys that the activists are using to expand their numbers. Think you might be "trans?" Quick! Get sliced before you have time to change your mind! I can choke out "transgendered to female" but that's the best I could manage.
By the away. agreed ant TaraElla. She is the only sane on I ever ran across on Medium. I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software, and after three weeks of not logging in I did so and saw a red box. That's it. I'm done. Most of the articles suck anyway. OK, sour grapes, but it's true.
"I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software,"
What?! That's insane! I cannot get over the social pressure this issue exerts. Even during the height of the "racial reckoning" I don't think people were as touchy about racial wrongthink than they are about trans wrongthink today.
I completely stayed away from the "trans" posts, didn't mention anything in a response. The most objectionable thing I wrote was to tell an idiot who writes hundreds of articles about "code smells" that his title was at least halving his readership. It's a stupid and offensive phrase and the guy is not a very good programmer.
I didn't even get an email saying I had violated anything, no Roger (he/him).
Medium just likes banning people.
How you get away with articles like the "trans" ones is beyond me, the way they kowtow to those people is just shocking.
This could go into a number of sub threads, so I'll just put it here. I don't think that we are a blank slate formed exclusively by environment and culture, but rather a blend of that and genetics including racial genetic characteristics. Genes quickly redistribute but Neanderthals have been extinct for thousands of years and remain in the homosapien genome. The ratio is unknown and most likely variable.
Even at some future date when quantum supercomputers are a thing, I doubt that we will be able to definitively answer that question. I/we don't know. It is therefore difficult to logically dismiss or magnify the importance of either.
The best that we seem to be able to do is observe general observations, but then that is the stuff of stereotypes, and we know where that can lead without proper caution. Does it matter if those observations are genetic or cultural as far as how we navigate life?
Uh, I didn't write that, or anything remotely like that.
And some fell on rocky ground.
"Who decides?"
I never read another word from anyone who invokes this "argument." It's the mine canary for a weak mind.
You think Barack Obama "identified" as black to gain benefits? You think the colour of his skin was an advantage during his presidential run in a country that had, until that point, only ever elected white men to the office of president or vice president? You have a pretty serious uphill battle to argue that one. 😅
And more to the point, all of these people (with the exception of Dolezal obviously), is 50% black. That's hardly "passing for black." In fact, they'd have been legally required to categorise themselves as black for most of the 20th century. As was anybody with more than one eighth black ancestry (i.e. if they had even one black great-grandparent).
See the one-drop rule (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule).
Black people are *identified* as black in America. Often even when it makes very little sense to do so. And bear in mind, it's been less than 60 years since black people were allowed to use the same water fountains as white people. I don't think there are many white people lining up for the "benefits" of being black. Certainly not in America.
I'm old enough (septuagenarian) to have personal memory of "Whites Only", "Colored in back" and interracial marriage being illegal. I've seen tremendous change in my lifetime. Those who deny it are disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
America is a 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙖𝙬𝙨 and there is nothing that I can do by law that a black person cannot, so I sometimes quibble about "systemic racism." The system has been corrected, but at the same time some level of racial bias persists to a degree that it could be considered to be ubiquitous. People do find ways to get around the system and exercise discriminatory practices. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒘.
When all is said and done, white people would overwhelmingly choose to stay white if a magic genie in a bottle offered them the opportunity to be black. I call bullshit on anyone denying that.
Man, I'm sorry, I know you'd rather I didn't "jump in" to your other conversations. But it's rare that I see somebody be so wrong with such utter confidence. It feels as if you've spent zero time talking to black people or thinking about what it's like to be black beyond a few silly stereotypes, but nonetheless formed all these firm opinions on the topic.
Yes, of course some black people wish they were white. Or, to least, have wished it when they were younger and figuring themselves out. Many black people have even written about it (though obviously, I think many others keep those thoughts to themselves). Here are a few examples.
http://shalominthecity.com/2013/10/25/sometimes-i-wish-i-were-white/
https://julianayaz.medium.com/sometimes-i-wish-i-was-white-704c2d7c5055
https://secure.wesleyan.org/6597/shes-4-years-old-and-wishes-she-was-white
https://theracecardproject.com/wish-white/
https://www.npr.org/sections/bryantpark/2007/11/sometimes_i_wish_i_was_white_y.html
I suspect this is true of any marginalised group. I'm sure some gay people wish they were straight just because it would make certain aspects of life easier. Many pubescent teenage girls wish they were boys, again, because life is easier in many ways. The sharp rise in trans and non binary identifying females is evidence of this.
Being a straight, white, man, even with the grief you'll occasionally get if you spend too much time on Twitter or Medium, is still the easiest configuration of traits to have. This isn't some kind of accusation. You're not a bad person because of this. I have two of those three myself. And of course, there are a bunch of other traits like being intelligent or good-looking or having a good family that factor in as well.
But yeah, seriously, I find it very difficult to believe you've ever had a conversation with a black person about race with any intention other than to explain why you're right about racism and they're wrong. And I'm not saying that black people have it all correct because they're black. But they have an experience that you lack. So at least give them an honest listen. And give what they say some honest thought.
"Hey, he’s probably been to LA and NYC. Thats like all of America"
😂I know what it's like to be black in America because I've spent a lot of time living in America. Most of my extended family is in America. And this, for the record, is an ad hominem. An ad hominem based on no actual knowledge of me or my life to boot. The only reason you know who I am is because I write about race, often about race in America, and I do so accurately enough that I've got quite a large audience.
I have to find links on the internet for you because how else am I supposed to demonstrate anything to you? Certainly you're not going to take my word for it. And clearly you've not spoken to any black people about it yourself. I didn't say that they spoke for everybody. That, as we're talking debate fallacies, is a straw man. You said that the number was zero percent. It's not.
But yes, you've reduced the entire black experience in America to college diversity admissions, rap music, and sagging pants. In the first of these areas, yes, there are some advantages to being black. But if this represents being black in America to you, I'm not sure I'll ever get through to you.
