“Racists try to construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals. And that is impossible without positing purely socially derived definitions of what characterizes ‘biological race’.” - Michael Fisher
This teaching exercise involves a thought experiment. Can you handle that, Michael? (All y’all in the cheap seats can play along at home.)You argue that it’s “impossible” to “construct a genetic identity between two unique genetically non-identical individuals.”
Well... let’s start with two unique genetically non-identical individuals: an Icelander and an Australian Aborigine.
The Fisher position states: That Icelander is no more distinct biologically from the Aborigine than he is from any other Icelander. After all, another Icelander is simply another “unique genetically non-identical individual”... just like Mr. Aborigine. Right?
Okay, let’s look at the Icelander’s two parents. And also the Aborigine’s two parents. Is the Icelander more biologically linked – more genetically connected – to his own two parents than he is to the Aborigine’s two parents?
Of course he is. The Icelander literally carries his parents’ genetic information in his own DNA. He does not carry the genetic information of the Aborigine’s parents.
Therefore, the relatedness of the Icelander to his parents is a biological reality.
Now... what about the Icelander’s four grandparents? Is he more genetically connected to his own grandparents... or to the Aborigine’s grandparents?
The answer is obvious. There is nothing “socially constructed” about the biological connection between the Icelander and his four grandparents... or his eight great-grandparents... or his 16 great-great-grandparents.
Carry it back 10 generations. We’re talking about 1,024 direct ancestors for the Icelander... and 1,024 direct ancestors for the Aborigine.
Here’s the tricky part: Our imaginary Icelander isn’t the only living descendant of his 1,024 direct ancestors. There are thousands of others. Think of them as his “distant cousins.”
Same deal with the Aborigine. Thousands of “distant cousins.”
Is the genetic connection between the Icelander and his thousands of Icelandic cousins a “social construct” or a biological reality? It is a biological reality, of course.
So now we have two groups of individuals... on two geographically isolated islands. We have the Icelander and his thousands of cousins who share common ancestors... and the Aborigine and his thousands of cousins who share common ancestors.
Is it clear now, Michael, that the Icelander shares a “genetic identity” with his thousands of distant cousins? A “genetic identity” that he does not share with the Aborigine... or any of the Aborigine’s thousands of cousins?
This illustrates the very premise of the 1000 Genomes Project. They are going to map and compare the DNA of individuals from different human subgroups... subgroups that developed in geographic isolation for a hell of a lot longer than 10 generations.
84 comments:
Cool, DV. For a while there, I thought you weren't paying us no mind.
So DV, you are saying that these two individuals are the archetypes of two different biological human races? Let's designate them biological race A and biological race B
Now tell me, how far may any third individual deviate from either archetype in order NOT to be a member of either biological race A or B?
I agree, Mike! Taxonomy is nothing but a racist fraud perpetrated by the supremacist racists!
There are in reality no such things as:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species
Breed/Race
All of these labels are merely social constructs. We are all indistinguishably ONE! ONE world, one DNA, one love! So, hug a tree and make love to a monkey! There is no categorical difference between you and a garden slug!
Or, DV, are you saying that these two individuals are members of the same biological race? If they are not, could you please point to specific characteristics that make them NOT members of the same biological race?
Yes, and could you please label the photos of the "Icelander" vs "Australian Aborigine?" Otherwise, I can't tell which is supposed to be which?
"Now tell me, how far may any third individual deviate from either archetype in order NOT to be a member of either biological race A or B?" Fisher
Ummm ... good question Fish. Don't really know man.
But don't mistake my celebration of Mill's point, as blanket endorsement of his argument.
As a matter of fact, I find myself leaning more towards the Mike Fisher perspective.
I'll reference one of my favorite white boys to make my point:
"He who controls the past, controls the future" - G. Orwell
What's the motivation behind "mapping the human genome"?
Other than the obvious eugenicist evil, the mapping of the "genome" is politically motivated.
Those that interpret this ... "map" are going to interpret it in very self serving ways.
"He who controls the interpretations of the human genome map, will control humanity" - D. Vesey
Fisher is correct because all conclusions about race, genome map supported or not, are social constructs.
Unlike Fisher, I say when in Rome, create your own social constructions.
Ergo: The Global System of Black Supremacy.
The Global System of Good Lookin' Brother Supremacy.
The Global System of Organic Vegetarian Supremacy.
The Global System of Baretta 40 Cal Supremacy.
Those that interpret this ... "map" are going to interpret it in very self serving ways.
Sounds like a good reason for more black folks to become geneticists.
You see now why a high level of so-called intelligence -- a facility for "abstract reasoning," if you will -- yields such a competitive advantage in the modern world?
The intelligent will continue to accumulate vast knowledge of the workings of the universe, and put that knowledge into practice, while the less intelligent observe from the bleachers... and bitch about "social constructs."
Few things...
DV is always an entertaining dude.
Mills, you said on the other thread that you don't believe that the social construct of "blackness" has been used as a tool of oppression?
Did I misunderstand you?
And finally, I don't always agree with Fisher, but why do y'all push his argument to an extreme as a means to try to disprove it?
It's a simple argument really.
Somebody decided to label folks black, white, brown, red and yellow.
Those people then used those definitions to decide what types of rights folks could have.
Fisher is saying that if you examine the mindset behind the labeling, you begin to see how stupid the labeling really is.
Personally, despite the drawbacks, I'm just fine being called "black."
But, that doesn't mean I don't understand the point that the concept of modern "blackness" was created by people who were not black.
I gather that Fisher is saying examine who created the concept and what their motives were. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.
As far as the genetic thing. From the very little I've read, their are a whole bunch of reasons why intelligence develops differently in certain societies, and measuring all intelligence based on one set criteria only benefits the folks who establish the criteria.
That seems pretty obvious too. Why do y'all seem to argue so much about it?
Didn't DV have a poll about who was more intelligent, Jigga or Bill Gates?
I'll bet Gates has the higher IQ, but does that mean he's more intelligent? I mean, considering Jigga's wordplay over the years, isn't that an example of an amazing mind? Particularly considering the environment where that mind was molded?
Seems like a pointless exercise to judge intelligence based on random criteria established by one group of people....
Finally, Mills, I didn't say you calle folks "inferior." I think I used the term, "intellectually inferior."
You made it clear on another thread that you weren't discussing the individual worth or value of human beings.
Although, I think you are being extremely naive if you believe that the stance you're taking doesn't ultimately lead to that point. And I can't see a writer for The Wire being that naive.
"Didn't DV have a poll about who was more intelligent, Jigga or Bill Gates?
I'll bet Gates has the higher IQ, but does that mean he's more intelligent?" The Gentle Big Man
Whoa...
Whoa ...
Whoa ...
Wait a minute. Be serious for a minute.
Bill ... more intelligent than S Dot Carter?
Pleassssssse.
Why? Because he can write a little code?
I guarantee you it takes more cognitive capacity to rocket out of Marcy projects ... by writing and reciting poetry ... than it does to be the poster boy for a technological revolution that was going to happen anyway.
Mills,
Why argue with radical autonomists like Fisher and Nulan? Do you not understand that "mapping the human genome" is really just another oppressive tool to limit one's own self-created identity or some do-gooders attempt at "equalizing" the playing field? Such an endeavor to create "inherented oppression" is antithetical to the mindset of the radical autonomist?
Do you think that a radical autonomist that supports abortion and homosexuality really cares about finding cures for deadly diseases? Remember, these scientific fellas are supposed to be believers in Modern Evolutionary Theory (you know, survival and reproduction). In reality, they recognize that MET is for dummies who don't realize that "we" can actually create reality. How else can the "fact" of survival and reproduction (evolutionary theory) produce self-genocide?
Fisher and Nulan are conductors of psychological warfare on our civilization.
P.S. Should we even mention what the results of the "mapping" might do to GSWS or "Dopamine Hegemony?"
I think you guys are still over-interpreting Fisher's argument. As a result, you're still talking past each other. I think Big Man summed up Fisher's argument in a few quick sentences:
Big Man:
It's a simple argument really.
Somebody decided to label folks black, white, brown, red and yellow.
Those people then used those definitions to decide what types of rights folks could have.
Fisher is saying that if you examine the mindset behind the labeling, you begin to see how stupid the labeling really is.
Personally, despite the drawbacks, I'm just fine being called "black."All the discussion about "genetically non-identical individuals" and human genomes simply mucks up the conversation and ignores Fisher's central premise. Fisher is focused on the nature of the labels themselves and nothing more.
Sure, it's slightly annoying when he asks you to "Define white", or, "Define black", because it all seems like a big word game. But when you actually try to answer the question rationally and in good faith his premise becomes a little easier to understand. To my knowledge, I was the only one to ever respond to his question with a degree of legitimate seriousness and I'm pretty sure that conversation is still up at his site.
I'll link to it if I can find it.
