+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries (/Thread-Trump-attacks-protections-for-immigrants-from-%E2%80%98s-hole%E2%80%99-countries)
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 05:21 PM)Dill Wrote: "Ethnicity" is not somehow the correct substitute for "race." Ethnicity, in Western sociology and anthropology, has always been constructed with reference to a number of features, including language, religion, and various cultural practices, as well as (sometimes) anatomical variations within the species. The genetics of one Indian from Maharashtra could be traced back to Mughals, Mongols and other central or East Asian groups. His neighbor, living across the street, might trace his genetics predominately to Dravidian Southern India. Yet both could be identified by their government--or any casual American observer--as ethnically "Hindu." One American Hispanic's genetics might track back to Spain, another's back to indigenous peoples in Yucatan. One could expect similar divergences studying the ethnic heritage of an Egyptian from Alexandria and another from Thebes. Many people in the UK are ethnically "English," not Norwegian or Danish. Yet their DNA will be indistinguishable from Norwegians and Danes.
As there is only one race, ***** Sapiens, then using it to describe genetic differences in humans is, absolutely, incorrect.
Quote:One of the most substantial objections to racist 19th century anthropology is exactly this constant misalignment of race/genetics with claimed or perceived ethnicity. And it is why "ethnicity" is not an especially useful guide to genetic heritage.
It would depend on how said ethnicity was derived. A Mexican national, whose family had resided in Mexico since the countries creation, could absolutely have 100% DNA derived from the European continent.
Quote:Bpat is quite right about the uniquely European/Western origins of race as an anthropological/pseudo-social scientific category.
Ahh, now you're changing the rules of the game midstream. I argued that the idea of "races" is not a uniquely western construct. You have now changed the terms of the debate to state that you both meant that the use of "science" to create racial distinctions is uniquely western. When you've figured out what argument you're trying to have let me know.
Quote:To claim that Europeans constructed notions of "ethnicity" to explain groupings of human differences is not to claim that people in non-European cultures do/did not also discriminate against outside groups based on anatomical or cultural differences. But when they did that (or still do), they are either deploying some non-Western system/standard of cultural hierarchy or they have adopted Western anthropology, as the Japanese did during their Imperial era to construct Japanese citizens as a master race, German style.
Yes, when the Japanese considered the Chinese and Koreans inferior "races" for hundreds of years before European contact, they were subtly influenced through the gestalt world hive mend shared by all human beings. I suppose the ancient Egyptians, who justified their enslavement of others along similar lines to the Greeks, as you describe below, because they weren't Egyptian and therefore fit for enslavement, that must be part of the magic you describe in your next paragraph.
Quote:Even if non-Europeans were somehow magically deploying a concept invented in Europe without European influence, that still would not mean that Europeans did not construct the notion of ethnic difference to justify treating other humans as less than human. They did exactly that.
What race based concept are you referring to now? The one in which I stated that using obvious genetic differences between different people to justify poor treatment of the other "race" was not uniquely a European construct, or your new claim that the use of science to do so is uniquely European? See when you change the argument mid-stream the whole thing gets very muddled.
Quote:Greeks like Aristotle, for example, felt it perfectly ok to enslave non-Greeks--Greeks being an ETHNOS constructed by language and culture--precisely because they were not ethnically Greeks. E thnic nationalism of the 19th century tended to amalgamate whole national ethnic groups out of an existing diversity, and then link this cultural construct and its traits to "race" from which behaviors wholly cultural in origin were supposed to originate.
So your assertion is that ancient Greece was unique amongst ancient cultures in this regard? I'd have to say I'd find that extraordinarily hard to believe.
Quote:I might add that the concept of the "human" and of a universal humanity, was never something just given, but developed in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was the Romans who detached the concept of citizenship and political rights from ethnic attributes such as language, culture, or skin color. The critique of ethnicity as a basis for ascribing "humanity" or rights, then, also emerges in European culture.