Stop treating this like a fight. Accept the possibility that you might be missing something here. Recognise that even if you are, nothing bad is going to happen. In fact, you'll come away with a broader understanding if you allow yourself to.
When someone refers to "black people" as "blacks", it's a tell. I'm not talking political correctness, just something I've noticed over the years.
“When someone refers to "black people" as "blacks"”
100%.
I never felt that to be racist but then I am so far off the grid that I can't keep up.
Your case? I'm not trying to debate with you. I think you are a troll so that would be an exercise in futility. I just remarked about something I've observed over the years.
Perhaps too abstract since there is no genie to do the magic. What do you think the percentage of people (all of us, not restricted to one ethnicity) are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America? Notice that I said easier, not easy. There are poor white people and I see them sleeping homeless in the park in the morning when I go out for a walk, and I have friends in my circle who are black with more wealth and success than me. There is obviously a broad spectrum. The question again, what do you think the percentage of people are who would say that they think it easier to be white in America?
"You’re telling me a European American with almost no experience and pedigree could waltz into the presidency cause he gave one good speech (no red/blue America, just a purple America)"
How can you possibly ask this question after a Trump presidency?! He didn't even have to give a good speech!😅 What experience and pedigree did he have? Do you think for even a second that a black man could have behaved as Trump did and won the presidency? Obama "waltzed" into the presidency? Seriously? I'm not saying white people didn't vote for Obama. I'm saying it's wild to claim that being black gave him an advantage and then to admit that "pale faces pick presidents" in a largely pale face country. Obama lost the white vote, remember?
And are you saying that segregation only existed in the Deep South? Sure, de jure segregation was limited to the south. But de facto, it was practiced all over America. The fact that black people could drink at some water fountains isn't really the point is it? Considering the state sponsored discrimination they faced.
You wouldn't have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America before, at the very least, 1968. And realistically speaking much later than that. There is a lot of room between antebellum America and the civil rights act. And none of it was good for black people.
I'd be the first to admit that some people overstate claims of racism nowadays. Things today are nothing like 60 years ago. But it's mind-boggling to me that some people believe the playing field has been levelled. Never mind that black people now have the advantage.
As I've been at great pains to point out racial and trans issues are categorically different (I think I'll write an article specifically about this at some point soon). And one of the key reasons is identification. Trans people identify as something that, biologically speaking, they aren't. They have to ask to be referred to in the way they prefer and use makeup and hormones and surgery to appear more like the sex they identify as, because otherwise, everybody would refer to them by their biological sex.
The comparison here is Dolezal and only Dolezal. And she was widely vilified for her dishonesty.
Black people, even mixed-race people like Obama or Smullett, are identified *by other people* as black. If they asked to be referred to as white, they'd be seen as self-hating and dishonest by black *and* white people. African ancestry is visually obvious at a quarter or so (or an eighth sometimes, hence octoroons) and because of the black/white dichotomy in many people's thinking, people with that ancestry are usually categorised as black in America. Elsewhere in the world that's not so common. You're acting as if the classification is their choice and this is 100% backwards.
p.s. Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry, I only very rarely take disagreements personally.😁
Before the Proclamation to have a single black great-great grandparent, 1/16 black, meant that one was automatically a slave. People who from every appearance were as white as the plantation owner were still classified as black.
And their manumission documents were a simple small piece of paper and anyone was allowed to demand to see it. Whereupon the paper would be shredded or burned and poof! Back into slavery.
I'll get my facts from someone who doesn't think being black in America is some kind of sweet deal, thanks very much.
"The law code specifically addressed freed blacks."
Do you think this code was upheld diligently? Is it factually accurate to say that many freed black people ended up being sold back into slavery because having black skin was the only real issue? Do you think freed black people were treated with the same rights and dignity as white people?
You can't divorce the law from the cultural environment at the time or how the law was enforced. It feels as if you're being wilfully disingenuous here. So let's change tack. What's the proposition you're actually trying to defend? That conditions were fine for freed black people during slavery? That only the slave owners were racist and everybody else treated black people with respect? That the mistreatment of black people was limited to the south and black people in the north treated fairly? What do you think we're missing?
"What are you talking about? It’s not 1860 anymore. We were talking about today."
😅 What are *you* talking about? In this part of the comment tree you're and Chris were specifically talking about the law around freed black people in the north and south. I think we agree that this isn't relevant today.
And where's the ad hominem? It does feel to me as if you're being wilfully disingenuous. That's not an attack on you as a person, it's my honest impression of your arguments.
It's as if I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that the founding fathers recognised that all men are created equal. So obviously black people and white people were treated equally. Context matters. The reality of how the law was enforced matters. So if I continued to pretend the Bill of Rights was proof of foundational equality in America, and you assumed I wasn't an idiot, all that's left is that I'm being disingenuous.
"I can’t manage you jumping into every conversation I am having."
This is the only comment of yours I've replied to other than those in our original conversation. Take a breath my friend, I'm not attacking you. I just think you're ignoring important context.
Very very few people use "ad hominem" correctly. Sorry to say, you aren't one of them.
Example:
"You can't possibly have a valid opinion on any moral issue because you're in favor of abortion'
Ad hominem = "to the man."
It refers to attacking the person instead of rebutting the issue under discussion.
It does not refer to dismissive talk, disagreement, or insult.
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies
You're trying to draw a conclusion from a single piece of numerical data in a field that is vastly more complex than that.
In 2008 the other choice was McCain/Palin. The choice of Palin as VP nominee did a lot to cast McCain's judgment into doubt. Had he chosen a less preposterous person to put a heartbeat away from the launch/Rapture codes, he might have won.
In 2012 Obama had the advantage of incumbency and had shown himself to not be the leftist firebrand that the right had never stopped howling about, and Romney was just too unpalatably "retail" for too many voters.