Update:
Fisher's blog is invite only now which means that I can't link to the conversation we had on his site.
"Big Man:
It's a simple argument really.
Somebody decided to label folks black, white, brown, red and yellow.
Those people then used those definitions to decide what types of rights folks could have." Gray
Umm ...
Did someone "decide" to label folks tall? Did they label others short, fat, thin, slim and thick?
I decided to label MYSELF "The Blackest Man On The Internet".
I think labeling can be quite useful. I am not afraid of "race" distinctions. Actually I see them as opportunities.
Thordaddy -
You are fast becoming "My Favorite Whiteboy". After Sub ran Byrdeye off, your cool detached insight is a breath of fresh air.
On top of that - you are right about Radical Autonomy and MET.
gray conservative,
If the words we use can't really be tied to any thing we know then this is the perfect recipe for self-creation and identification, i.e., radical autonomy. This is Fisher's real aim.
Secondly, who did create these "labels?" If we are to believe Modern Evolutionary Theory then Occam's Razor says who...? Blacks...? Africans...? Or people that don't really have a past existence because we can't or shouldn't label them?
Mills, you said on the other thread that you don't believe that the social construct of "blackness" has been used as a tool of oppression? Did I misunderstand you?
Of course you did, Big Man.
Cite my words with precision, for I express myself precisely.
What I said was, I don’t believe “this particular social construct [race] is, per se, an ‘instrument of oppression.’” Per se means in and of itself.(The concept of “race” in Canada, for example, has been applied traditionally to the distinction between English-speaking and French Canadians. That was Canada’s “race problem.”)
Likewise, I don’t believe that the social construct of “religion” is, per se, an “instrument of oppression.” Religion has been used as an instrument of oppression... but it has been used in other ways too. (As a means of individual spiritual fulfillment, for instance.)
Race has been used as an instrument of oppression... but it has also been used in other ways.
In the manifestation we call “ethnic nationalism” -- a sense of peoplehood based on shared ancestry -- it empowered the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to resist the tyranny of Soviet Communism. In other words, race was an instrument of self-determination.
I assume that Mike Fisher endorses the concept of “self-determination of peoples.” That’s hard to do if he rejects absolutely the concept of “peoplehood” as an oppressive social construct.
Thordaddy, DV (and Mills too):
Everything I know about Fisher's premise and core argument originates from my reply to him when he asked me to "Define white". My experience with the scope of the debate is limited strictly to a definition of his terms. And when I say strictly limited to that, I mean strictly limited.
Rather than repeating everything that was said with regard to the labels and words which Fisher takes issue with, I'm going to link to that thread on Fisher's site for you guys. Maybe you can see it here.
I devoted a bit of brain processing power just trying to answer Fisher's inquiry in a rational and honest way; and I think you'll see that we didn't talk past each other as much as the average blog thread conversation is concerned. I have an offline copy if you're really interested.
Somebody decided to label folks black, white, brown, red and yellow.
The thing of it is... something happened before somebody decided to label folks black, white, brown, red and yellow.
What happened was: Different human subgroups adapted genetically to the different geographical areas into which they'd settled... and this led to changes in their skin color.
That genetic adaptation is a fact of biological history.
My question is: In what other ways did different human subgroups adapt genetically to their different environments?
Can't know until you map them genomes!
Denmark Vesey said...
"
What happened was: Different human subgroups adapted genetically to the different geographical areas into which they'd settled... and this led to changes in their skin color." Mills
Um ...
Bra Mills,
Did tall people adapt genetically to different geographical areas?
Do tall people have more tall ancestors than do short people?
Mills, are tall people, a genetic subgroup?
Are tall people a race?
Does a tall Aborigine have more genetic commonality with a tall Icelander than the tall Icelander has with a short Ashkenazi Jew?
^ Those are silly questions, DV. Haven't I amply illustrated that the biological aspect of what we're calling "race" is not about height or skin pigmentation... it's about shared ancestry?
Don't tall people share ancestors Mills?
"Tall, short, fat, thin, slim and thick" are linguistic descriptors that refer to physical proportions.
Surely you don't equate questions of physical proportion with questions of race/ethnicity, because I've never seen a question on the national census that asks about height or weight.If physical proportions were interchangeable with the concept of "race" or ancestry, why is there not a question regarding height or weight on the national census questionnaire in place of or in addition to race/ethnicity questions?
Don't tall people share ancestors Mills?
Shit, DV... Mike Fisher and a chimpanzee share ancestors. Every human being and every great ape alive share common ancestors, if you look back far enough.
But the intelligent impulse to make sense of the natural world leads to the drawing of handy distinctions.
So leave the rhetorical games to the hustle artists, could you please?
Mills...
"Mike Fisher and a chimpanzee share ancestors.".
Certainly. However, humans and a Chimpanzees can't naturally produce off-spring.
That's the ONE objective biological fact that separates the two species of primate.
DV...
"Bra Mills,
Did tall people adapt genetically to different geographical areas?
Do tall people have more tall ancestors than do short people?
Mills, are tall people, a genetic subgroup?
Are tall people a race?
Does a tall Aborigine have more genetic commonality with a tall Icelander than the tall Icelander has with a short Ashkenazi Jew?".
Exactly, DV. You hit the nail on the head.
Gray...
"If physical proportions were interchangeable with the concept of 'race' or ancestry, why is there not a question regarding height or weight on the national census questionnaire in place of or in addition to race/ethnicity questions?"Because we live in a racist society, Gray.
This is easily illustrated with pictures.
Here's the convo Gray referred to:
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
Sorry I'm late Fisher, I had some stuff to do today and my laptop suddenly died on me.
Anyway:
So here it is. Gray, it is your turn.
Define "white" (as in white person).
This ought to be fun.
Well, this is easy enough to do, considering that I've already posted a definition on this site.
My definition of "white" is based upon my observations of what people mean when they use the word in every-day language usage. So when you ask me, "What is white?" My response is to pose the question of, "How do people use the word and what is the meaning that it conveys when they say it?" In that sense, my definition is a descriptive definition as opposed to a normative one.
We started discussing this last month. Instead of putting forth a singular definition, I said that my definition of "white" was based upon two senses in which the word is used in speech. I also said that there were at least two senses. I then went on the describe the two senses in which it's used. You did not reply directly to what I said about those two senses in November, and so here we are now.
Since you've asked me to definite it again, I'll repost and re-link to what I said back in November.
First there was this post:
Fisher: Oddly enough, and cnulan will recall this, I started out doing something very similar to what you're doing and how you're investigating the word "white", only I started in the opposite direction with a discussion of the word "black". So despite the fact that I seem to be extra critical of you, what I'm doing is trying to learn. Unlike a lot of people, I'm actually willing to sit here and try and learn what it is you're trying to say. That's why I visit your blog.
There are at least two ways - two senses - in which we make use of those words ("black" and "white").
1. In the purely descriptive or "forensic" sense - and here is what I mean by that: In police work for example, if someone robs you, Michael Fisher, at gunpoint and you go to the police about it, they will ask you for a description of the suspect; and presumably, you are technically required to give a truthful description. If it was a "white" man that robbed you, then current social convention would require you give an accurate description, such as, "He was white"; or you yourself might say, "He was of European descent", at which point the cop would say, "So he was white, then." In turn, after you had given your description of the suspect, the cops will then be on the look-out for a "white" male. If it were a "black" male that robbed you, the same forensic description would apply to that particular "black" man.
So there are definitely times when it is to your advantage to specify the distinguishing traits of an individual. If someone breaks into your house and steals something, you would want any witnesses to be as accurate as possible in identifying the distinguishing features of the person they saw running out of your crib. I think you would become very frustrated if the witnesses in your neighborhood refused to use the words "black" or "white" when describing what they saw. You would start to get pissed off if they only used generic descriptors such as, "He was pale-skinned, and male." A pale-skinned individual could be a "white" person, or it could be an extremely light-skinned "black" person. If it's your position that "white" = white supremacy, then it's highly unlikely that you'd ever completely get rid of this type of forensic description. And carrying this to its logical conclusion, in order to take action you'd essentially have to call for the removal of the race/ethnicity section on the census questionnaire, as well as the race/ethnicy section on college admissions applications, and numerous other documents in our society.
Of course, they are many cases where a victim will go out of their way to give a false description of a suspect to police (for whatever reason). I'm reminded here of the story about the mother who was eventually found to have drowned her own children (Susan Smith) but had previously told police (falsely) that a "black" man had kidnapped her children. Part of the reason Susan Smith would do that is because she was knowingly taking advantage of the way we use those words in the second sense, which I will discuss below. Because she specifically named a "black" suspect, she capitalized on what "black" is in a larger sense: because she knew "blacks" are generally assumed to be more criminal, she thought that her forensic description of the suspect gained "plausibility" because of the way in which "black" tends to imply a general "way of Being".
