|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Self-Identification v. Being Categorised
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This came up in a DH thread and has been on my mind for a bit.
We can choose to self-identify however we wish, but what does it practically mean?
The example in DH was President Obama. He is half white, half black. But, for most intents in America (and the UK, Europe, etc.) he is black. Regardless of how he might choose to identify. So, what if he had been 3/4 one and 1/4 the other? Still black, so far as he had any appearance of being so.
This can be true of other things as well, such as sexuality.
We humans categorise. So much so, that I wonder:
Is self-ID is anything more than an internal exercise?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Black people here in Brazil tell me that their definition of a black person usually consists of:- The person self-identifies as black.
- Other black people accept this person as black.
The percentage of 'black' genes doesn't come into it. Neither does appearance: I have seen people that were accepted as black without having any of the obvious characteristics in appearance.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Humans do categorise other people that’s true, but self identification can be important too.
It’s also true that some things are less easy to hide, like skin colour, but it is easier with the non physical.
For instance if I have two parents of different countries I can choose to self identify with one rather than the other.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I find forms often say 'Do you consider yourself to have a disability?' which I find really confusing. If it said 'Are you diagnosed with a disability?' I could answer yes, truthfully, as I have a diagnosis of Aspergers. But the whole 'Do you consider' thing really throws me, because that's a different question, and in general, I don't think of myself as disabled. I just think of myself as being me. So then, I wonder, am I being self-pitying or self-dramatising or untruthful if I say yes? Should I be considering it simply as a brain difference - which, to be honest, I mostly do, but there are ways in which it affects me for which I sometimes might need adjustments made. And then I wonder, am I lying if I say I don't consider myself to have a disability?
I don't know - I think the whole identification thing can get confusing if you don't really form your sense of identity on external things. For instance, I don't particularly feel any identification with gender either, but I will select 'female, because I have a female body, and having a female body doesn't bother me, and the form never asks 'Do you consider yourself to be female?' If it did, I would get confused, because I just consider myself to be a person.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Growing up where I did in the Canadian north, and before there was any television or other visual "instruction" about race, I remember being extremely surprised that 2 people were being labelled as something "other" in my mid-teens. There were several people beaten up because of the labels as "other". We had two groups. Native people and the rest of us.
Both of these people, labelled black by outsiders, were lighter in skin colour than a large group of Galacians (Ukrainians, Romanians etc) who did not get such labels. Shortly afterf (1970 or so) a single TV station that we could receive started up. I could not reconcile that the TV black people from the USA were anything like these two people labelled black. My perception still doesn't really accept the black-white labels per other places, though I find my early-learned prejudice, like a lens, having me "code" many hispanic people as native. -- It seems to me that early experiences and being taught thus creates the categories. Words also have much different potency in different places, with words applying to native peoples and disabled people being of more sensitivity than the ones applying to skin colour/race/culture.
And for what it is worth, Obama does not appear black at all to me.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I suppose my response to this is about the whole question of labels. I don't have a problem with other people applying labels to me, on the basis that I will also self-identify labels that I want to own.
So people can tell me I am problematic, or heretical, but I take the labels of Christian and Evangelical. If you want to apply labels to me, you have to accept that I can take the labels you want. And that they are as applicable.
In the case of Obama, people can categorise him as much as they want, as long as they accept that whatever he self-identifies as is as important to define who he is.
So I think it is less a "vs" more a "both".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This came up in a DH thread and has been on my mind for a bit.
We can choose to self-identify however we wish, but what does it practically mean?
The example in DH was President Obama. He is half white, half black. But, for most intents in America (and the UK, Europe, etc.) he is black.
To expand on what I said in DH, I think Obama was chosen as a 'black' candidate with whom white voters could identity. In that sense, his white ancestry wasn't incidental but highly important in making him acceptable to white voters. And indeed, it probably served to make him acceptable to some black voters as well, because shadism, i.e. a preference for light skin on a spectrum from very dark to very light, is prevalent in most communities in the USA. So this whole thing is much more complicated than black v. white.