Are you saying that in no other ancient civilization were the subjugated peoples of varies region treated as lesser citizens than that of the conquering empire? That would also be very hard for me to believe, probably because it isn't true.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Belsnickel - 01-29-2018
SSF, using the term "human race" and saying that humans all belong to the same race is rooted in outdated language. It is still referred to as such because at one time, that was the term used in classifications scientifically for a species. Today, however, race in biology is an informal rank below subspecies. Outside of biology it is considered a social construct. Any modern definition of the term is a way of separating individuals within a species based upon some trait, often a physical characteristic.
Your argument that there is only one race is erroneous.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 05:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: SSF, using the term "human race" and saying that humans all belong to the same race is rooted in outdated language. It is still referred to as such because at one time, that was the term used in classifications scientifically for a species. Today, however, race in biology is an informal rank below subspecies. Outside of biology it is considered a social construct. Any modern definition of the term is a way of separating individuals within a species based upon some trait, often a physical characteristic.
Your argument that there is only one race is erroneous.
I suppose we have descended into a bit of a semantic argument. However, my point that "race" is not a western invention or construct still stands.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Belsnickel - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose we have descended into a bit of a semantic argument. However, my point that "race" is not a western invention or construct still stands.
I typed several responses to this that ended up being far more complex than they needed to be. Suffice it to say that I disagree. The modern concept of race is something that was created by the forefathers of the social sciences in western society as a way of categorizing people and ranking them. This is how I have been given to understand the construct.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 05:47 PM)Sociopathics teelerfan Wrote: Are you saying that in no other ancient civilization were the subjugated peoples of varies region treated as lesser citizens than that of the conquering empire? That would also be very hard for me to believe, probably because it isn't true.
What I wrote was NOT that "no other ancient civilization treated subjugated peoples as lesser citizens."
What I wrote was, "It was the Romans who detached the concept of citizenship and political rights from ethnic attributes such as language, culture, or skin color." Which they did. That is why a Jew, like Paul, could be a Roman citizen, as could a white Briton or a black Libyan, in contrast to the Athenians for example, who gave citizenship only to those born of two parents already citizens of their polis.
If you can think of another "ancient civilization" that did what the Romans did, then I would appreciate hearing about it.
"Citizen" is also a Western concept. As far as Aristotle is concerned, the Persian empire does not have citizens, only subjugated peoples, slaves to the king. A citizen participates in government, in "politics," i.e., in the making of policy, with other citizens on a platform of substantive equality.
You seem to be conflating generic discriminatory behaviors with culturally and historically specific categories and concepts. So if someone says ancient Chinese who discriminated against Koreans were not using a European concept of race or even ethnicity, you appear to be hearing someone say Ancient Chinese did not discriminate against Koreans.
If, after you yourself deploy Western concepts of race and ethnicity, and someone points out these concepts were developed within European social science, then you think someone has "changed the rules of the game" because in some previous time one non-western ethnic group may have used skin color as marker of discrimination against another so "racism" was not restricted to Westerners.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 01:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The Southern US citizens who decided they would rather die than give up their slaves were acting every bit as much like animals as the Africans who sold their prisoners as slaves.
You can try to claim the Civil War as a "noble cause" but only if you only count half of the US citizens involved.
Or if we consider to motivations of the Nation versus those that wanted to secede from it.
You can try to claim the Civil War was not a "noble cause" but only if you consider what those that wanted to leave the Nation wanted.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 11:39 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The issue with this is that those tribes that did participate weren't selling their own "citizens". Slaves were from rival tribes.
Fred's example doesn't work because he's referring to countrymen killing each other but Africans were selling people from OTHER tribes. A better example is the systematic destruction of Native American tribes by the United States. Unfortunately, this example isn't a good one to use in this thread because Lucie says that it's a good thing because the US ended up being an awesome country and the Native Americans would have never have been that awesome.