And then there was the second part:
2. "Black" or "White" in the sense of a "way of Being".
In my opinion, there is basically no language that is currently in existence that accurately describes this phenomenon. So I can only give examples.
Examples:
"Joe is the whitest black person I know."
"John is the blackest white person I know".
(Knowingly false) "A black man kidnapped my children."
"You are my black friend, but I don't see you as- or think of you as- black".
The words "way of Being" were my crude way of verbalizing the phenomenon. Back when I was blogging under the name "Negrorage" I spent a lot of time investigating the different senses of "black" in much the same way that you've investigated "white" here on the Assault - but I found it extremely difficult to convey what I was trying to say. I think P6 can be of help here:
Prometheus 6 said...
Racial divisions as seen from within each racial division:
Division: White
Divisions seen: White, You-ain't-white
Going back to my example of "You are my black friend, but I don't see you as- or think of you as- black": I think in order to understand how a typically "white" person could make such a statement to a "black" person, you have to investigate how "black" exists in the mind of said "white" person. Essentially my theory was that "black" existed in their mind not only as a forensic descriptor, but also as (literally) a "way of Being"; a type of internal metaphysics - so that when they say, "I don't see you as black", what they are literally saying is, "I don't see you as Being that way." Of course, this is extremely insulting to the average black person who is on the receiving end of such a statement, and it really only lends more credibility to Fisher's overall argument. I eventually came to the conclusion that people would have to adopt a type of strict linguistic formalism where they would be forced to qualify such statements with something like, "I don't see you as being black - that is, black in the sense of a way of Being" - but then that doesn't solve the problem of, "Okay, where did you get that notion of Black in the first place in order to say that I am not representative of it? And why do I have to be invisible for you to see me?"
The purpose of the "way of Being" dialect was to distinguish between forensics and metaphysics and to get people to question the nature of their positive universal claims about so-called "black" people; i.e., "positive" universal claims such as, "All Blacks are criminals", or "All Blacks can dance well".
I think that should get us off-and-running.
December 13, 2007 1:08 PM
Delete
Blogger Michael Fisher said...
A definition is supposed to be useful. It's utility is in clarifying what something is.
If I go into a police station and say. "Ive been robbed by a white person" what clarifying utility does this statement have?
The police office will inevitably ask me follow up questions.
Thus the officer may ask me,
"what was the texture of the perpetrator's hair?"
And I may say,
"springy and curly"
PO: "Color?"
"Black"
PO: "Skin color?"
"swarthy"
PO: "eye color?"
"Brown"
PO: "Nose?"
"Like that of this guy Kwame Ture."
Police officer...
"Oh, you mean the perpetrator was Italian?"
or
"Oh, you mean the perpetrator as Eastern European Jewish?"
Or
"Oh, you mean the perpetrator was Spanish?"
"Greek?"
Or.
"Hey, except for the curly hair part, the perpetrator looks a bit like Hitler."
or
"Waitaminit.
The perpetrator was all that?
You sure the perpetrator wasn't black?"
No, Gray, I do not think that what you put on display here was a definition of "white".
Try again, please.
December 13, 2007 2:06 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
A definition is supposed to be useful. It's utility is in clarifying what something is.
Since you say that a definition's utility consists in specifying what the thing is, then it's not clear to me what your objection to the definition is, because I've specified the "what" of your inquiry.
You ask the same question repeatedly: "What is 'white'". You also make the same command repeatedly: "Define white".
I have answered these questions directly by stating the following:
1. "White" is a word.
2. This word, as it applies to persons, is used to convey at least two distinct meanings and is used in at least two distinct senses when referring to persons. The description I gave of those two senses (forensic and metaphysical) provides the general definition as I understand it.
If you feel that my definition is inadequate in describing what "white" is, then please list those inadequacies.
If I go into a police station and say. "Ive been robbed by a white person" what clarifying utility does this statement have?
The usefulness and utility of the statement is related to the description of the distinguishing characteristics of the hypothetical suspect that are contained in the statement. You necessarily admit of the utility of the statement when you mention the distinguishing characteristics of the suspect when you say, "A white person robbed me", instead of saying, "A person robbed me".
No, Gray, I do not think that what you put on display here was a definition of "white".
Try again, please.
You are asking me to define "white", but it's clear that you are seeking a certain type of answer. Because my definition does not fit what you expected to hear, you then say that my response is not a definition.
Of course, this is not the point of having a dialog. With you, it's not so much like a discussion as it is like playing a carnival game at the county fair. You are the carnie who stands behind a counter and invites people to play your game.
So, the next step here is for you to tell me what you want my answer to look like. When playing a carnival game, it is perfectly legitimate for the participant to request that the carnie demonstrate how the game is played. The carnie should be more than willing to show the participant how the game is won.
So, please provide an example of the format in which I should submit my definition to you and make sure to specify which descriptive elements I should include in my answer that will conform to what you consider to be a "definition".
December 13, 2007 3:15 PM
Delete
Blogger Michael Fisher said...
Gray...
"If it was a "white" man that robbed you, then current social convention would require you give an accurate description, such as, "He was white"
Thus my statement to the police
"Ive been robbed by a white person".
Gray...
"So, please provide an example of the format in which I should submit my definition to you and make sure to specify which descriptive elements I should include in my answer that will conform to what you consider to be a 'definition'."
Let me do you one better and give you the definition of "white person" I work with.
White Person...
A "White" person is person who classifies themselves as "White", and has been classified as "White" by all other people classified as "White", accepted as "White" by all other people classified as "White", and who generally functions as "White" in all areas of human activity.
December 13, 2007 3:45 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
Here is what you originally commanded me to do:
Define "white" (as in white person).
According to you my definition wasn't useful in saying what "white" was.
Then I asked you to give me a template for my response, to which you submitted the following: A "White" person is person who classifies themselves as "White", and has been classified as "White" by all other people classified as "White", accepted as "White" by all other people classified as "White", and who generally functions as "White" in all areas of human activity.
But this template is inadequate. Since person is a noun, you want me to describe the adjective "white".
Well, how does one define an adjective? An adjective usually speaks to the distinguishing qualities of the noun, e.g., "The table is old." If you look up the definition of "old", the definition will list the various senses in which the adjective is used. And each sense that is listed is distinguished from- and held in distinction to- some other sense:
old
Main Entry: old
Pronunciation:\ˈōld; for sense 9 usually ˈōl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English eald; akin to Old High German alt old, Latin alere to nourish, alescere to grow, altus high, deep
Date: before 12th century
1 a: dating from the remote past : ancient {old traditions} b: persisting from an earlier time (an old ailment} {they brought up the same old argument} c: of long standing (an old friend}
("Ancient" as distinguished from "contemporary"; "persisting from an earlier time" as distinguished from "just now emerging"; "of long standing" as distinguished from "newly constructed")
2 a: distinguished from an object of the same kind by being of an earlier date {many still used the old name} bcapitalized : belonging to an early period in the development of a language or literature {Old Persian}
("being from an earlier date" as distinguished from a more recent date; Old Persian as distinguished from New Persian)
3: having existed for a specified period of time (a child three years old}
("having existed" as distinguished from "not yet arrived")
4: of, relating to, or originating in a past era {old chronicles record the event}
("originating in a past era" as distinguished from "originating recently")
5 a: advanced in years or age (an old person} b: showing the characteristics of age {looked old at 20}
("advanced in years" as distinguished from "low in years"; "the characteristics of age" as distinguished from "the characteristics of youth")
6: experienced (an old trooper speaking of the last war}
("experienced" as distinguished from "inexperienced")
7: former {his old students}
("former" as distinguished from "current")
8 a: showing the effects of time or use : worn, aged {old shoes} b: no longer in use : discarded {old rags} c: of a grayish or dusty color {old mauve} d: tiresome {gets old fast}
("showing the effects of time" as distinguished from "original luster"; "grayish and dusty" as distinguished from "vibrant and shiny"; "no longer in use" as distinguished from "currently in use"; "tiresome" as distinguished from "energizing", or "refreshing")
9 a: long familiar {same old story} {good old Joe} b—used as an intensive (a high old time} c —used to express an attitude of affection or amusement (a big old dog}(flex the old biceps}(any old time}
(You get the point)
But in your template, you have not listed any distinguishing qualities of the adjective "white". Thus, it is not clear why you consider your template a "definition" and mine not a definition. I have listed at least two senses in which the adjective is used, you have listed none.
What are the distinguishing characteristics of a "white" person Fisher?
My definition of the adjective ("white") is that, in the forensic sense, it seeks to distinguish between one set of forensic attributes as opposed to some other set of forensic attributes; while in the metaphysical sense, it seeks to distinguish between one "way of Being" as opposed to some other "way of Being". So how is your definition more useful than mine other than the fact that my definition is descriptive and yours is normative?
December 13, 2007 5:23 PM
Delete
Blogger Michael Fisher said...