There's a fascinating but controversial African American vlogger on Youtube who insists that mixed-race people shouldn't be identified or self-identify as black, because to do so disadvantages people who have much more obvious African features. Keeping shadism in mind, the idea goes that if mixed-race people are included as 'black', then they will always be at the top of the black hierarchy. This benefits them (because it's better to be at the top of the black hierarchy than at the bottom of the white hierarchy) but doesn't benefit the dark-skinned people who are socially and psychologically below them.
We may say that shadism and racial hierarchies are all backward notions that should only exist in the past, yet to those who look closely it's clear that whiteness/Europeanness still represents the pinnacle of, for example, female beauty. This impacts on how black women present themselves (hair is a big issue), and on which (supposedly) black female celebrities are the most heavily promoted (those with the most European features).
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Seems unfair to the mixed race person. Why should my son be forbidden to self identify as Vietnamese, simplu because he s also 3/8 white and shows it? Work on overturning the whole damned racist construct, rather than attempting to make living within it slightly more comfortable for some by tossing out others.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So people can tell me I am problematic, or heretical, but I take the labels of Christian and Evangelical. If you want to apply labels to me, you have to accept that I can take the labels you want. And that they are as applicable.
Do you mean 'I can take the labels I want'? Otherwise, I don't quite understand what you are saying.
I suppose, realistically, whether a person uses one-word labels, or a combination of lots of words to make sentences, people generally understand and define themselves in a slightly (or not so slightly) different way from how others understand and define them. With regards to all sorts - personality, abilities, intelligence, motivations, attractiveness, etc.
I can define myself as a Christian, but I know there are those who think I am not a real Christian, or that I am heretical, or that I am a fundamentalist Christian. I don't know what to do with those labels. It gets kind of meaningless.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
President Obama... is half white, half black.
Or mulatto.
So, what if he had been 3/4 one and 1/4 the other?
Quadroon or Terceron (depending on which predominates).
It's all been worked out.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's a fascinating but controversial African American vlogger on Youtube who insists that mixed-race people shouldn't be identified or self-identify as black, because to do so disadvantages people who have much more obvious African features.
He is an idiot. Yes, "whiter" black people have a general advantage in many places. This does not equate to them being considered white. So where must they stand? Personally, I hate such divisive thought.
Colouration is a poor indicator of background, regardless These two children are twins.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
- The person self-identifies as black.
- Other black people accept this person as black.
For an albino black person these two criteria are usually in conflict.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is self-ID is anything more than an internal exercise?
I think it's more an exercise between the individual, his family and/or ethnic background, and the surrounding community. I might even call it a negotiation because it can shift depending on a number of things. For instance, growing up I might identify as Mexican because that's how I'm seen and see myself in my neighborhood. If I go to university and become a successful businessman, I might then start calling myself Hispanic as a way of assimilating (it's a more general category and a less precise ethnic background, not connected to any particular country).
President Obama is identified or identifies as black because that's the way U.S. society is. If he were a Latin American president he might identify or be identified as mulato, because that's a widely accepted category in Latin America.
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kitten
Shipmate
# 1179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seems unfair to the mixed race person. Why should my son be forbidden to self identify as Vietnamese, simplu because he s also 3/8 white and shows it? Work on overturning the whole damned racist construct, rather than attempting to make living within it slightly more comfortable for some by tossing out others.
My two beautiful grandsons are mixed race, one has predominantly Caucasian features while his brother has predominantly Asian features. They are currently too young to self identify but we identify them as mixed race because to identify them as Caucasian would be to deny their Asian ancestry and vice versa, we hope they will be proud of both.
--------------------
Maius intra qua extra
Never accept a ride from a stranger, unless they are in a big blue box
Posts: 2330 | From: Carmarthenshire | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
goperryrevs: For an albino black person these two criteria are usually in conflict.
I have the impression that you are focusing to much on external appearance here.
Albino people are extremely rare in Brazil, much rarer than in Africa. In my 12+ years in Brazil I have never encountered one, though I have often encountered them in Africa. I know of black Brazilians who visited Africa and who were very surprised to see albino people there.