Fred's example "didn't work" on many levels. He tried to use an example of us fighting to right a wrong that we did not create as a slight toward our Nation.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 06:53 PM)Dill Wrote: If, after you yourself deploy Western concepts of race and ethnicity, and someone points out these concepts were developed within European social science, then you think someone has "changed the rules of the game" because in some previous time one non-western ethnic group may have used skin color as marker of discrimination against another so "racism" was not restricted to Westerners.
If by this sentence you mean the entirety of human history, then yes. Glad to see we agree, that racism is not a western or European construct and instead has been a universal human behavior. I love when we get this kind of consensus!
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As there is only one race, ***** Sapiens, then using it to describe genetic differences in humans is, absolutely, incorrect.
No one on this thread is using some unitary concept of race to describe genetic differences in human groups. You are "refuting" an argument no one made.
You, however, did say "Ethnicity, which is the correct word, is not an invention of the Europeans, it's a matter of genetics. If this were not the case then it would not be possible to determine a person's genetic ancestry down to minute regions. "
This simply deploys the term "ethnicity" with genetics in the same manner in which "scientific" racists deployed the term "race."
The problem with doing that is, in part, that ethnicity is rarely based simply on genetics.
Which is why I responded: Ethnicity, in Western sociology and anthropology, has always been constructed with reference to a number of features, including language, religion, and various cultural practices, as well as (sometimes) anatomical variations within the species.
How could language, religious affiliation and preference for pasta or borscht help us "determine a persons genetic ancestry down to minute regions"?
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 07:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If by this sentence you mean the entirety of human history, then yes. Glad to see we agree, that racism is not a western or European construct and instead has been a universal human behavior. I love when we get this kind of consensus!
So you really can not follow the argument. Ok. We can leave it at that.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: So you really can not follow the argument. Ok. We can leave it at that.
A typical response from you. I understand you backed yourself into a corner on this. I'll give you your out.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose we have descended into a bit of a semantic argument. However, my point that "race" is not a western invention or construct still stands.
LOl no it doesn't. And you don't understand what the claim "race is a Western invention" means. Looks like I'll have to say a little more.
If one group of 11th century ethnic Hindus discriminated against another on religious or caste grounds, and that group happened to be partly identifiable because of darker skin color, that would not mean that the discriminators had developed a concept of "race" any more than their valuation of gold would mean they had constructed the table of elements.
Set aside the Western race lens for a moment and view this issue through the eyes of the "other." If Han Chinese develop a specific distinction between "Hua" and "Yi" which discriminates against non-Han, and then notice that Europeans also ethnocentrically distinguish between their cultural group and outsiders, can you imagine them arguing that "Yism" is not just a Chinese "invention or construct"? The Hua/Yi distinction operates in Europe and everywhere else?
And if the Europeans othering involves an elaborate system of anatomical/racial classification, that would hardly match the largely cultural Hua/Yi distinction. Even if Chinese looked down on other ethnic groups, they didn't set them in an elaborate system of anatomical descriptions/classifications. Though a Westerner, viewing all through his own lens of "race," might think the Chinese discrimination was therefore just another form of European-style racial discrimination, thus performing a kind of conceptual/ideological syncretism without even realizing it.
Race as a concept has a genealogy which can be historically traced back to specific sources, just as can languages or scripts or religious beliefs. One can trace Catholicism back to 2nd century Italy, but not to 2nd century India--even though both Italy and india had 'religion.' One can trace the concept of "race" back to the philosophes of 18th century France and the scientists of 17th century Britain, but not to 17th century Korea or Vietnam, though discrimination existed in all these places.
So that's why social scientists and historians and others who delve deeply into these issues say "race" is a Western concept. They are practicing scholarship and social science, not "self-hate." They aren't saying Westerners are meaner than everyone else cuz they have racism and no one else does bad things.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-29-2018
(01-29-2018, 07:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A typical response from you. I understand you backed yourself into a corner on this. I'll give you your out.