First off, I certainly did not intend on "commanding" you to do anything. I apologize if it came off that way.
Now: "My definition of the adjective ("white") is that, in the forensic sense, it seeks to distinguish between one set of forensic attributes as opposed to some other set of forensic attributes..."
I think I already demonstrated above that you just can not make an objective forensic determination of "white". Any such "forensic" determination is based on social judgments.
"while in the metaphysical sense, it seeks to distinguish between one 'way of Being' as opposed to some other 'way of Being'".
And it is here where the rubber meets the road.
"White" as a state of being. That means that "white" has to have some kind of functional content. That's because nothing can be something without functioning as something.
Thus the Sun is not just the Sun, it functions as the Sun. Else it wouldn't be the Sun.
Thus the question now is what is the function of a white person?
I have an answer based on logic, but I'd like to get your suggestion as to this function, first. If you don't mind.
December 13, 2007 6:13 PM
Delete
Blogger achali said...
hi. been following this thread and some others. but on the questions of whiteness, there was a convo on the liberator along these lines a while back:
http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2007/05/dilemma-of-metaphorical-mulatto.html
also found the "intelligence" discussion going on in the circle as worth sharing on our blog:
http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2007/12/is-intelligence-heritable-and-who-cares.html
December 13, 2007 9:34 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
First off, I certainly did not intend on "commanding" you to do anything. I apologize if it came off that way.
No apology necessary. I just so happened to use that word. I wasn't bothered in any way.
I think I already demonstrated above that you just can not make an objective forensic determination of "white". Any such "forensic" determination is based on social judgments.
I'm not sure that this invalidates the first sense I mentioned, owing to the fact that the first sense is closely related to the second. The forensic sense is the basis upon which the second (and more problematic sense) exists.
It is questionable to me if we can say with any certainty that it is wholly impossible to forensically distinguish an individual as "white". Insofar as the description of "white" accrues to certain individuals by means of social convention, the forensic description of "white" does not loose its descriptive qualities simply because it is defined according to social convention. Indeed, social convention is both relied upon and resorted to when it is expedient for the purposes of law enforcement. An actual victim of crime does not resort to engaging in a question and answer session with the investigating officer in which they ask him about defining what is "white".
So on the one hand, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of a purely forensic, descriptive definition of "white" which is based on social convention, while on the other hand you readily admit that if you were personally wronged or violently attacked by a "white" person, that you would rely on the socially conventional definition to see that justice was done in your case (only an idiot would refuse to name the distinguishing characteristics of someone who robbed him in order to make an iconoclastic protest against a social convention). This is where your iconoclasm (normative) comes into conflict with the facts of modern society (descriptive). The facts of modern society dictate that Americans are not retarded, and when a "white" person is attacked by a "white" person, they identify the suspect as a "white" person to police. Or, in the example I gave of Susan Smith, someone could knowingly deceive the police by giving a false, socially conventional, forensic description of the distinguishing characteristics of a "black" person which relies upon the second sense of the definition for it's plausibility. The two are inter-related.
Again, I believe that your normative definition of "white" tends to distort reality in that it seeks to defy social convention for the sake of an iconoclastic argument. This isn't to say that that isn't a noble pursuit, but when you are given the example of someone committing a criminal act against you (meaning you personally), you must concede that if the suspect was (in your estimation) conventionally "white", that your best interests would be better served by describing the distinguishing characteristics of the suspects to the police according to the conventional forensic description of the suspect. It is highly unlikely, and largely impractical, that you would describe the suspect as anything other than what he is described as according to social convention if the purpose of your going to the police had anything to do with the cause of justice. The descriptor of "White" (as social convention) is evil in terms of your personal iconoclasm - but it is also good, practical, and expedient when you are forced to rely on social convention in the name of expedient justice.
December 13, 2007 11:25 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
while in the metaphysical sense, it seeks to distinguish between one 'way of Being' as opposed to some other 'way of Being
And it is here where the rubber meets the road.
"White" as a state of being. That means that "white" has to have some kind of functional content. That's because nothing can be something without functioning as something.
A lot of people misunderstand what I mean when I say "way of Being". When I say "way of Being", I don't mean a "state of Being". For me, the only "state of Being" is being alive, or what we would generally refer to as being "alive". I see the "way of Being" dialect, as it applies to the words "black" and "white", as a corruption of the meaning of metaphysics, and here is what I mean by that. As far as humans are concerned, a "state of Being" is essentially the opposite of Nothingness. For a human to even consider the concept of "Being", they have to be able to come to terms with the fact of their own finitude. Being is an inevitable return to Nothingness. You will die. So yes. This is where rubber meets road and where metal meets the meat: the danger zone of perception. You want to dismiss the first sense of the adjective (forensic) but the second sense is necessarily based upon the first.
I don't see a "white" person as functioning as "white". "Functioning as something" means functioning in our unique individual capacities as a human being and operating under the basic principal of our universal susceptibility to the seven deadly sin as they apply to every person in the forms of human lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Men in Africa have waged wars on that continent long before and after any self-identified "white" person ever set foot there, but to say that "whites" are any more greedy than other people because they are "white", or that "black" people are any more lustful than other people because they are "black" is the worst kind of essentialism.
Being is related to the fact that humans are generally cognizant of the fact that they will eventually expire, and thus return to Nothingness. But there are any number of human possibilities and trajectories in life. So when "white" exists in someone's mind as a "way of Being", it is a petty corruption of what it means to be alive.
December 13, 2007 11:28 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
Thus the question now is what is the function of a white person?
I have an answer based on logic, but I'd like to get your suggestion as to this function, first. If you don't mind.
I don't mind at all.
First of all, I would say that "white", as I define it, isn't limited to how persons who self-identify as "white" function in society. It relates to how certain people may function, but for me it has more to do with general perception. I would re-phrase the question to ask not what the function of a "white" person is, but how does "white" exist in the minds of persons on a psychological-cognitive level.
December 13, 2007 11:33 PM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
If function is related to behavior, then the perception that white is a "way of Being" would tend to influence certain types of human behavior–it doesn't get any simpler than that; just as the the perception that black is a "way of Being" would tend to influence certain type of behavior as well.
Perception proceeds function and behavior. If one is of the belief that "white" is a "way of Being", then it implies that they believe that "being white" provides the "white" person with a type of unalterable "essence" which is manifested in behavior; the "white" person must, of necessity, act "white": they must necessarily chase tornadoes, investigate strange noises in the basement, and eat clam chowder–this is how our discussion relates to essentialism. The same goes for "black": if one is of the belief that "black" is a "way of Being", then it implies that they believe that "being black" provides the "black" person with a type of unalterable "essence"–a propensity for rhythm and timing, or an inner lasciviousness, or any such nonsense.
In terms of function, the best definition of "white" or "black" would be able to account for the greatest amount of human experiences which are based upon- and related to- this particular perception; the perception being that those two things are literal "ways of Being". Further, I would assert that a descriptive definition of "white" in which the two senses I mentioned are accounted for is truer to the lived experiences of a greater variety of people, as opposed to your normative definition of "white" in which All "whites" are "white supremacists". The very first comment in this thread is an example of the variety of human experiences that my descriptive definition speaks to.
In the first comment, a self-identified "black" woman claims that she was called "white girl" in grade school. Now, from my perspective, this is a cause for investigation. And the conclusions of the investigation will be of philosophic value. We have to consider not only who called her that, but also their mind-set. We must ask: how did "white" exist in the mind of that person? It can be logically concluded that the person did not use the adjective "white" in the sense of a forensic descriptor: they knew she was "black". Instead, "white" existed in their mind as a literal "way of Being". Perception influences the behavior.
As another example of the variety of human experiences this definition speaks to, one need only stop to consider that the belief that "black" is a "way of Being" is the source of a great deal of anti-Black racism. Even those who have had virtually no forensic contact with so-called "blacks" are likely to have some notion of "black" (as a way of Being); where they get this original notion is anyone's guess.
When you being to define "black" and "white" as ways of Being and begin to view them as corruptions of traditional understanding of metaphysics, then the statement that– "Essentialism is the premise that a race is tied irrevocably to certain traits or characteristics. That irrespective of person, if you are X, then it is always reasonable to assume Y about you"–becomes all the more plausible. The statement that, "Being Black in America means being a victim of racism" makes a number of reasonable assumptions, but to address all "blacks" as victims is the height of essentialism.
Some people are essentialist their thinking and experience different levels of essentialism. All self-identified black bloggers are essentialist to some degree.
cnulan's essentialism consists of arguing courageously in defense of the least of his black brethren and in favor of "ethical" black partisans, while holding our religious and secular leaders to a righteous moral standard of genuine Blackness.
Your essentialism consists in making repeated iconoclastic arguments about the logic that is implicit in self-identifiying as "white" and holding as incontrovertibly guilty anyone who knowingly or unknowingly accepts those definitions and the unmerited benefits it brings them.