My guess is that if an albino in Brazil identified as black, other black people wouldn't have a problem in accepting him/her as such. I doubt that it's much different in Africa: black people may see an albino as a black person who's somehow different, but not as a white person.
[ 26. October 2013, 20:14: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's a fascinating but controversial African American vlogger on Youtube who insists that mixed-race people shouldn't be identified or self-identify as black, because to do so disadvantages people who have much more obvious African features.
He is an idiot. Yes, "whiter" black people have a general advantage in many places. This does not equate to them being considered white. So where must they stand?
Current theory explores what makes mixed-race people distinctive ; they're not obliged to identify as either black or white and therefore to deny one (or several) parts of themselves.
What you seem to be saying is that since white people are under no obligation to accept mixed-race people as white, then black people have an obligation to accept them as black. But why is the white attitude you mention to be deemed normal and natural? To me, it seems to be nothing more than a cultural attitude, as are all attitudes we have when it comes to race. Cultures change, and they differ from nation to nation. Whiteness and blackness are concepts that have changed over time, and in different places. Even in the Americas, attitudes towards mixed-race people have varied from place to place, and in different eras, depending on various colonial circumstances.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What you seem to be saying is that since white people are under no obligation to accept mixed-race people as white, then black people have an obligation to accept them as black.
You missed this bit.
quote:
Personally, I hate such divisive thought.
It is not about what I think should be, but what generally is.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But why is the white attitude you mention to be deemed normal and natural? To me, it seems to be nothing more than a cultural attitude,
Well, yes. But white culture has dominated in Europe and America. And truly still does.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Even in the Americas, attitudes towards mixed-race people have varied from place to place, and in different eras, depending on various colonial circumstances.
Truly? My impression is that there was Louisiana under the French and every place/every-when else.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
lilBuddha
I'm not convinced that black people ought to base their response on what white people do. Indeed, it's often been said that this is the problem; in colonial societies black people have often been far too influenced by white colonial attitudes....
quote:
My impression is that [regarding racial attitudes] there was Louisiana under the French and every place/every-when else.
The situation was and is more nuanced than this. LeRoc has already mentioned attitudes in Brazil, as he's experienced them. Frantz Fanon actually preferred the more honest and open racial struggle taking place in the USA as opposed to the obfuscation and supposed 'colour-blindness' of the French; V.S. Naipaul found that the Trinidadians allowed light skinned 'black' people to 'pass as white', whereas the Francophone islands were more obsessed about maintaining racial distinctions.
The early days of colonial settlement were freer when it came to racial mixing. In the French islands, racial mixing was formally encouraged early on, and the RCC insisted that slave owners who impregnated black or Amerindian women be obliged to marry them. I think this openness was also found in the early USA. The first 'slaves', were poor whites, who were joined in their labour by the earliest imports of African slaves. These groups often made common cause and even intermarried. Some of their mixed-race offspring became wealthy and associated on an even footing with whites, even owning black slaves themselves. It's even been claimed that several American presidents before Obama might have been 'black' according to the one drop rule.
The argument is that the free association between blacks and whites tended to become more problematic as the number of black slaves increased, (and also as more white women began to arrive) and as the threat of joint insurrections organised by poor whites and black slaves became more urgent. The answer was to divide black from white, and to place various legal and social penalties on those who tried to scale the divide. This happened in different ways in different colonies.
[ 26. October 2013, 21:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
lilBuddha
I'm not convinced that black people ought to base their response on what white people do. Indeed, it's often been said that this is the problem; in colonial societies black people have often been far too influenced by white colonial attitudes....
I don't think lilBuddha thinks they 'ought' to, either. But what white people do still tends to be the default setting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ofreo has it right. I do not base my response on what others expect, nor do I think anyone should.
This thread is not about should. It is questioning the processes of what is.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Quadroon or Terceron (depending on which predominates).
It's all been worked out.
I made the sad, sad mistake of referring to a black friend as mulatto once. Lucky they stayed my friend.