Yes I have left his race out of the formulation because it had the same effect on both elections so it kinda cancels out.
In spite of my other comment about race playing a role, I do believe that the things you mention also played a big role. Sadly, the "parties" are increasingly willing to display their contempt for the electorate with the choices we get. A megalomaniac vs a man in obvious cognitive decline. WTF!? We got rid of the offensive midnight tweeter and got a man who is a danger to all of humanity. He has made it clear that it purpose in Ukraine is regime change and the 101st is now there, ready to participate in active combat. I'll be amazed if Putin doesn't resort to nukes.
That is on top of the stupidity of voters. America is incredibly dumbed down. Flat earthers can vote! You only need to do a little Twitter reading of political comments to see that democracy is doomed to failure. A lottery might serve us better.
My father, a retired Navy Captain who became a Democrat as an answer to the Willie Horton ad, was one of your #3.
Yeah I don't want Biden to run again, were he only 25 years younger. I don't think his cognitive issues are all that serious yet but each passing year is going to take a worse toll on him. But I think Trump was a far greater danger to the country and world, I don't think he would have hesitated to get millions of Americans killed just to create another opportunity to boast about his magnificence. Every time I see him leading the applause to himself I am creeped out all over again.
If you really need to get depressed, watch that video of the GOP voters talking about how 1/6 was just freedom of speech, and BLM, and all that. I despair.
I'm not a doctor and if I was, I would not likely give a diagnosis on Biden's mental state on the internet. My grandfather lived with my mom while he had Alzheimer's until it was unmanageable. My mother lived with me for a time when she had Alzheimer's until we couldn't manage it. My non-authoritative opinion, based upon my experience with the tragedy of loved ones who are no longer cognitively competent is that Biden is unfit to be POTUS at this time.
25 years ago, he was Mr. Law & Order and too conservative to be in today's Democratic Party. We all change with age, I have, but my concerns about him are not just a matter of political view. We are in times too dangerous for him to be POTUS. My opinion of course.
I would not even dream of arguing with you. I had an uncle die of Alzheimers but the last time I spoke with him it had not begun yet. Then he asked his brother, my father, "are we related?"
But I have a special knack verging on paranormal for listening to and reading people and figuring how their minds work. And in my estimation Biden is not there yet. But he hasn't long.
I have always formed friendships with people who have common interests and politics has never been a factor. I don't forsake them when I fand that some of their views are in radical opposition to mine. They might not remain as close, but I maintain contract and communication even when it is depressing. As a result, I hear honest thoughts of people I know pertaining to other issues beyond the political or worldview, rather than some isolated thoughts they write on the internet. It keeps me out of echo chambers and gives me a lot to consider.
One of those things is that I get to see why they hold beliefs that I don't agree with and would consider them to be nutcases if I didn't know more about them. A common theme is that they live in an echo chamber where I am a turd in their punchbowl that they allow out of friendship.
I am not a mind reader, and I don't view members of racial, national or political tribes to be a monolith. My diverse group of friends reenforces that view strongly.
When it comes to Trump and MAGA, I have to respectfully disagree there. I don't want to hear from them at all.
The smartest Trump supporter I ever spoke with told me that he liked Trump because the world was afraid of America again.
I should add that some of my MAGA friends are not just friends, they are kin. From a long line of Democrats, the party changed. They moved away from the city of their childhood, St. Louis, which became what Trump would properly call a shithole. In many ways what they see as a redeeming value of Trump falls under "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Democratic Party became what lower/middle class white people, even the ones with black children like in my family, now think of as their enemy as far as values go.
They know that the far right is not all that the left says that it is, but they believe that the far left is thanks to its own words. Things that you have mentioned about the right using. Call them racist, fascist, haters enough and Christan as they may be, they'd vote for Satan himself to vote against a Democrat. Along came Trump. They are the twins of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd.
Perhaps my military mindset.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
and
“Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” -unknown
We like Dave around here.
I've never wanted to be wrong about something as badly as I do about this.
Governments have refrained from using nuclear weapons because that has been a door nobody wanted to see opened. But using even low-yield tactical nukes would move that "window of propriety" toward their use and the chances for life on earth would be a lot more grim than they already are.
I could write something long and at risk of being classified, so I won't. I'll just say that all those low yield nukes exist because of the idea of proportional response.
Massive use of the big ones would result in a pyrrhic victory at best. Someday, someone is going to gamble that limited use will will not go there and response will be proportional and limited.
Very dangerous for the reason you gave. But when clowns are kings the palace becomes a circus. Disheartening indeed.
I didn't say it was minor, and it wasn't. I said it cancels out.
The reason for that, which I left unstated because of my elevated expectations for other readers on here, is because anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he was black was already someone who wouldn't vote for him because he was a Democrat.
Thank you for agreeing.
Race played a role in that election.
1. There were black people who voted for him because he was considered to be black.
2. There were non-black (not just white people) people who against him because he was considered to be black.
3. There were white people who voted for him so they could be a part of the populace who elected the first black president.
4. There were also people who didn't vote race but voted "blue no matter who" or "never a commie Democrat."
5. All of that was filtered thru him having a white mother, having lived outside the US and while in the US raised by white ultra-leftists.
I don't know the percentages. Whatever it was, it worked for him, he won. The point being race did matter. It just didn't get everyone the result they wished for.
“Trump is a unique political figure”
And Obama isn’t? Herschel Walker hasn’t behaved a tenth as badly as Trump. And wouldn’t stand a chance if he were running for president.
And come on now, my reference to water fountains (I didn't say "universal") was just an artful way of saying "segregation." This is just a casual conversation, I'm assuming a degree of common understanding here. And if you’re quibbling about how *many* water fountains black people weren’t allowed to drink from, might I suggest that you’re on the wrong side of this one? Again, you wouldn’t have wanted to be a black person anywhere in America during segregation. We both know this. Only bad faith or ignorance could tempt you to deny it.