My essentialism consists of constantly complaining about our essential essentialism which itself is a form of- and a result of- essentialism.
Again, my descriptive definition, although worded crudely, speaks to a variety of human experiences ranging from the petty and mundane to the nobly sublime.
December 13, 2007 11:40 PM
Delete
Blogger Michael Fisher said...
Gray…
”So on the one hand, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of a purely forensic, descriptive definition of "white" which is based on social convention”
Nope do not. Not at all. I say that there is no validity to a biological purely forensic descriptive definition of "white" (here is where Bro. Sondjata and Sis. Cynthia McDaniels have parted ways with me) and readily acknowledge, in fact insist, that the social convention of white indeed exists, and solely as a social convention, or, more accurately, as a social construct.
Thus here, it appears that you and I are in agreement.
Gray…
”way of being”
White as a “way of being” works too. In fact, it probably works better. As I understand it, your term “way of being” denotes a process. This process of being (“the trajectory in life”) which, I’m sure you’d agree, is essentially nothing but another term for “doing”. People express their “being” via what they do. One can not “do” without functioning. In fact, one can not even “be” in the sense of the “state of being” as you use it without doing. Being alive is doing something. Namely, being alive.
Ok. You say two key things, and I am going to have to cite them in reverse order.
(a) "Functioning as something" means functioning in our unique individual capacities as a human being…”
(b) ” I don't see a "white" person as functioning as ‘white’.”
We both agree as to (a). We both agree that “white” is a social construct. Anything social is the expression of interaction between two or more persons. Interaction is behavior. These persons do something. Thus “white” being a social construct is the logical result of behavior, of doing, of functioning.
Ergo, “white”, which is, as we both acknowledge, an absolute social reality in our society, has a function.
Given that “white” has a function, your statement “I don't see a ‘white’ person as functioning as ‘white’” can not be correct. A “white” person functions as “white”, else that person wouldn’t be “white” - white is a behavior.
And there you have it: ”If function is related to behavior, then the perception that white is a "way of Being" would tend to influence certain types of human behavior–it doesn't get any simpler than that”.
The question now is, “what kind of behavior”? What behavior distinguishes “white” from “not-white”? Certainly both “white” persons as well as “non-white” persons can ” chase tornadoes, investigate strange noises in the basement, and eat clam chowder” and in fact, do.
Both types, white and non-white persons, also presumably fornicate, eat, sleep, defecate, and, breathe. So they’ve got that in common.
The one thing they do not have in common, however, is the classification. A person who classifies themselves as white, in the instant of classifying him/herself as such, classifies every other person as non-white, except those persons already classified as white and whose classification as white is not affected by that initial person’s self-classification as white.
Everyone else is suddenly classified as non-white. Without having been asked. And there is nothing the now involuntarily so classified non-white can do about it, because if there were something an involuntary non-white could do about it, then that person would not be non-white.
Thus the classification of a person as non-white at the instance of the self-classification as white and the acceptance of that classification by other persons already classified as white is a collective act (social construct) and, moreover it is an act of collective power, for it forces the classification of non-white upon these, now non-white persons.
Thus the function of “white” is determined by the very first act of becoming white: The forced classification of persons as other than white. Which is the expression of a power relationship the content of which is the involuntary classification of persons other than white, the content of which in turn is in that very instant making these persons victims of the collective self-classification as white.
Which in turn means that the essential function of “white” is victimizer.
Moreover, in the instant of that collective self-classification these now “white” persons created a club, a group, a “race”. The existence of that club, group, or race is based on the ability to redefine everyone else as not part of their club, group, or race.
Considering the "existence" of race...
Nothing can “exist” that is “be” without its “way of being”, it’s process, it’s function. Thus the existence of race denotes the function, the practice of race, that is racism.
Now, remember, without the self-classification of persons on the basis of the (arbitrary as it could be “pink”, or “blue (eyed)”, or whatever) color there would be no such thing as a club or race, and thus there would be no such thing as “clubism” or “racism”. Since the color chosen and implemented by these people who practice racism is white, we have “white racism”.
I’m gonna take a pause here, because there are a number of ways to attack this reasoning. And unless it can be shown that this reasoning is logically and empirically unassailable, there is no point in continuing. So, I expect you’ll want to have a go at it.
December 14, 2007 2:08 AM
Delete
Blogger achali said...
i dig that yall are on a roll here.
im just continuing to follow.
forensically, african people still call white people "ghosts" and literally "white" in slang (as in a sheet of paper) even though it's not literally accurate. mzungu is what my fam calls em in swahili even if they are the cool people (i.e. socially acceptable).
but i'm following michael's point in that the social construct of race as we know it started with white folks calling themselves white.
im not tryna dump nonsense reading on yall, but that's the conclusion i came to after a looong discussion with a white person here. and we actually came to agree on that and actually progressed into starting to discuss whether or not it was realistic to expect so-called "white" people to actually fight "whiteness" ("-ness" connotes that state of being/way of being thing if you ask me). any way here's that discussion:
http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2007/01/white-privilege.html
so while "african" folks might have called whites ghosts and "white", etc, it was merely descriptive and not as far as i know in terms of classifying "white people" as a different type of human. that started with what michael said... "the first act of becoming white".
more here:
http://www.liberatormagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1491&sid=41aa23eed0169c84af8d9fccac33913d#1491
December 14, 2007 2:59 AM
Delete
Blogger achali said...
one thought i've had repeatedly, especially after re-reading baldwin's "the fire next time" is whether the longer we are drenched in and exposed to this culture (way of being) if we don't become a little bit whiter ourselves?
my home girl from minnesota who's a lakota might cosign on that hypothesis. i know that baldwin seemed to be making that point hard in his book though. and of course fela said it all the time about his fellow corrupt nigerians. yes?
December 14, 2007 3:07 AM
Delete
Blogger The Gray Conservative said...
Nope do not. Not at all. I say that there is no validity to a biological purely forensic descriptive definition of "white" (here is where Bro. Sondjata and Sis. Cynthia McDaniels have parted ways with me) and readily acknowledge, in fact insist, that the social convention of white indeed exists, and solely as a social convention, or, more accurately, as a social construct.
Thus here, it appears that you and I are in agreement.
This is interesting. One one hand, you have stated that you do not acknowledge the validity of a purely forensic (biological) descriptive definition of "white", but on the other hand, you also readily admit of the existence of the social convention of "white" (which is a social construct), and that the use of this social convention (as a descriptor) is acceptable when you are required to name the distinguishing characteristics of an individual who has committed some unjust act against you. You are saying, in effect, that it is "bad" that people classify themselves as "white", but if a "white" man kidnaps a "black" baby, you would want the all-points-bulletin to tell people to be on the lookout for a "white" man with a kidnapped "black" baby. The tension between your iconoclasm and the facts of modern society are very interesting.
Given that “white” has a function, your statement “I don't see a ‘white’ person as functioning as ‘white’” can not be correct.
I'm not certain that my statement can't be correct as it is not clear to me that the social construct "white" has an intrinsic "function". On a basic level, the social construct of "white" functions as a verbal descriptor that we use to illustrate the distinguishing characteristics of an individual when it becomes necessary to do so. This is why the example of police-work is relevant to the discussion. In that sense, the classification of "white" serves no other purpose than to aid in the accurate and expedient identification of a suspect in a society in which there are a variety of possible suspects. And so, in a very limited and practical sense, the general classifications of "white" and "black" have legitimate functions as socially conventional descriptors of the distinguishing characteristics of individuals. The structure of our society is such that one should be able to identify the distinguishing characteristics of an individual when it is time to do so. If Wesley Snipes breaks into your house, you should be able to tell an investigating officer about the distinguishing characteristics of Wesley Snipes. If Brad Pitt breaks into your house, you should be able to tell an investigating officer about the distinguishing characteristics of Brad Pitt. The classifications in-and-of-themselves are not evil in all cases. The danger begins when the classifications themselves serve as the basis for assumptions about behavior and become essentialism.
And there you have it: ”If function is related to behavior, then the perception that white is a "way of Being" would tend to influence certain types of human behavior–it doesn't get any simpler than that”.
The question now is, “what kind of behavior”? What behavior distinguishes “white” from “not-white”? Certainly both “white” persons as well as “non-white” persons can ” chase tornadoes, investigate strange noises in the basement, and eat clam chowder” and in fact, do.