YMMV, but from my experience people of mixed race aren't terribly fond of using designations drawn up for them by Triangle Trade merchants. "Mixed race" or "multiracial" seems to be the preferred terms around here.
[ 27. October 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That is better. But truly, there is no such thing as mixed or multi raced.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
lilBuddha
This is true to the extent that there's no such thing as 'race'. Is that what you mean?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is better. But truly, there is no such thing as mixed or multi raced.
Indeed.
Being Black is a social construction. It's not about the skin colour, rather it's about a history of racist labelling and therefore denotes a standing in society.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Damn straight. There's only one race, and when asked, I include myself in it: "human."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We may say that shadism and racial hierarchies are all backward notions that should only exist in the past, yet to those who look closely it's clear that whiteness/Europeanness still represents the pinnacle of, for example, female beauty. This impacts on how black women present themselves (hair is a big issue), and on which (supposedly) black female celebrities are the most heavily promoted (those with the most European features).
This may be true, but I can't believe the right response is to categorize mixed-race people (good luck defining that) and to start straight-jacketing that group to make up for it. It sounds like a rationalization of internalized racism looking for a non-white group to blame.
Having said that, as the last four posts say or imply, there is no objective thing called race. Human genetic studies show very conclusively that there are not divisible "strains" of humanity. Rather there is a continuum of variation which offers no biological definition of this socially-determined thing that people call race.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We may say that shadism and racial hierarchies are all backward notions that should only exist in the past, yet to those who look closely it's clear that whiteness/Europeanness still represents the pinnacle of, for example, female beauty. This impacts on how black women present themselves (hair is a big issue), and on which (supposedly) black female celebrities are the most heavily promoted (those with the most European features).
This may be true, but I can't believe the right response is to categorize mixed-race people (good luck defining that) and to start straight-jacketing that group to make up for it. It sounds like a rationalization of internalized racism looking for a non-white group to blame.
Firstly, colonial history has frequently understood mixed face people as a distinctive group (and I've been told several times above that this discussion isn't about what white people should do, but what they have done). Secondly, mixed race people themselves have often felt distinctive, with experiences that don't fit neatly into a white/black dichotomy.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is self-ID is anything more than an internal exercise?
For me, it's a political act that I self-identify (when occasion arises) as queer. It's part of the "technologies of self" that I think Jengie Jon referred to on the DH thread: the ways in which I contruct my self in my sociopolitical context, and assert control within the social and political power-games that others seek to impose on me. Or, to use rather less technobabble, it's about my autonomy.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
We may say that shadism and racial hierarchies are all backward notions that should only exist in the past, yet to those who look closely it's clear that whiteness/Europeanness still represents the pinnacle of, for example, female beauty. This impacts on how black women present themselves (hair is a big issue), and on which (supposedly) black female celebrities are the most heavily promoted (those with the most European features).
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This may be true, but I can't believe the right response is to categorize mixed-race people (good luck defining that) and to start straight-jacketing that group to make up for it. It sounds like a rationalization of internalized racism looking for a non-white group to blame.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Firstly, colonial history has frequently understood mixed face people as a distinctive group (and I've been told several times above that this discussion isn't about what white people should do, but what they have done). Secondly, mixed race people themselves have often felt distinctive, with experiences that don't fit neatly into a white/black dichotomy.
Apart from changing the word "understood" to something like "labelled" at best, or "abused" at worst, I agree with all that. But I can't see why it would be a response to my point that the proposed actions by your blogger seem profoundly unhelpful.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Unhelpful to whom?
The blogger is more categorical about it than is necessary, but he's not adding an extra layer of complexity, because the whole issue seems to be complex already!
For example, how do we deal with the 'passing as white' concept? As it happens, I have two cousins who could in many circumstances pass as white. Unless they go around proclaiming 'I'm black!' at every opportunity - which would still mark them out as different from 'black' people who have to do no such thing - they have to accept being viewed as white sometimes. Yet this status must be provisional, because at any point they might meet someone who notices something different about their phenotype, or they might simply have to talk about or introduce people to their family, at which point perceptions will change. The problem with focusing merely on their 'blackness' is that the discourse of blackness tends to marginalise this kind of experience, if it offers any guidance at all.