A "typical response" from me is an argument buttressed with definitions and examples.
But that is a lot of work for a superficial "glad we agree."
I'll stay in if you can describe that corner you think I am backed into. I don't think you can.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-29-2018
Here's a three part question that can end this back and forth. Is western culture uniquely racist, is it endemically racist and is it the only culture with problems related to racism, both past and present?
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - fredtoast - 01-30-2018
(01-29-2018, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fred's example "didn't work" on many levels. He tried to use an example of us fighting to right a wrong that we did not create as a slight toward our Nation.
1. We did create the problem of slaves in America.
2. Half of our citizens decided they would rather kill and/or die than give up their slaves. How is that a good thing?
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - Dill - 01-30-2018
(01-29-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a three part question that can end this back and forth. Is western culture uniquely racist, is it endemically racist and is it the only culture with problems related to racism, both past and present?
The "back and forth" cannot end until parties agree what "racist" or "uniquely racist" means. One cannot have racism without a racial taxonomy founded upon a concept of race.
E.g., if your first question uses "racism" as I use the term (to mean a system of classification/evaluation rooted in anthropology), then Western culture is the unique origin of "racism," but it has been transplanted to many other places. So it is not "uniquely" racist at the moment. I gave the example of Japan above.
I would say racism is endemic to Western culture, as is the critique of it, again, as I said above.
Western culture is not the only culture with problems of discrimination based upon whatever markers may be available to distinguish one group from another, both present and past. One consequence of globalism is that Western ideologies, science and governmental forms have spread the world over, taking the good and the bad with them--including racial taxonomies. At the moment I am unaware of any non-Western country which developed a racial taxonomy/concept before contact with Western culture and then used it to discriminate.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-30-2018
(01-30-2018, 12:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. We did create the problem of slaves in America.
2. Half of our citizens decided they would rather kill and/or die than give up their slaves. How is that a good thing?
It was a silly comparison and I think everyone else is aware of it. Hell, I think there's a slim chance that you are aware of it. Our Nation's commitment to go to war against those that would try to secede and keep slaves in no way can speak negatively on our country. Our willingness to fight and free those that were captured by members of their own society goes totally opposite of what you were trying to prove.
Now if you would have only went with the many atrocities that were part of manifest destiny; then, you could have had a solid point; instead, you desire to double down on a ludicrous one.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-30-2018
(01-30-2018, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was a silly comparison and I think everyone else is aware of it. Hell, I think there's a slim chance that you are aware of it. Our Nation's commitment to go to war against those that would try to secede and keep slaves in no way can speak negatively on our country. Our willingness to fight and free those that were captured by members of their own society goes totally opposite of what you were trying to prove.
Now if you would have only went with the many atrocities that were part of manifest destiny; then, you could have had a solid point; instead, you desire to double down on a ludicrous one.
We went over this...
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - bfine32 - 01-30-2018
(01-30-2018, 09:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: We went over this...
Yes we did. You stated they were captured by rival tribes, and rival tribes can be part of the same society. Hell the first term I used that you balked at (citizens) is probably more apt.
I have no idea why you continue to balk at the premise and you can split hairs with the words all you want; however, the point remains they were captured and sold by those with which they coexisted.
RE: Trump attacks protections for immigrants from ‘s***hole’ countries - BmorePat87 - 01-31-2018
(01-30-2018, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes we did. You stated they were captured by rival tribes, and rival tribes can be part of the same society. Hell the first term I used that you balked at (citizens) is probably more apt.
I have no idea why you continue to balk at the premise and you can split hairs with the words all you want; however, the point remains they were captured and sold by those with which they coexisted.
This is like suggesting that the French and German are both citizens of the same place and are members of the same society.
You're getting on Fred's case for accuracy while promoting gross ignorance on your own part to try and make a point that African tribes sold out their own people when that's not the case.