Poetsheart, “whiteness” is most definitely a construct, given its nebulous borders – which result in the classification of Sicilians and Greeks and Portuguese and Armenians and both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as “white,” and Iranians as “people of color,” and Arabs as either white or people of color (depending on whether you look at their census classification or what they are in both popular belief and the self-identification of many), even though many of the former are not only darker-skinned than many of the latter, but are darker-skinned than many African-Americans.
I think that the idea that the British people didn’t used to consider the Irish to be white is largely a historical myth based on a misunderstanding of how the popular meaning of the word “race” has changed over the centuries. When the British used to talk about the “Irish race” in the 1700s and 1800s, they were contrasting that “race” with the British or Anglo-Saxon race, not the “white” race. Back then, “race” was used as much in reference to perceived innate national characteristics, as it was used in reference to skin color or pseudo-scientific theories of the “five races of man,” etc. (according to which the Irish were of course considered part of the “white” or so-called Caucasian race). Accordingly, one sees many discussions back then of the characteristics of the French race (deceitful), the Spanish race (hot-blooded and cruel), and the different supposed varieties of the German race – Prussian (warlike), Bavarian (sentimental), etc.
To Earl van Dorn: it depends on what you mean by “race,” doesn’t it? Of course there are certain genetic differences (in appearance, etc.) that correlate roughly to different geographic regions, but all of them are on a spectrum in which one “race” shades into another (just as languages do). Therefore, the lines or divisions between them are entirely arbitrary – i.e., socially constructed. In kind of the same way (to pursue the linguistic analogy, and very roughly speaking) that Spanish shaded into Galician which then shaded into Portuguese in one direction, while in another direction Spanish shaded into Catalonian and then into Occitan and then into French.
And I’m sure you must know that there’s more genetic diversity among the different Sub-Saharan African peoples than there is in the rest of the peoples of the world put together.
Presentface, since you’re so confident in your assertions, I hope you know that “Oriental” is considered a slur. This isn’t the 1930s, and Hollywood isn’t making Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto or Fu Manchu movies anymore. If you mean “East Asians” (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans) or “Southeast Asians,” or something else, just say so.
My answer is that it doesn’t matter as to what we think his Peruvian mum makes him or what ‘hispanic’ has been steeped in: what’s good enough for government work (when it comes to identity politics) should be good enough for us both.
The fact that Zimmerman can simultaneously be considered a hispanic by the grievance lobby & a tool by the public isn’t a problem to me.
@DonnaL Everything is live is a social construct. Is the little eating utensil you get from Kentucky Fried Chicken a spoon, a fork, or a “spork”? The fact that we may not agree on what it is doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
You are right that languages don’t always have “hard” edges. But that doesn’t mean languages don’t exist. The same is true for race. The fact is that Asians and Caucasians left Africa about 40,000 years or 1,500 generations ago, and the three major races had virtually no genetic intermingling during this time. This is more than enough time to develop some very real racial differences. Understand that the differences are very real; they are scientific.
I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about genetic variation within Africa, but of course you are correct that there is quite a bit, perhaps the most extreme example being various groups of pygmies. We these pygmies a bit greater in number and more active on the world scene I have little doubt they would be thought of as separate races.
I’m sorry, but my brain may be operating @ half speed tonight, thereby causing an inability to comprehend just what that sentence is supposed to mean. Please, as a favor to my failing comprehension, elaborate/restate/ breakdown what it is you’re saying. :-/
As an aside, I’d like to register the belief that it really doesn’t matter much what socially constructed “race” GZ is said to occupy. My problem with him resides entirely in the racist assumptions I think he operated upon when he decided TM was a “suspicious character” whom he needed to follow that night. Those assumptions are not limited to white people, but are unfortunately endemic in Americans who span the racial spectrum. Some of the most racist people I’ve ever met are blacks who have so internalized the racist messages about their own people they’ve received since earliest childhood, that they hate the very visage they see in the mirror every morning. These are among the most tortured and unfortunate of people. It’s quite a sad thing to witness.
After a full day unloading a rental truck, in the rain, I should have been in bed, but… that was terse, wasn’t it? Even for me, who knew what I meant.
Zimmerman being a tool isn’t the murky part - I’ve said as much - but the ‘grievance lobby’ bit is confusing. I should have included hispanic with it.
Is there a crucial distinction I’m missing? That ‘race’, as it’s commonly used, isn’t a stand-in for ‘ethnicity’? That defining black as an ethnic group instead of a race, negates GZ’s status as one of an ethnic group other than white? That social standing negates it?
If not, the conversations turned nonsensical to me also.
Some people here are just spreading pure, ignorant bunk. The more we learn about human genetics, the more it becomes clear that there is a biological basis for race. Contrary to what some here have said, that is an accepted fact.
Human evolution has proceeded vigorously over the last 30,000 years or so and in doing so, created regional differences which we have only relatively recently begun to mix.
If you can’t be honest with yourselves about this and face facts, you’ll never be part of a workable solution.
This is completely false, and using it as a basis for further arguments devalues further points made from such
How is that relevant to anything I typed? Where did I even suggest superiority in any form? The entire post was an attempt to tear down your closeted generalisations of races based on skin colour and semantics.
Lay off the strawman Poet, it’s doing you no favours
No DonnaL, it’s a commonly used term with little pejorative connotations. I would have just referred to them as “East/West Asians” and such, but poet was already mixing up those terms when comparing South Asians(like Indians) to ethnic Africans on merit of their pigment intensity. It’s hard to pick “politically correct” terms when words that etymologically originated from compass directions are now “racist”.
“Oriental” is not a commonly used term with little pejorative connotations today in the United States. When applied to individuals, it is (in the United States) a slur. If you didn’t know this before, now you do.
More counter-factual nonsense posted by people who are either ignorant or mendacious. Of course “Oriental” is considered a slur by East Asian people in this country when applied to individuals rather than used as a geographical reference opposing it to “Occidental.” Spend 30 seconds on Google if you’re not too lazy. Posting the contrary doesn’t make it so.
Googling “is Oriental a slur” trawled up a slew of naval gazers, all looking for that offensive lint they love to lecture about. Edward Said was mentioned, along with the news that it’s a progressive idea that’s been working it’s way in from the West coast. Sigh.
Does one gain style points by knowing - in advance - what linguistic injustices are soon to be righted?
I’d honestly be intrigued if you could even put factual basis into your assumptions. It’d certainly be interesting if there was some imaginary black and white word taboo booklet you base these “facts” on, because I’d like to see it. I have the right to post the contrary, because the contrary is true. Outside of a certain class of overly sensitive term vigilantes, hardly anyone even raises an eyebrow about it. Definitely not amongst English speakers outside America, and definitely not amongst the numerous Oriental people I have known. Unless of course, you very well believe the States are the center of the Earth, and have linguistic precedence over the rest of the world.
A quick Google search brings up more confused by the uproar over the term than those actually upset by it. Regardless of your passions for feeling offense for terms not even directed at your own ethnicity, I will be using the term in future without issue and I should have no reason to fear doing so.
Next you’ll be telling me that calling someone a “Hebrew” or a “Jewess” isn’t offensive, just because those terms were common in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Times change, and of course you “can” still use such terms if you insist. But others have an equal right to object. What I really don’t understand is why some people go out of their way to insist on using terms that they know might offend people, even if not 100% of people.
Besides, you’re still free to talk about Oriental rugs!