I've never discussed this with my cousins as it would be a bit awkward, I think! As for myself, I could never 'pass as white', which obviously makes my experience of 'race' different from theirs.
[ 28. October 2013, 12:08: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is self-ID is anything more than an internal exercise?
For me, it's a political act that I self-identify (when occasion arises) as queer. It's part of the "technologies of self" that I think Jengie Jon referred to on the DH thread: the ways in which I contruct my self in my sociopolitical context, and assert control within the social and political power-games that others seek to impose on me. Or, to use rather less technobabble, it's about my autonomy.
I understand this. It is exactly what I'm on about.
Autonomy.
The colour of my skin causes people to imagine how I should behave. Not only those of opposite hue, but those of the same.
As does my gender, my politics, etc.
it is as if the moment one is seen as/declares what one is, one is handed an iPod set list, a clothing catalogue, a list of political stance, etc. Both from without and within.*
I understand where the instinct to categorise arises from. I understand where group identification arises from.
But I refuse to order from one menu, to stand in one queue.
Nor do I think it very helpful to society to expect this from others.
* Though I do not care for the concept of inside and outside in general.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I also wonder how the internet changes such categories. For instance, I gather from Svitlana's last post that she would self-identify as black. But because I've never seen her, I had never spent a moment thinking about her possible ethnic heritage or racial identifications. If I had had to give her skin a color label, it would have been green. More practically of course, she and everyone else becomes a combination of the characteristics we interpret into them from their posts. Does that mean that people who grow up with the internet will eventually end up less racially focused? If so I imagine it will be very gradual
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
I want my children to be proud of both sides of their heritage (as Kitten says about the grandchildren). One side is British and the other side is xxx-American (xxx is a European country). I hope they would say "I'm half British and half xxx-American."
Likewise, I feel President Obama "should" describe himself as mixed race, in homage to both his father's and his mother's side. I know he has a right to self-identify as he wants, but I feel not only would it have honoured his mother--otherwise it seems as if he wants to hide that side of his background in a sort of inverse racism--but also it would support and encourage the idea of inrer-racial marriage and bearing children of mixed heritage. Seems to me this is still frowned upon in parts of the US and that only by more and more people claiming mixed-race-ness will this cultural taboo fade away.
In terms of standard of beauty, I think a multi-ethnic look is very popular now, and many icons of beauty--for example Halle Berry, who I think is one of the most beautiful women in the world--have a mixed heritage of all sorts of ethnicities. And this is good. I hope it means everyone's starting to look past race.
I think it would have helped the idea of looking past race if Obama ad called himself "mixed" or "half black and half white" or whatever he wanted that acknowledged both sides of his heritage and that would help to defuse the whole concept of race.
Or so it seems to me.
Then again, I self-identify as English, rather than British, although I have little bits of Welsh, Irish and Scottish. But they are only little bits from distant relations, and I grew up exclusively in England, so I think that's fair.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
If I were to self-identify as a punk, with spiky hairstyle and an attitude and vocabulary to match, then any resulting negative reaction I got from others would be a consequence of my choice, and not something I can justifiably complain about.
If I get a negative reaction from others because I'm ugly, or disabled, or of lower caste, then we tend to see things a bit differently - it becomes an injustice.
So to the extent that any perceived difference from what is "normal" in a society is a matter of self-identification - a considered choice - then it tends to undermine the claim for special consideration on account of being disadvantaged by prejudice.
What price "gay rights" if being gay is as much a choice as being punk ?
So I guess those who favour "positive discrimination" and a pro-equality agenda are unlikely to want to acknowledge the extent to which people can choose to self-identify one way or the other.
Whereas those whose answer is to treat all individuals as people are unfazed.
Trying to choose words carefully to avoid being misunderstood...
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Even in the Americas, attitudes towards mixed-race people have varied from place to place, and in different eras, depending on various colonial circumstances.