And no, I don’t think the playing field is level today. I really don’t understand this, you said it yourself; America is a majority “pale faced” country and that leads to people with pale faces ending up in positions of power more often. I’m not mad about that. The same dynamic exists in majority Asian countries and majority black countries.
But I find it so weird that’s some white people try to deny that it’s the case in majority white countries. Being white in America is a socioeconomic advantage. Just as being male is an advantage and being presumed straight is an advantage and being a native English speaker is an advantage. Admitting this doesn’t make you a bad person.
There’s also the small percentage of white people who consciously discriminate against and/or hate black people. Even if you claim that there’s the same percentage of black people who feel the same about white people, that’s still a larger number of people by your own “pale faces” argument. Which means it’s a disadvantage to be black.
And lastly, yes, in America, there’s also the question of the legally enforced discrimination that black people faced until sixty years ago. It’s just ridiculous to argue that as soon as the ink was dry on the civil rights act, all of that discrimination and all of its impact just vanished.
Today, *I*, as an individual, don’t feel disadvantaged because I’m black. This is partly because I’m lucky enough to have a number of advantages that more than outweigh the very occasional racism I might encounter. And partly because, in 2022, racism is a far, far smaller problem than it once was. But that doesn’t mean that black people as a demographic aren’t discriminated against.
Black people are more likely to be poor (both in terms of wealth and income), more likely to live in high crime neighbourhoods (even though the overwhelming majority of black people aren't criminals), more likely to be rejected for employment (even when you control for education and qualifications), more likely to go to jail for longer terms (even when you control for the crime committed), on and on. And all of this can be traced, in part, to the discrimination black people as a demographic faced and still face. The idea that people who are 50% black opt-in to it because it’s “cool” is just such a wrongheaded take when you actually consider the real world.
Lumping Dolezal in with Obama even more so. Again, mixed race people are *identified* as black by other people just as often as they identify that way themselves. And Chatterton-Williams has stated numerous times that he doesn't want to be associated with race at all. So much for the "cool points" argument. At least as regards him.
BLM did more harm to black people than help. If you think BLM represents the reality of black people in general, you've been brainwashed by Fox News.
p.s. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I'm Nigerian and I’m not in England. You’ll make your head spin trying to figure out what time-zone I’m in at any given moment. I can barely keep up myself. Nice sleuthing though.😉
You use Commonwealth spelling. I figured you were in England as well. But that's just a default; I'm sure you write jewellery instead of jewlry and I know you write colour, honour, etc.
"Seriously We’re going to argue who is worse, trump or walker?"
What do you want from me here?😅 You brought Walker into this conversation! I responded, and you ridicule me for mentioning him? And you keep mentioning personal attacks and ad hominems. Where have I done this?
Pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Nor is a single sarcastic reference to Fox News an ad hominem. I'm happy not to mention Fox News if it offends you. But given that I force myself to watch Fox News semi-regularly, it's hard not to notice the influence. Perhaps not first hand, but yeah.
Anyway, my apologies. No more Fox News references.
And yes, you're absolutely right, there were disadvantages to being any number of ethnicities in the past. Irish and Jewish in particular. But those disadvantages smoothed out in a few generations in ways that the disadvantages of being black didn't. Do you really not see that when you look at history? Do you really not understand why that is?
You say that being black had "challenges." What time period are you talking about here? Slavery? The Jim Crow era? Your use of the past tense suggests you're not talking about today. Would you describe sundown towns and lynchings and cross burnings or the very real fear of these things, as "challenges"? What degree of misery is necessary before we can admit that it was a terrible problem? And misery relative to whom? White people?
I know that white people aren't "at the top" by many metrics. I also know that white people are wildly disproportionately at the top by some others. And I *also* know that on the metrics where white people aren't at the top, black people aren't either.
Which brings us back to what we're *actually* discussing. Namely, the notion that people pretend to be black for all the "benefits." Or the fact that you don't seem to understand why mixed race people are often referred to as black in America. Yes, some white people mimic "black culture" because they think it makes them look cool (they're wrong 100% of the time by the way). But they're still white. Wearing saggy pants isn't "identifying" as black. And hey, don't blame me that country music sucks.😉
"I don’t know how calling someone ignorant and dishonest isn’t ad hominem"
1. There's a difference between valid criticism and an ad hominem. 2. I didn't call *you* ignorant or dishonest.
Again, pointing out that only bad faith or ignorance would tempt somebody, ANYBODY, to deny that it was uniquely awful to be black in America during segregation is not an ad hominem. It's the truth.
Depending on how you define lynching, the last one was Ahmed Arbery I guess? Do mass shootings like the Buffalo shooting or the Charleston church shooting count? Or if you want a case where there's absolutely no room for debate, try the murder of James Byrd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.).
The last cross burning that I'm aware of was in 2020 (https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/04/22/marion-man-pleads-guilty-following-2020-cross-burning/). You think this is all a century ago because you have no understanding of the experience of black people in America. And, frustratingly, seem uninterested in gaining an understanding. I'm guessing your first instinct as you read these was to try to think of counterexamples. I'd be happy to be wrong.
"Black people are at the top" *citation needed.
"Numerous really shitty journalists and fake intellectuals have jobs and megaphones because they are BLACK and bring the BLACK perspective."
Finally! We agree on something. Yes, Candace Owens and Ibram X Kendi are all the evidence you could need of this. But do you think there are no shitty white journalists and "intellectuals" out there? Do you think Alex Jones or Tucker Carlsen and many others would have their platforms if they weren't shouting the WHITE perspective? Do you think Trump would have become president?!
Although, of course, it's not the white perspective, it's the racist perspective. Same as the black grifters. Tucker Carlsen doesn't speak for white people in general. Ibram X Kendi doesn't speak for black people in general. And lest we forget, the number one best-selling grifter on anti-racism is, you guessed it, a white woman.