You ask: "what kind of behavior is white behavior?"; and: "what behavior distinguishes white from non-white?" The answers to these questions are related to how the concept of "white" exists in peoples' minds. There is no objective definition because the answers to these questions vary from person to person. Some non-white people believe that it's possible for a "black" person to act "white". Some "white" people believe that it's possible for a "white" person to act "black". If you want to find out what someone's definition of "white" (as a way of Being) is, then all you have to do is ask them if "white" is a thing to be or if it's a way of Being. Perhaps I haven't said enough words about the sinister aspect of the second sense of the adjective. In many ways, the definition of "white" which the mind tends to treat cognitively as a way of Being is very dangerous in terms of engendering much of what we refer to as "self-hatred". You keep pushing a definition of "white" as a literal function, but I do not believe this. I have stressed instead, that it has more to do with perception; perception which then, in turn, influences behavior. But in order to get at how people actually perceive "white", you have to objectively analyze the senses in which they use the word. For example, Michael, you and I have been observed to have fairly sophisticated definitions of "white", but I don't believe that others do this. For my part, I believe that most people do not have the time nor inclination to develop a iconoclastic understanding of these classifications. So when I say that you have to objectively analyze the senses in which people use the word "white", it means that you have to pay close attention to whether they are using it in the socially conventionalist sense, or if they are using it in the sense of a way of Being.
I want you to try a language experiment with the non-white people you know in order to get a sense of the sinister aspect of the second sense of the adjective. I want you ask them about their definition of "black". But you should not come out and ask them to "define Black". Instead, you should ask them, "is black a thing to be, or is black a way of Being?" If they reply to you that it is a way of Being, you should then ask them to describe it to you: "Describe this way of Being".
Once they have described it for you, you should consider the various sources: is their perception based on popular culture?; is it based on a particular understanding of history?; or is it based upon some sort of petty behavioral differences?
Whereas you seek to abolish the socially conventional classification, I seek to abolish the conventional metaphysical wisdom.
It seems we've returned to where we began. We seem to have reached a bit of a consensus:
Define "white" (as in white person)
1. "White" is an adjective.
2. The adjective is used in at least two senses: (a) a forensic descriptor based on social convention that acts a noun, and (b) in the sense of a way of Being.
We agree on (a) it seems - but we now seem to be debating the nature, consequences, and implications of (b).
So I guess my next question is: do you agree with (b), and if so, what, in your opinion, are the consequences of (b)?
(But it remains unclear to me why you believe (b) is a literal function and not related to perception.)
December 14, 2007 2:26 PM
Delete
OpenID KeitaRae said...
Greetings! I'm the black woman who left the first comment (re: being called "white" by a few black girls in grade school).
I fell right into GC's definition and understood it completely. From a forensic perspective, I'm clearly a black woman (although light brown), but from a "Way of Being" perspective - the girls in the remedial classes deemed me "white" for a variety of reasons: My dress, my presence in in the advanced classes, my grammar, my mixed base of friends (Black, whites, Asians, Greeks, on and on) etc.
Thus, GC would agree that their value judgments (as opposed to forensic evaluation) stemmed from a belief that whites simply perform better in school and/or enjoy the academic environment, have diverse friends, dress a certain way, etc.
The original definition that MF posted doesn't leave room to explain how I (and other blacks - even some with quite brown skin) ever got called "white" by other blacks.
I won't add much more here. I'm enjoying your discussion and don't wanna barge in. Carry on... LOL
December 14, 2007 3:53 PM
Delete
OpenID KeitaRae said...
oops... KeitaRae is the same as Hawa (the first commenter). I have accounts everywhere. LOL
December 14, 2007 3:54 PM
Delete
Blogger achali said...
I think we agree on the purely forensic. I mean like I said even Homer, the Egyptians, ancient Ethiopians, Nubians, etc... called people black, or burnt like the sun, or sun-tinted, etc.
I think the "acting white" that you are speaking of Keita, is popular but superficial.
It's sort of people's instinctive way of classifying recent history. I.E.: based on one's personal perception/exposure. So basically that's just people classifying recent their first-hand historical experience. After all, if in my country we have deer and in your country you have gazelle we might use the respective different symbols in our metaphors. You run like a deer. Versus: you run like a gazelle. So you're talking of "white" as a metaphor.
Meaning all the black people in MY neighborhood dress similar, aren't in the advanced classes, don't have american english grammar, and don't have friends who aren't black, and the white people I encounter through my experience (media, tv, film, school, work, play, at the mall) dress different, are in the advanced classes, do speak american english grammar, and do have friends who aren't black.
So therefore just as you might "run like a deer" you "act like you are white" or you "talk like you are white."
That's an easy enough concept to grasp if you ask me and pretty excusable givin that this is many kids limited experience/perception until they broaden their perception with books, new friends, different tv shows, different movies, etc. Basically some broader experiences.
Now I can say "hey, you run like a deer AND a gazelle!"
But what Michael is saying... or what I believe he is saying... more so, what MY view is... is that there is a historical definition of whiteness as it ties to people who invented the term as a socio-political category for socio-political reasons and continue using that social political term today and benefit from their classification of themselves and others' classifications of them in that socio-political group, whites.
On the post similar to this one on the liberator i mentioned that obviously humans aren't biologically destructive/evil or creative/good that's some hitler shit.
the "profound distinctions" are in the "way of being", adoption of the "worldview", etc.
and white, whiteness, etc... as a politically re-enforced category is the root of the race paradigm... from a european perspective... and so to me as long as whites are calling themselves white i don't see how they can escape that eurocentric paradigm. the horse and the cart are sold in a set, not sold separately here. the onus on deconstructing race lies in white peoples laps.
what black/african/people of color "the others" (according to the eurocentric race paradigm) can do is unite to fight that inherently aggressive act of europeans categorizing THEMSELVES as separate from the rest of humanity. hence, black is a political reaction to whiteness for the sake of survival.
like malcolm said, we ain't violent only with those who are violent with us. similarly, i believe whiteness forces us to take up the armour of "blackness".
because i certainly don't think "blackness" literally was something we were claiming you know?
neither was "africaness".
in 2000 seasons, Ayi Kwei Armah called it simply "the way". and said simply there "people of the way" and people who are "not of the way". i love the simplicity there.
December 14, 2007 6:00 PM
Delete
Blogger Hunter said...
Isn't a title given by persons who agree with what they see a classification?
December 14, 2007 6:21 PM
Delete
Blogger Michael Fisher said...
Gray…
“This is why the example of police-work is relevant to the discussion.”
I must not have expressed myself clearly. My example of the police officer questioning me above was an example of the non-utility of the generic term “white” in describing an individual perpetrator. The term has no biological content because a bond, straight-haired person with “swarthy” skin can be white, a curly dark-haired person with almost melanin-less skin can be white, and an albino can be “black”.
I give the physical description from which the police officer concluded that the individual was white. Globally standards for what is “white” differ from geographic region to geographic region anyhow.
Gray…
You ask: "what kind of behavior is white behavior?"; and: "what behavior distinguishes white from non-white?" The answers to these questions are related to how the concept of "white" exists in peoples' minds.
No, that is not correct. I specifically said that the behavior is manifested in the act of the collective self-classification by the individual and the other “white persons” which is an act in itself is a behavior of power and victimization, act, a behavior of imposing upon other persons the classification “non-white”.
Gray…
it remains unclear to me why you believe (b) is a literal function and not related to perception.
Because everything has a function in a social construct. Else, as far as the social construct is concerned, it doesn’t exist. As far as “white” is concerned he function is defined as above… by the function expressed via the classification. An act of imposition upon persons suddenly designated as non-white.
"Surely you don't equate questions of physical proportion with questions of race/ethnicity, because I've never seen a question on the national census that asks about height or weight.If physical proportions were interchangeable with the concept of "race" or ancestry, why is there not a question regarding height or weight on the national census questionnaire in place of or in addition to race/ethnicity questions?" Gray
What's up Gray? Long time. How you?
Since when has what is asked on "the national census" become the litmus test for what is interchangeable with the concept of "race"?
If the only people on Earth were white people, hair and eye color would probably substitute for "racial" distinctions instead of skin color.
There is nothing genetically unique about "race" that couldn't be applied to height.
Mike Fisher is right. "Race" is a social construct.
I substitute the reference to the National Census Questionnaire (What's more of a social construct than that?) as the measuring stick for valid categorizations of humans as an example.
Whew, Fish... way to drop that thread-killer on here. WTF?
Fisher: Define "species."
DV say: What's up Gray? Long time. How you?Maaan, been busy as hell here lately mayne; not much spare time for kickin' it with you guys on the blogs.
DV say: There is nothing genetically unique about "race" that couldn't be applied to height.Look at these two pictures DV.
Pic One - Pic TwoIn both pictures, a clear-cut policy is being expressed. The policy of Pic 1 says: "You have to be this tall to ride this ride." The policy expressed in Pic 2 says: "You have to look a certain way to drink from this fountain."
If a kid is too short to get on the ride, he can wait until he's tall enough. He can drink some milk. He can change and grow to fit the policy. On the other hand, if a kid doesn't fit the criteria for drinking from the fountain, what can he change to get a swig from the fountain?
lol, Fisher that's too huge and unformatted. Open your blog back up, man.