Truly? My impression is that there was Louisiana under the French and every place/every-when else.
I think "he Americas" is a lot bigger than just places that ended up in the USA. There were very distincrive practices around race and slavery n Haiti and Cuba and Jamaica and Barbados and so on. Without even getting into South America.
But there was considerable variation within what became the USA. At one time North and South Carolina had very different laws and customs about slavery from each other, never mind from the rest of America.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I find forms often say 'Do you consider yourself to have a disability?' which I find really confusing. If it said 'Are you diagnosed with a disability?' I could answer yes, truthfully, as I have a diagnosis of Aspergers. But the whole 'Do you consider' thing really throws me, because that's a different question, and in general, I don't think of myself as disabled. I just think of myself as being me
My usual metric for that question is: if you will want or need any special consideration from the person the form goes to, then tick yes. Otherwise, tick no.
I think that's why they ask the "consider yourself" question: that way people can choose the one that makes the most sense, rather than being typecast by a diagnosis.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unhelpful to whom?
Pretty immediately unhelpful to people who would be categorized as mixed race and not allowed autonomy in their ethnic identity or membership of organisations that might be useful attempts to fight racism.
Also not very healthy for people who identify as black to start talking about whether another individual ought to quality as black or not.
I wasn't sure how what you posted above related to what I posted... and know I'm not sure how;
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For example, how do we deal with the 'passing as white' concept? As it happens, I have two cousins who could in many circumstances pass as white. Unless they go around proclaiming 'I'm black!' at every opportunity - which would still mark them out as different from 'black' people who have to do no such thing - they have to accept being viewed as white sometimes. Yet this status must be provisional, because at any point they might meet someone who notices something different about their phenotype, or they might simply have to talk about or introduce people to their family, at which point perceptions will change. The problem with focusing merely on their 'blackness' is that the discourse of blackness tends to marginalise this kind of experience, if it offers any guidance at all.
I've never discussed this with my cousins as it would be a bit awkward, I think! As for myself, I could never 'pass as white', which obviously makes my experience of 'race' different from theirs.
...relates to a defense of...
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's a fascinating but controversial African American vlogger on Youtube who insists that mixed-race people shouldn't be identified or self-identify as black, because to do so disadvantages people who have much more obvious African features. Keeping shadism in mind, the idea goes that if mixed-race people are included as 'black', then they will always be at the top of the black hierarchy. This benefits them (because it's better to be at the top of the black hierarchy than at the bottom of the white hierarchy) but doesn't benefit the dark-skinned people who are socially and psychologically below them.
I think this is wrong because it tacitly assumes objective racial identifications, it seeks to deny the autonomy of people in making their own racial identifications, and it seeks to subdivide a discriminated against minority into "fully black" and "mixed-race". I could imagine it being chapter 2 of the colonialists manual of "How to divide and rule the natives".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
mdijon
The blogger I referred to accepts that all people who are identified as being of colour face racism, and appreciates that they can all join the fight to tackle racism, so that's not exactly the issue.
I suppose the problem is that not all racism is the same. In Britain, this is becoming a more prominent issue as communities become more multicultural, and the issues more complex. Back in the 70s and 80s everyone who wasn't white was simply black, including people from Asian communities. The goal was to present a united face to tackle white racism together. However, since then, social, religious and political divergences have meant that this kind of unity is quite fragile. It's accepted that racism is multi-faceted. Asian distinctiveness is highlighted, and it's unsurprising that mixed race people - who may be mixed in any number of ways - may see the benefit in highlighting their own kinds of distinctiveness.
Regarding 'divide and rule', we have to recognise that even the battle against racism can be divided. In the Caribbean colonies during slavery both black and mixed-race groups struggled against racism - but their goals were different. More recently, there are those who suspect that light-skinned campaigners for racial equality get more of a hearing, and more success, than dark-skinned ones. Mixed-race actresses may get more roles than dark-skinned ones - but if all are deemed to be black, then dark-skinned actresses are silenced, because by what right can they complain?