But yes, as I said, finally we agree. Thoroughly mediocre black people are now also able to be successful. What you don't seem to understand is that white people have had the monopoly on that mediocre success for quite some time now. As the saying goes, when you're used to 100%, having to share feels like oppression.
And lastly, I care about Daniel Shaver and Duncan Lemp and Tony Timpa. I've written about them. I'd be the first to admit that the media falls over themselves to report white cops shooting black people and says nothing when cops shoot white people. Or, especially when black people shoot black people. I've written about this problem many times.
It's very difficult to take you seriously, Jason, in fact I am not going to make the attempt.
If you think being nonwhite confers some sort of advantage in American politics then you need to stop watching Tucker Carlson and read about the intensity of opposition to Obama. You might start with McConnell leaving a Supreme Court bench empty for a year.
You probably think that affirmative action was intended to give unfair advantage to academically and occupationally (if not intrinsically) inferior black people. You'd be wrong. It was intended to compensate for unfair admissions and hiring practices that didn't allow blacks and others to be fairly treated. There were a lot of black men with doctorate degrees who couldn't get better than janitorial work.
Why do I even bother?
To "beat a straw man" means to rebut a point that the other has not made. Where did I do that? You mean the paragraph that opens with "you probably think?"
I guess that was my mistake.
Politics in America is a sick joke. I write in a protest "no acceptable candidate" so often it is hardly worthwhile for me to vote. The only thing that could fix it is for that to be a valid choice and if no acceptable candidate got the most votes, they vacated the office until the next election. That might cause them to take the voters seriously.
As for how black people are doing now, while my circle is too small to be a statistic, but it includes people from the Caribbean islands. Their ancestors arrived on slave ships liked the ones in America. Two observations about them. (1) They are on average more successful. (2) They are on average less inclined to wear a chip on their shoulder.
One might be left to wonder, is there a relationship and if there is an element of cause and effect, in which direction?
I've started muting the Medium authors who write a new article nearly every day and always with the world "white" in the title, so I don't start thinking they are the real voice of black people and go out and find a klu Klux Klan claverin to join. (O,K, that's hyperbole, but not by enough to feel good about)
This is not just about wives: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+21%3A9&version=ESV
"Unlike biological sex, which predates humans by eons, race is a social construct and is fairly arbitrary. Yet "woke" activists claim the exact opposite, talking about sex as if it's something we can take on and off like a sweater, and race as if it determines every facet of our being."
Absolutely nailed it. I'm going to write about his at some point soon.
Your son, a trans man, didn't bubble up in the conversation. Perhaps trans men are not thought to be threatening, or as vocal, but I've really heard very little about them. Some time when it fits into the conversation it could be informative. Issues different from the issues of trans women. Does he share your views on the separation of sexual biology and gender dysphoria? Part of a trans community or living life as "normally" as possible? By that I mean not having "trans" as a primary focus. Is that possible in today's zeitgeist? If it's too personal, feel free to ignore my questions.
Race is no more a "social construct" than biological sex.
The fact that there is something of a continuum in melanin content doesn't justify this soft-headed notion because there is more to race than melanin. Had the major races been geographically separated long enough they would be mutually infertile and literally different species.
What terrible times we are living through, so barren.
*actual* transgender people, OK. I will not use those "cis" and "trans" words except in derision. I've known several genuinely transgendered people and know them to be real. I've been intimate with two. And I know the medical statistics on dysphoria and am away that about a thousand times as many are making the claim than those statistics would predict. So it is statistically defensible to take the default position that "they're all fake," which I would but for those few I have actually known. Because "fake" is over 99%
Ig dysphoria is not prerequisite for transgender then transgender is elective and to so elect is to adopt what is clearly nothing more than a fad, an adoption for the sake of attention. I don't like fads, I don't like attention whores, and I detest people who feel the need to tell everyone what pronouns need to be used to refer to them .... when they aren't around. I'm glad to not live in a country where I am likely to run into this crap, I couldn't stand it.
"Race is no more a "social construct" than biological sex"
I mean, it pretty trivially is. Even if you just consider the fact that if people from two "races" have a kid, that kid will always be a mixture of the two "races", you see how quickly the concept becomes fuzzy. This in contrast to biological sex where no such ambiguity exists except in vanishingly rare cases.
Also I've no idea where you're getting the idea that if the "major races" had remained separated (the "five races" concept of humanity has been throughly debunked. We all came from the same place) we'd be mutually infertile. This is an absolutely extraordinary claim! Homo sapiens were able to mate with neanderthals despite evolving separately for hundreds of thousands of years. Modern humans haven't faced anything like enough evolutionary pressure to make us into different species.
Whatever ideas people have in their heads about race, it's probably fair to say that there is no such thing as a racially "pure" human being on the planet today. But 99.98% of us are unambiguously male or female.
As for transgender being elective, I think we agree that there are many people, especially young people today, who don't have gender dysphoria but identify as trans. I'm more inclined to see these young people as confused or simply struggling to find identity than attention seeking. Though, I guess, most teenagers are attention seeking to some degree. We just didn't used to unthinkingly medicalise them for it.
But whatever the percentages are, I don't want genuinely dysphoric people to suffer because of the idiots. Precision in how we talk about trans issues will help genuine trans people as much as it will help the confused teens. Everybody wins if we can shut down the fanatics.
I can't completely get on board with the 'race is a social construct, but sex is not' train. Sex sets limits biologically. The purpose of life, from the very beginning of primordial soup, is to perpetuate more life, by any evolutionary means necessary. Today, we mammals are a sexually binary species. We've evolved to reproduce in a specific, widely spread way because it's been so successful. We have specific roles to play regarding impregnation and gestation/production. Biology says transwomen can't have babies and transmen can't get anyone pregnant, even if they buy the best vagina/penis money can buy.