Gray...
"Open your blog back up, man.".
Naw, Gray.
I already had announced that I needed to shut down the blog in March 2008. The quality of the writing was just going down the hill. I had kept it open waaaaay beyond it's usefulness. Everything I had to say I said. Stuff got really funky quality-wise. So if you want to review stuff, send me an email and I'll put you on the access list. But there's nothing new there.
Gray...
"If a kid is too short to get on the ride, he can wait until he's tall enough.Not if the kid is a dwarf, Gray.
"A race of Giants, a race of Dwarfs".
Mills...
"Fisher: Define 'species.'".
(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
Now would you finally answer my question, Mills?
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.
Zebras and horses can interbreed. Does that mean they're the same species?
As is so often the case, Fish... you simply don't know wot-da-fok you're talking about.
"If a kid is too short to get on the ride, he can wait until he's tall enough. He can drink some milk. He can change and grow to fit the policy. On the other hand, if a kid doesn't fit the criteria for drinking from the fountain, what can he change to get a swig from the fountain?" GC
Um ....
I don't think that adds up young brotha.
1) Introducing the Tall "Race":
A grown man, who measures 5' 4" can't play in the NBA. No matter how good a set shot he has.
I'm certain his son won't start at power forward for the Charlotte Bobcats and his daughter won't win a volleyball scholarship to UCLA.
They are victims of height discrimination.
However if his children ... "intermarry" ... with tall mates, their bi-HEIGHT children may have a chance ... to pass.
But it would take several generations of bi-HEIGHT offspring before there was enough genetic information (race) to overcome their vertical handicap.
Hell Gray, I think in America, one's height has far more to do with one's actual experience and prospects in life than does skin color.
2) White Only
A black boy can certainly drink out of that fountain. Only thing he has to do is walk up and sip.
Any fear or retribution is a socially constructed abstraction.
Race isn't real.
"Zebras and horses can interbreed. Does that mean they're the same species?" Mills
But they don't.
White women and black men are doing so as we speak.
Mills...
"Zebras and horses can interbreed. Does that mean they're the same species.".
And so can Lions and Tigers and horses and donkeys.
Given that I posit that there has to be an OBJECTIVE biological fact NOT OPEN to social construction that differentiates a group of mammals from another, the inability of ALL members of one group to interbreed with ALL other members of another group is that objective biological marker and thus the definition of species which I use.
But they don't.
Sure they do, DV. You never heard of the zorse?
A grown man, who measures 5' 4" can't play in the NBA. No matter how good a set shot he has.LOL, DV said what?
Spud Webb (5 ft 6 in)
Earl Boykins (5 ft 5 in)
Muggsy Bogues (5 ft 3 in)
:P
Nice try Mills ...
BUT
****** Like most other hybrids, the zorse is sterile, meaning it cannot go on to reproduce young thus CREATING A SEPARATE Zorse SPECIES, completely differentiated from Horses and Zebras altogether is impossible*********.
Mills, Barack Obama and Halle Berry can have a baby. And that baby could have a baby with Tiger Wood's baby.
Because they were never separate species. "Race" is no more significant than the color of a man's eyes.
Spud Webb (5 ft 6 in)
Earl Boykins (5 ft 5 in)
Muggsy Bogues (5 ft 3 in)
Gray ...
LOL
Knew you were going to say that.
Tell you what. When Muggsy Bogues Jr. suits up for the Pistons to guard D'Wight Howard, I'll concede height is less significant than the abstraction we call "race".
... the inability of ALL members of one group to interbreed with ALL other members of another group is that objective biological marker and thus the definition of species which I use.
But Fish... ALL tigers can indeed interbreed with ALL lions. (This explains the existence of "ligers" and "tigons.") So by your definition, then, lions and tigers belong to the same species. We shouldn't label them as different animals.
Except that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris), as a matter of genetic reality, do belong to different species! So your definition is useless and arbitrary.
You need a more precise definition of "species," Michael. How about having scientists look at their DNA, and make the distinction that way... based on genetics?
Would genetic differences between a lion and a tiger be enough of an "objective biological marker" to suit your definitional needs?
Mills...
"Except that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris), as a matter of genetic reality, do belong to different species!".
Not according to MY definition of species, Mills.
Not according to MY definition of species, Mills.
Oh shapple! Hittin' me with some "Alice in Wonderland" that time! "Words mean what I say they do. No more, no less."
Well... since you're operating with a different set of word definitions than the rest of us, Mike, I guess there's no purpose in this conversation continuing... except for sheer entertainment.
And you know I like to bring the entertainment! So deal with this here, Fish, if you care to:
Click this link and tell me if those are two of the same "species" of mammal.
Mills...
"Click this link and tell me if those are two of the same "species" of mammal.".
Well, can Borneo and Sumatra Orangutans interbreed?
^ They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Well, then according to my definition they are members of the same species.
nah nah nah Mills ...
"Can" interbreed and "Do" interbreed are very significant distinctions.
Hell, scientists "can" breed all different types of mammal species and produce living offspring. But those different species do not interbreed on their own.
Put a male tiger in a cage with a female lion and not much is going to happen.
Leave a few white girls around a handful of brothers for more than 5 minutes and ... watch out.
Can we go back to how this whole thing started? Mills suggested that the results of this study will change racial politics.
I say no.
Folks have "proven" that people are equal/inferior for a long time. The "definitive" results of this study will be a political football for people to reinforce whatever they believe in the first place.
If all folks are proven equal, does that mean that Ivy League racists throw in the towel and redneck racists hang up their sheets? I don't think so.
If black folks are proven superior, does that mean that white people will sudden turn over all positions of authority to their better genetically equipped black brothers and sisters? Probably not.
If white folks are proven they are the top of the genetic heap, does that mean that people want Joe Biden to be president? That Oprah should turn over her airtime to Phil Donahue?
Anyone with with kids knows the whole nature/nuture arguement is pretty much impossible to prove definitively. Race, economics, birth order, height and weight...how do you separate these things out?
"Leave a few white girls around a handful of brothers for more than 5 minutes and ... watch out."
Watch out is right!
I really appreciated that discussion Gray and Fisher.
It was dense at times, but still quite interesting.
And, it validated my earlier comments about Fisher's basic point.
Y'all cats are always interesting.
That Dude
Way to break it down homie.
Mill is either being incredibly naive, or he's lying, if he thinks they whole enterprise of mapping the genome is just the objective pursuit of information.
So, which one is it?
Superhead said...
"Leave a few white girls around a handful of brothers for more than 5 minutes and ... watch out. Watch out is right!"
That's good stuff Byrdeye.
Back at you, Big Man. There's no way I would have jumped into the fray here until I read your calm analysis of this whole debate.
I'm not scared of any HONEST scientific inquiry. And what they are talking about in that article sounds interesting. But Mill's comments indicate a presumption of the results that I don't understand.
Now that we got the silly "biological race" notion out of the way, let's consider the matter of race and IQ.
Since "race" is a social construct and if it is correct that IQ measured as a function of "race" has yielded the result that "blacks" are at the bottom, "whites" are in the middle and "Asians" are on top, what is (are) the logical conclusion(s) to be drawn from that?
Well, then according to my definition they are members of the same species.
Once again, Fish, your definition of “species” is irrelevant to the real world of human knowledge.
The Bornean orangutan and the Sumatran orangutan were considered members of the same species (because they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring). But since the late 1990s, after studying the mitochondrial DNA of those animals, biologists now classify the Bornean orangutan and the Sumatran orangutan as two... separate... species!
You might wonder: Who gives a fuck? Why is Mills going on about orangutans? It’s to make a point about the essential scientific value of mapping genomes.
Because the word “species” has only one purpose: to characterize the condition of sameness and differentness among various living organisms.
What makes a tiger a tiger? What makes a lion not a tiger?
Ultimately this is an arbitrary distinction, because the Fisher Doctrine says all tigers and all lions are genetically unique individuals, and that’s the only thing that matters.
But the very mission of evolutionary biology (i.e., the study of the history of living things) is to understand the process of genetic variation over time.
The way modern science has chosen to do this is to lump all living things into groups. To classify them. To construct categories called “species,” “genus,” “family,” “order,” “class,” etc.
The only meaning of this classification system is to understand how DNA has changed over time.
Before technology allowed for the mapping of genomes, biologists went by guesswork... based, for example, on whether two animals could mate and produce fertile offspring. But all that “fertile offspring” business, so important to the Fisher Doctrine, was a crude, indirect method of measuring genetic differentiation.
Now, they can study the DNA itself... so fuck crude and indirect. You follow me?
Biologists now say the Bornean orangutan and the Sumatran orangutan are two separate species. Might seem arbitrary to you, Michael... but it’s the best human beings can do with the brains we got.