People do have the freedom to label themselves, and ultimately that has to be right,IMO. But we need to recognise that this doesn't really make things less complicated. Mixed-race is now a huge category in the UK. Indeed, the increasing choice people are making to be labelled as mixed-race rather than black on official forms suggests that black doesn't entirely cover how many people see themselves.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mixed-race is now a huge category in the UK. Indeed, the increasing choice people are making to be labelled as mixed-race rather than black on official forms suggests that black doesn't entirely cover how many people see themselves.
I get the sense that the British media purposely plays up the mixed race heritage of people like Jessica Ennis, Lewis Hamilton, Thandie Newton etc. because they think it makes people feel like "she's one of us" from their white side.
On a personal level I hardly know anyone who is mixed that actually insisted on describing themselves that way. People that I know at least tend to say "I'm Jamaican and English" or something similar. So the idea that a million people are walking around referring to themselves as mixed race just seems like a media invention to me.
If you're talking about the Census form, they give an option for "White and Black African" so if someone is half white half African, are you saying they should be ticking "African" instead? Or "White?" I'm not sure what you think would be better.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Whether or not being gay is a choice is a discussion for Dead Horses. Let's not have it here.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Think I'm questioning whether the concept of self-identification implies some element of choice, whether we're talking skin colour, sexuality or anything else.
And suggesting that this is part of what makes this concept problematic for some.
I'll try to steer clear of where you don't want this to go.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's a fascinating but controversial African American vlogger on Youtube who insists that mixed-race people shouldn't be identified or self-identify as black, because to do so disadvantages people who have much more obvious African features.
He is an idiot. Yes, "whiter" black people have a general advantage in many places. This does not equate to them being considered white. So where must they stand? Personally, I hate such divisive thought.
Colouration is a poor indicator of background, regardless These two children are twins.
This is an SNL classic on the subject.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're talking about the Census form, they give an option for "White and Black African" so if someone is half white half African, are you saying they should be ticking "African" instead? Or "White?" I'm not sure what you think would be better.
I'm basically saying that the varieties of lived experience haven't necessarily been covered by simply calling everyone 'black'. But for some people, that may be the label they're most comfortable with. It depends on a range of factors.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
One side is British and the other side is xxx-American (xxx is a European country). I hope they would say "I'm half British and half xxx-American."
Why?
I don't generally go around telling people about my ancestry. People often ask where I'm from (the accent is a bit of a giveaway) and some, when I tell them that I am British, ask which part. It has never generally occurred to me to volunteer the place of birth of any of my grandparents.
Occasionally it comes up - I once met someone who was born in the same town as my grandmother, and if I'm cooking one of her recipes I'll explain the regional origin, but it's usually not relevant - it says very little about who I am.
But then, I don't consider myself particularly "defined" by being British either. I am British - that is a statement of fact, which places me apart from most of my neighbours both in terms of legal status in this country and in terms of childhood cultural references. Some parts of my character and preferences conform to a stereotype, but others don't.
Maybe it's because British, and cultures descended from it and closely related to it, are dominant in the Western world, but I don't think that's it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm basically saying that the varieties of lived experience haven't necessarily been covered by simply calling everyone 'black'. But for some people, that may be the label they're most comfortable with. It depends on a range of factors.
I think you went further than that. I think you (or the blogger you quoted if not you) were suggesting that mixed race people ought to be actively encouraged or prevented from identifying as black in order to prevent them sitting on the top of the pile of black people.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If I were to self-identify as a punk, with spiky hairstyle and an attitude and vocabulary to match, then any resulting negative reaction I got from others would be a consequence of my choice, and not something I can justifiably complain about.
If I get a negative reaction from others because I'm ugly, or disabled, or of lower caste, then we tend to see things a bit differently - it becomes an injustice.
So to the extent that any perceived difference from what is "normal" in a society is a matter of self-identification - a considered choice - then it tends to undermine the claim for special consideration on account of being disadvantaged by prejudice.