The 'limitations' of race are different, and less remarkable. There's very little black and white people can do that the other can not and only one 'limitation' I can think of: Producing a baby other than what they look like. White people can't produce black or Chinese babies, black people can't produce white or Chinese babies, Chinese people can't produce white or black babies.
And when two people of different races get together, they produce a baby that isn't strictly one race or the other, regardless of how it looks. How that baby gets treated is due to the construct of humans deciding that one look/race is superior to another. But men and women have much more pronounced biological differences. Biology rules in the end.
And eventually, I think transracialism will become a thing, and it will be much easier to accomplish than convincing gender-switching. Like it or not, it's coming. For everyone.
"And when two people of different races get together, they produce a baby that isn't strictly one race or the other, regardless of how it looks."
I mean, you've pretty much made the argument for race being (mostly) a social construct here. I'd just go a step further and point out that pretty much nobody is strictly one race of the other in 2022. Regardless of how they look.
There are biological realities to ancestry, of course. I don't think any serious person is denying this. But the notion of "race" (note how you slipped into calling Chinese people a "race" here) is a lazy, scientifically debunked and largely counterproductive way of addressing the actually complexity of geographical ancestry.
I could get into this in detail and not only bore most readers but risk being called a racist. But I do believe that there are racial differences that are not explained away by upbringing. Dave mentioned his wife's nose for the freshness of food. I have seen that too. It is beyond doubt. OK, freshness has been an imperative for 2500 years if not longer. That is enough to have a genetic effect.
I will name another, and I am as certain on this.
We all love to eat, and we love food that tastes good. But for Asians of all cultures, as unlike as Japanese and Hmong, food can entail what I will call arousal. I am an astute observer of this; I see Asians abruptly ordering another dish in restaurants because they are aroused by what they are eating. It's usually a seafood dish.
I've never once in my life seen anyone do that, unless still hungry.
"But for Asians of all cultures, as unlike as Japanese and Hmong, food can entail what I will call arousal."
We've talked about this before. I've seen this in Asian people. But I've also seen it in Caribbean people and African people and Italian people. I really don't see the argument for a love of food, even a particularly acute love of food, being genetic. It seems much more likely to be about home environment and culture to me.
I'm not talking about loving good food. Who doesn't? I am talking explicitly about a state of arousal, an excitement. But I don't want to get any more into it save to say that I am sure what I've seen. I have after all had thirty years of watching.
What do you want to call the mildly interesting limitations the thingy formerly known as 'race' was? It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us and while they *should* be no more remarkable than hair colour or eye shape, there are a few biological limitations to what our bodies can do. I can only think of a few, and they don't account for much in this day and age but here it goes: Black people's skin is better at protecting against skin cancer, white people's skin is better at facilitating Vitamin D production, my nose is probably better designed for northern climates, your nose might be better designed for African climates (I don't know what it looks like but as I understand it, the broad African nose evolved in response to some need to respire better. Same with my peeps.)
Those 'limitations' are considerably less pronounced than a biological man who wants to have a baby and a transman who wants to impregnate a woman with her seed. Also, as we've all noted, transmen aren't exactly scrambling to get onto men's sports teams. Gee, I wonder why.
So yes, 'race' or whatever is mostly a social construct, and yes, I doubt any of us are 'pure' at this point, and I don't care if the Chinese are a 'race' or not, but they are also a biologically distinct type of human who can't produce anything except Chinese babies if they only reproduce with other Chinese. And yes who the hell knows what 'pure' Chinese is.
I don't think we should pretend there are NO differences between people of - race, haplotype, genotype, whatever. The diffs are there and instead of pretending they're not, let's just accept them for what they are. Racially speaking, they're not all that remarkable in the long run, but they're there - biological limitations on various things that sex also imposes on us.
Maybe I'll just start calling all of us 'skin critters' :)
What's on my list of 2-writes is an article about how we need to bring back asking each other where we're from, because it's interesting, and is often a conversation piece, and since we can't shut up about race adn differences we might as well talk about them freely, and I suspect they'll start to matter a lot less.
"It doesn't matter what you call it, there are differences between us"
Of course! But there are *lots* of differences between us. Again, no serious person is pretending there are no differences based on geographical ancestry. I'm certainly not. My issue is, and always has been, that too many people think that skin colour is some kind of special, unique and defining difference.
Also, I don't understand why you describe the traits you identified as limitations. They're just inherited traits, no? What's limiting about them? Many black people don't have broad noses. Look at a typical Somali or Ethiopian nose. Some white people have huge noses. Look at some Geek or Italian noses. Again, geographical ancestry. Not "race." I think people get so fixated on skin colour sometimes that they don't actually look at people's faces. There's huge diversity in how black or Asian or European faces look.
UV protection is literally the only reliable trait all black people have in common.
p.s. Chinese people produce Chinese babies in the same way that German people produce German babies. That's a nationality issue, not a genetic one, right? If a white Belgian and a white Australian have a baby in Australia, that child isn't Belgian.
I think you're a little fixated on race.
They're 'limitations' in the sense that one skin colour is good for facilitating Vitamin D, which means the darker-skinned folks might have to take supplements, and the lighter-skinned folks have to use more sunscreen since white skin isn't conducive to skin cancer prevention. They're minor inconveniences. They don't limit who we are as human beings, or our value, just certain things we can and can't do, because of biology. It's just more dramatic when you compare male to female, because men clearly are much stronger and historically far more of a threat to women (and also other men).
Noses evolved to suit the environment, as did eyes & other features. It only makes you 'better' at living in that environment. Look, dude, I put on sunscreen when I go to the beach because I'd be an idiot not to. Have you ever had your D levels checked? From what I found the other day when I got to wondering, "Are black people at risk for Vitamin D deficiency?" it was yes, although I couldn't be arsed to find out if that meant you got anemic, or grew a second head out of your shoulder, or what.