All human beings belong to the same species, yes. But all human beings also belong to the family Hominidae... which is a way of saying that we share common ancestors (as manifest in our DNA) with chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.
Taking it deeper: Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans belong to the order Primates... which is a way of saying that we all share common ancestors (as manifest in our DNA) with monkeys and lemurs as well.
All of which belong to the order Mammalia... which is a way of saying that we share common ancestors (as manifest in our DNA) with rats, bats, dogs, cats, whales, and many many more.
The reduction-to-absurdity of your argument about the common ancestry of all human subgroups, Mike, is that “species” is an arbitrary line of demarcation chosen by you. All it denotes is a point in time.
Humans and monkeys and grizzly bears share common ancestors... so why draw any distinctions between them at all? Why not consider all of them the same thing? We’re all animals.
Here’s why: Because in order to make sense of the natural world, it is useful to describe how things are different.
Genetically speaking, it makes sense to study how an Icelander and an Australian Aborigine are “different”... just as it makes sense to study how a human being and a grizzly bear are “different.” If you think one such area of study is arbitrary and objectionable... you must argue that all such areas of study are arbitrary and objectionable.
Or else you have to “construct” a bullshit rationale for why science must stop studying the differences between animals once we get to the “species” level.
Mills...
"The Bornean orangutan and the Sumatran orangutan were considered members of the same species....".
Yeah, and "blacks" and "whites" were once considered separate species.
So? You repeat any ole babble a zoologist puts forth?
Mills. Unless you can come up with an OBJECTIVE biological marker, ANY biological marker that separates one supposed HUMAN (and NOT ORANGUTAN) race from another, all you are doing is jammering.
Your arguments have proven to be bankrupt. You are so damn bankrupt you can't even answer the simplest question:
Do ALL members of your 'European biological race' NOT have black hair and brown eyes?
I'm not scared of any HONEST scientific inquiry.
Nice to hear from you on this, that dude.
Is there anything inherently DISHONEST about studying the genetic differences between a group of Yoruba in Nigera, a group of Japanese in Tokyo, and a group of white folks in Utah?
Fisher and Nulan argue that the entire premise is objectionable. Do you think it is?
Mills...
"Genetically speaking, it makes sense to study how an Icelander and an Australian Aborigine are “different”... just as it makes sense to study how a human being and a grizzly bear are “different.” If you think one such area of study is arbitrary and objectionable... you must argue that all such areas of study are arbitrary and objectionable.".
Mills. You are just being plain stupid and frothing about the mouth now. Where have I ever objected to the study of anyone's DNA?
Mills...
"Is there anything inherently DISHONEST about studying the genetic differences between a group of Yoruba in Nigera, a group of Japanese in Tokyo, and a group of white folks in Utah?".
It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to study the genetic differences between "a group of X persons" and "a group of Y persons" you damn fool. You can only study the genetic differences between INDIVIDUALS.
It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to study the genetic differences between "a group of X persons" and "a group of Y persons" you damn fool. You can only study the genetic differences between INDIVIDUALS.
Is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to study the genetic differences between Persian cats as a group and Siamese cats as a group?
Or is it only possible to study the genetic differences between INDIVIDUAL cats?
Mills...
"Is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to study the genetic differences between Persian cats as a group and Siamese cats as a group?.
Yes, Mills. It is impossible.
One ALWAYS has to study one individual at the time. Then one groups these individuals into groups X and Y etc., in accordance with some criterion or criteria, and then makes a comparative analysis of the different groupings X and Y. However, unless you have an objective biological criterion present in ALL members of group X that is NOT present to ALL members of the other group Y, any such criterion or criteria is/are subjective socially-derived criteria.
Ok, instead of "races," how about we just numerically define everyone relative to ourselves by genetic deviation?
For example, maybe Mike has 14350 genes different from me, whereas my brother has 2905 genes different.
^ That would be BOTH a subjective AND objective measure.
Fisher: Allow me to quote Dr. Joseph Terwilliger, the geneticist whom Nulan cited to support Nulan’s case that the 1000 Genomes Project is “bad science.” Terwilliger writes:
“I think the real scientific racism... is when scientists try and avoid any discussion of the real genetic variation that makes the world interesting, and which makes us all so different. ...
“Scientists should be involved in the search for truth, not wishing it met some utopian ideal. And so many are afraid of funding problems that they say what they think people want to hear instead of truth.”
Dr. Terwilliger concluded:
“I was at a conference where a medical ethicist said it was unethical to tell physicians certain diseases are more common in certain populations, because the population might be stigmatized. It is insane.
“Testing a Chinese guy for sickle cell is silly, and screening for Tay Sachs in Jews makes sense. But politics and science need to coexist, with scientists reporting the facts as they are and staying out of the politics of it.”
I agree with every word Dr. Terwilliger wrote.
You, Fisher, are a political hustler trying to interfere with the scientific quest for truth. Nulan too.
Mills, sickle cell is a defense mechanism against malaria. It tends to occur where malaria is entrenched. Is testing a Chinese guy who comes from such a region silly?
As to political hustlerism.
Your whole biological race worldview is based on your documented attempt to justify the exploitation of non-whites and their natural resources by the "superior" European civilization in the name of "realism".
Take away your bullshit "biological race" rationale and your whole racist apologist structure falls apart. Thus your foaming at the mouth.
But Mill's comments indicate a presumption of the results that I don't understand.
that dude: The only thing I "presume" is that the 1000 Genomes Project will find genetic differences between human subgroups that developed in geographical isolation for thousands of years (or tens of thousands).
What will those differences be? Who knows? Are Northern Europeans more prone to alcoholism than other human subgroups, due to genetics? Are Bantu-speaking Africans more disease-resistant than East Asians?
Set aside the question of whether "intelligence" will prove to be linked to DNA. The essential purpose of the 1000 Genomes Project -- to focus on the genetic variations between Yoruba and Japanese and Northern Europeans and Gujarati people from India -- has the potential to change politics by shattering the premise of racial egalitarianism... i.e., that there are no significant genetic differences between whites, blacks, Chinese, Eskimos, mestizos, pygmies, Australian Aborigines, etc.
Of course the science is bound up with politics. (Who decides what's a significant genetic difference and an insignificant genetic difference?) But just because the politics is real, that doesn't mean the science is not real.
Bro. Mills:
Men and women have signficiant genetic differences. funbags, for one. The nappy dugout, for another.
Doesn't change fact that just had an entirely credible female candidate for President in last election.
^ Sure you're right. But a questing intelligence, I think, will always wanna know as much as is knownable about the nature of living organisms.
Fish has been displaying such scientific ignorance in these threads... even a contempt for science. (He has his own private definition of "species," for one thing.)
Dudes like Fish can look up into the night sky and say, "Damn, that's a shitload of stars up there." But if they wanna know which star is which, they must consult the work of scientists who have studied stars.
Likewise, one can be satisfied to say, "Damn, we got a shitload of genes in our DNA." But if you wanna understand things any deeper than that... you must respect those of questing intelligence who study genes.
Gentlemen,
I don't want to get in the middle of this battle of Giants, but are you guys saying that we shouldn't look at the science, because science is flawed?
Sure some science is and can be flawed, but
not all science is bullshit.
In fact my uncle is a real fuckin' scientist and he has put together, along with other scientist, some of the most remarkable sh*t that helps everybody.
Also, in my life science has kept my kid alive. 40 years ago they didn't even know how to fix the congenital condition he has. If we had ignored the science I would be talking to a gravestone.
Why should we be so opposed to it, because we think that "they" will skew the info. We need to welcome it and participate. If it is bullshit we can debate it when it is done.
And this is coming from someone who teaches the "SC" theory. Who believes in God and who has funbags!
Mills...
"Fish has been displaying such scientific ignorance in these threads... even a contempt for science... Dudes like Fish can look up into the night sky and say, "Damn, that's a shitload of stars up there." ".
Now that's ironic.
Mills, I've been studying quantum physics as well as cosmology since I was a sophomore in High School and independently figured out what I later found out were tachyons when I was 15.
I ain't got contempt for science, I've got contempt for willful sloppy thinking. You may be a good or maybe even a great screen writer, but you are dismal when it comes to basic logical thinking. The very prerequisite for scientific inquiry.
Not everything that claims to be science is science. It doesn't matter how many PhDs the so-called scientist has.
Now, no one, particularly moi, has ever objected to the study of human genomes. It just can't be done on the basis of some pre- or postdefined "race". It is scientifically impossible.
Now I challenge you once more to come up with any objective biological maker or markers, genetic or otherwise biological, which separate one group of humans from another into "races" without any such member of a "race" not being able to be categorized as a member of another "race" using different and thus equally valid genetic or otherwise biological markers.
Fact is, I suggest you issue that challenge to your favorite geneticists and zoologists as well. Maybe those heroes of you can help you out, being so scientific and all.
Mills. What is the square root of -1?
Post a Comment