But then people who self-identify as a punk (or any other style) would still argue that it's their right to choose whatever style they want, and that it is discrimination for society to favour some lifestyle choices over others, unless their choices are harming people.
There are plenty of people who are more likely to be favourably inclined towards someone's deliberate choice than something someone has no choice over. if it's a choice, it is often interpreted as a sign of strength and independence of mind, and admired as such. If it's a disability or ugliness or low IQ, then it's often seen as something weak and embarrassing, to be despised or pitied or avoided. The aspect of choice is thus often seen as empowering.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
One side is British and the other side is xxx-American (xxx is a European country). I hope they would say "I'm half British and half xxx-American."
Why?
I don't generally go around telling people about my ancestry. People often ask where I'm from (the accent is a bit of a giveaway) and some, when I tell them that I am British, ask which part. It has never generally occurred to me to volunteer the place of birth of any of my grandparents.
Occasionally it comes up - I once met someone who was born in the same town as my grandmother, and if I'm cooking one of her recipes I'll explain the regional origin, but it's usually not relevant - it says very little about who I am.
But then, I don't consider myself particularly "defined" by being British either. I am British - that is a statement of fact, which places me apart from most of my neighbours both in terms of legal status in this country and in terms of childhood cultural references. Some parts of my character and preferences conform to a stereotype, but others don't.
Maybe it's because British, and cultures descended from it and closely related to it, are dominant in the Western world, but I don't think that's it.
You ask why they would need to volunteer this info--I'm just imagining a situation where someone would ask them their background. (In the US, IME, people like to know people's backgrounds and heritage! Sometimes it's to pigeon-hole them in a possibly annoying way, at other times it's genuine interest.)
They have one English parent and one xxx-American parent so it's not a question of going back to grandparents or anything.
I meant, I would hope they would include the British bit--my bit!-- and not just say "I'm xxx-American."
This was a parallel to Pres. Obama saying he is "black" without any mention of his mother's heritage. (Tho I don't know if he says he's black, or if it's more the media--"first black president," etc).
When I lived in the US I wouldn't exactly say I felt "defined" by being English, but I did feel more and more aware of my Englishness as time went on, strangely. And of course, like you, people were aware of it as soon as I spoke. But all that's a separate issue from what I was saying about wanting my kids to acknowledge both parents in their heritage.
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're talking about the Census form, they give an option for "White and Black African" so if someone is half white half African, are you saying they should be ticking "African" instead? Or "White?" I'm not sure what you think would be better.
I'm basically saying that the varieties of lived experience haven't necessarily been covered by simply calling everyone 'black'. But for some people, that may be the label they're most comfortable with. It depends on a range of factors.
Perhaps, but you seem to be mixing up several very different phenomena.
Colorism/shadism in slave societies - this was a result of the covert relationships between slave masters and slaves, resulting in light-skinned slave children to received privileged positions inside of the house or as nannies.
Mixed race/biracial - this is due to open and willfull interracial relationships that are for the most part accepted, and the child has full understanding of their parentage and ancestry.
Beyonce is a light-skinned African American, whose appearance is due to mixing over time rather than a specific relationship. So what else should she call herself, but black? My black American friends - some of them are extremely light but so are all of their family going back as far as they can remember, so black is what they are.
Halle Berry or Barack Obama are biracial, they have a white heritage that they know and are aware of, so their choices in terms of how they identify themselves differ significantly.
You seem to be saying there's something problematic about the second category - mixed race - identifying themselves as black, therefore privileging themselves within the community in comparison to the "fully black" (whatever that means). I actually think it's the opposite. 60 years ago, someone with the skin tone of Rashida Jones would have disappeared up North and "passed." Today she is proud of her black heritage. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. The more people who hold black identity up as a positive, the better.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Very well put seekingsister.
From my point of view you capture why restricting and withholding identity from certain individuals is a problem to implement in practice and undesirable in terms of consequences.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The aspect of choice is thus often seen as empowering.
Indeed. And I'm suggesting that that power of choice weakens any claim of being an Oppressed Victim (relative to someone who has no such choice).
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