Why is it such a big deal to accept that there are certain differences between people with The Element Formerly Known As Race Before It Became A Political Clusterfuck? Call it whatever you like, it's evolutionary differences that exist between people and they're clearly an obsession for some and engage Sudden Visual Blindness in others. "What? What? the guy in the red shirt! The guy with the poufy hair! The guy in the red shirt and the poufy hair! That guy there! By the water fountain! That's the guy who can help you!"
"You mean the BLACK GUY?"
<muttering> "Well...uh.............................yeah."
'Race' differences are clearly a thing, one side wants to talk about them and the other side doesn't...and I say, why not just acknowledge it and move on. Why argue about whether 'race' is a social construct or not when in fact what we call 'race' is surficial differences that will only stop being a big deal when we stop making it a big deal. But let's not pretend those differences aren't there because they clearly are. Maybe we'd all care more if Josh Hawley tried to join the Nation of Islam and Kanye West tried to join the Klan. (Well, they'd find common ground on Jews anyway, I guess.)
Pretending 'race' doesn't exist strikes me as bizarre as claiming 'sex' doesn't exist or isn't real.
"I think you're a little fixated on race."
You think *I'm* fixated on race?😅
There's nothing wrong with saying "the black guy." I've never even hinted at the idea that there is. Black, in this case, is a descriptor. Like 'tall" or "blond." I'm not being touchy about being called black.
We've had this same conversation numerous times over the months, and I'm not sure how to be any clearer. I don't deny that there are differences between black people and white people. I never have. My point is that there are also differences between black people and black people. And between white people and white people.
My issue with the race is nothing to do with the politics, it's not the word, it's that the entire concept is simplistic and reductive. Or better yet, flat out wrong and scientifically debunked.
When people talk about race, generally speaking (maybe you're not doing this and we're talking past each other), they mean White, Black, Asian, Native American and what? Maybe South East Asian?
My point is that there is no meaningful sense in which white people are a "race." There is huge diversity across the different ancestries of white people. Same for black people. Same for Asians. Are you the same "race" as somebody from Iceland just because you both have white skin? I don't think the makes any sense.
The point you make about the nation of Islam and the KKK is salient. The reason Kanye and Josh would have a hard time joining these groups is that they're both *virulently racist groups*! They too believe, incorrectly, that race is meaningful concept. I don't think we can use them as support for the idea.
And as for sex vs race, I already explained why they're different. When a man and a woman have a baby, it will be immediately obvious that it's a boy or a girl 99.98% of the time. Not a mixture, one or the other. The only exception is when something goes wrong.
If people of two "races" have a baby (and as I think we've agreed, there's no such thing as a racial pure person anyway), their baby will be a mixture of these two races 100% of the time. No exceptions. It's immediately impossible (and simplistic) to racially categorise that child as simply one or the other.
I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race? Which I think would be silly. But even here, how many races are there then? Is this making sense? I really don't understand how I'm not being clear. Race is nothing like sex.
"I guess some would argue that the baby is a new hybrid race?"
Interestingly, to those who make such distinctions, my daughters would be Eurasian (a mixture of European and Asian stock). In Saudi Arabia a Saudi man asked me if my daughters were Saudi, thinking that I was their martial arts teacher rather that their father. They were 2nd Poom in Taekwondo with a box full of medals and popular in the expat martial arts tournament community. I sometimes taught rich kids, including little Prince Turky at the Ritz Carlton in Al Khobar.
Of course, due to politics and the shame of the children GIs left behind there was another name, Amerasian. I hated that word. I suppose Chris could say a bit about those children's fate. I only heard stories perhaps not reliable.
Now that I think about it, I'm actually beginning to think a 23andMe party is actually a cool idea....
I get why you don't like differentiating between people, but it sort of sounds a little like the folks who deny sex is real. What's important is not that we come in a lot of colours that are sure, yeah, really mixed but you look black and i look white and Dave's wife looks Asian. Isn't that interesting, but not a good argument for enslaving, bombing, or genociding anyone. I say the differences are there and you can call it race or not, but the diffs are there, the groups are there, and why is it such a clusterfuck to find the language for that?
I mean yeah, we can talk about the diversity within what we 'look' like - hey, let's have a 23andMe Reveal Party where we all get together, open our envelopes and reveal our genetic ancestry for the first time. We'll have some laughs, esp about what we 'think' we are or what we 'think' others look like, and then we'll go home and watch Netflix. The diffs are visual, and all I'm arguing for is saying that we're going to classify people in groups (just like we classify birds as flying, swimming, flying/swimming, strictly land/useless wings, etc. Ostriches aren't 'better' than songbirds, they're both different but but they're still birds. It's what we *do*. We sort stuff, critters and people. 'Race' differences aren't as obvious as sex differences but they're still there and we can talk about 'race' stuff, but we can't call it anything? How about 'The Concept Formerly Known As Race'?
"I get why you don't like differentiating between people"
This is so crazy!! 😅 My whole point is that we *need* to differentiate between people more precisely. And that race does a horrible job of this. I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself and I'm not sure why.
I'm saying that calling everybody with black skin or white skin or whatever skin a particular "race" is the failure to differentiate. It's like saying that everybody with blond or brown hair is the same race. No! They're not! It would be incredibly simplistic to claim this.
I have ancestry form Sierra Leone. If you lumped me in with all other Sierra Leoninans, I'd understand where you were coming from. It still wouldn't quite be accurate, but much more sensibly differentiated than simply saying, "oh, his skin is black, so we can just lump him in with every other human being on the entire continent of Africa and anywhere in the Caribbean and the Aboriginies in Australia."
Again, I have no issue with the notion of differences Of course there are differences. But "race" is far too blunt a concept to understand these differences.
Speaking of 23andMe, I just shared this link with Chris. Maybe it will do a better job of explaining than I have.😅
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
"The Concept Formerly Known As Race"
As to what to call "the concept formerly know as race" other than "wrong" or "simplistic" I'm not really sure. It's not easy being a race writer and knowing that the concept of race is completely wrong.😄
It's such a commonly understood term that I just say "race" usually with scare quotes. But whenever possible, I avoid it. I talk about skin colour because really, that's what people usually mean when they mention it.
That continuum from poles to equator directly reflects equilibria established by the balance between promoting ergosterol to vitamin D and insulation from melanoma.
Slightly tangential. Years ago, my melanated wife who could tolerate the sun laughed when I got a sunburn and "peeled like a snake." A strange thing to her. Now, with age and less collagen in her skin (thinning skin comes with age) she wears long sleeves and a brimmed hat in the Arizona sun. She can burn now. Has little to do with adaptive racial traits except that they give tendencies rather than gold plated imperviousness.
Yeah, i think the moral of the story is we're all dumbasses when we're young and immortal :) Actually, *everyone* is encouraged to use sunscreen now, regardless of how dark your skin is, because *everyone* is susceptible to the effects of the sun: https://www.winchesterhospital.org/health-library/article?id=157004#:~:text=Health%20experts%20advise%20everyone%2C%20regardless,spots%20and%20wrinkles%E2%80%94and%20cancer%20.
About ten years ago I went to the Pride Parade with a very black-skinned friend and I offered him some of my sunscreen, which he refused. And I said, "Doctors think *everyone* should be wearing it now, even black people, even really black black people, they're not 100% impervious to skin cancer either." He refused. It was a bright, hot day that day. I do wish they'd come up with sunscreen that doesn't make you feel dirty while it's on.
“The diffs are there and instead of pretending they're not, let's just accept them for what they are“
This
Weak argument, Steve.
Take macaws. Every species can mate with any other, even between genera, and produce hardy and fertile offspring. I had a Harlequin Macaw, Blue and Gold x Scarlet.
Yet there are still distinct macaw species, no question about it, though they rarely hybridize in the wild, sometimes they flock together.
To say that race mixing invalidates the idea of race is not an argument.
As for "trans," if they are nor dysphoric then they are fake. Pitiable desperate people but not transgendered. And, from all I have seen, attention freaks.
Why on Earth are we talking about macaws? Are you arguing that black people are a different species to white people? I suspect not. So I'm not sure what point you're making here. I'm not saying that race mixing invalidates the concept of race. The point I was making there is that race is different to sex.
The idea of race has already long been invalidated by the fact that we understand genetics far better than we did when these concepts originated.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Although I hate the racism that falls out of othering people of different racial groups and I am a race mixer, I like the beauty of the diversity. I do not wish to see the logical extreme of vanishing race thru that mixing. That's not some replacement theory crap. There is so much beauty in the shades of skin tones, the various colors of hair and eyes, facial features, etc. that I do not relish the idea of it all vanishing. I think we should be able to rid society of the bigotry without ending all that beauty in its splendid diversity.
"I think we should be able to rid society of the bigotry without ending all that beauty in its splendid diversity."
I don't think mixing will eliminate diversity, there's plenty of variation amongst people of the same "race" today. Though yes, it will inevitably smooth off the extremes. But I think we have plenty of time before we've even come close to mingling out our diversity. Hopefully we'll have long since gotten rid of the bigotry before then.
Darwin's finches ended up as separate species. As it happens we were never separated geographically at all.
Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species. There is no reason to think humans would be any different.
I had a good smeck when that supremacist learned he was 17% black.
Your last graph got to the point I have been trying to make. The fakes are taking resources that the authentically transgendered need. I saw one video about some idiot girl who had storned out of work in tears because her coworker refused to "they" her. I wanted to slap her face SO bad.
"Look, Steve, I'm not Heinrich Himmler. But separated populations of one species over time become separate species"
😁 I know that. I'm just saying that evolution is far more complex than you're portraying it. Yes, some species diverge to the point where they can't interbreed. Others, lions and tigers for example, are still able to breed despite significant time evolving separately.
Yes, it's *possible* that some groups of humans might, after an enormous amount of time and under some currently unknown evolutionary pressure, have become mutually infertile. This is just as likely to have happened within groups of humans we erroneously think of today as the same "race." But I see no justification at all for the certainty with which you made the claim.
Well the fact that we were able to cross vast distances in boats assured that it didn't happen.
I am a firm believer that humans are just as much an animal species as any other. and not exempt from any biological factors. And if groups of humans had been separated for 25, 50,000 years then there would have been enough diversification to result in mutually infertile species.
Don't forget that humans are known to have had at least seven distinct species. Species are not defined by mutual infertillity, there are even mutually fertile genera, maybe even families. We know that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were compatible; I have a distinctly Neanderthal look myself.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have, for example, instincts but that we don't. Like Dave I find the diversity of humanity to be enriching.
"I hope you don't think I'm trying to make some racist point here, I absolutely am not, but I take offense at the notion that humanity is "above" biology. that animals have"
I know you more than well enough to know you're not a racist. I just think you're making assumptions without grounds.
I share your conviction that humans are an animal species like any other. But while I'll take your word for it that there were at least seven human species, all modern humans, regardless of their skin colour or geographical ancestry, are the same species.
Would we become mutually infertile if enough time passed? The only honest answer is "who knows?" But again, for that to happen, we'd almost certainly need to experience some currently unknown evolutionary pressure. Or wait millions and millions of years, in which case the point is kind of moot, since nobody knows what could happen over the course of millions of years.
Humans aren't finches. So it's not a simple matter of assuming that what's true for one species is true for another.
Some of these varieties are known from a small number of fossils and so mutual fertility is guesswork. But, yes, there have been at least seven species of humans.
Know why ours ended up at the top?
Because we could imagine. We could invent stories. We could do fiction.
We could lie.
You put a lot of effort into that. The fly in the ointment is that the genes that go with nothing about human traits that a value can properly be assigned to are the ones that make "race" visible. Racists latch on to that.
? You went from verbose to terse. What do you mean by that?