# Using race as a description



## panjabigator

How do you describe people?  Is race ever a factor?  For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned?  Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"  

I normally don't get flustered over being described as someones "Indian friend" just because I know it's harmless and that I'd be a hypocrite for it, but my sister is ever aware of her descriptions; she'd hit the roof I mention the race as a descriptor.  

I'm all over the place tonight...I'd love to read everyone's opinion.


----------



## Hockey13

Good question, unfortunate Gator fan (). To me, it entirely depends on the person to whom I am speaking. If I was with my best friend, I probably wouldn't hestitate to say "That's the guy who stepped on my foot...the black guy in the corner," but I wouldn't be too loud about it just because I know some people are prone to outbursts about comments like that. At other times when I don't really know the person that well, I will say something like, "the guy with the green shirt," but I'll be thinking, "This would be a lot easier if I could describe what race he is." However, I don't think it's typically acceptable in anything less than a very informal setting to use race as a describer just because of the sensitive state of race relations this country always tends to have.

In my other home, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, when I was about 13, a group of kids would always refer to (literally) the only black kid in my small farming town as "Neger" which might be similar to "negro," but not quite "nigger." It was meant by them as a term of...well...I suppose it was endearment because they were friends, but they clearly considered him separate from them. My brother and I were the only ones our age who would always call him by his first name. I also think in general in my small corner of Germany, people are more likely to say something like "that black guy over there" and not feel strangely about it.

Oddly enough, now that I think about it, and I know it sounds ridiculous, I would feel less awkward saying "that Asian person over there" or "that Indian person over there" than saying "that black person over there." Maybe that is telling in itself.


----------



## badgrammar

Well, in the first case, just telling  people I know about someone I met, I don't think I mention race unless there is some particular reason, and it probably is not about skin color, but more about culture.  For example, If I were to meet someone from India or Turkey or Madagascar I would very likely state that, because those who know me know I like those places and it may explain why I have a special attraction to the person.  But that's not really about race, then is it?  It's more about culture/nationality.

In the second case, well, yeah, I have no qualms saying "That black guy over there, in the green t-shirt" or whatever.  I mean, is it wrong that he be black?  Should he be ashamed of it?  Is it some kind of insult?  Absolutely not! No reason to pretend he isn't black and I didn't notice he was black and whoever I'm pointing him out to shouldn't notice he is black when searching for him!  Same if he were Asian or hispanic or Indian.


----------



## Kajjo

I plead we should not try to make race anything special. We should accept it as normal part of us. Depending on the situation it might be something important, in other situations of no interest at all.

Of couse race is an important factor when describing people in situations like identification or relation -- like which language he speaks, which occupation he has, how someone styles his hair, what clothes he wears, which body modifications he prefers and so on. Depending on a particular situation different aspects come into focus: that is completely automatical, normal and human. 

Naturally, on an international scientific conference you are more likely to say "The guy who presented the work an imidazole degredation" rather than "The Indian guy with long hair." -- because the former is more relevant, more specific, more indentifying. However, if someone unknown steps on your foot and he is the only one with a big nose ring you will surely point to him and say: "That one, with the big nose ring!". If it were the only Indian guy you would surely say "That one, the Indian!" -- just pointing out to the property which is best identifying.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

I believe the tone of such a description should also be taken into consideration. 
I have two fellow students, who are from South Korea, and they're brother and sister. When we're speaking about them in their absense, we usually refer to them as "the Koreans" or "our Koreans". It's pretty normal. 
If I were, say, in Japan and someone referred to me as "the white girl", I wouldn't get offended. There isn't anything really special about our race unless we're trying to make it special.


----------



## Brioche

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people?  Is race ever a factor?  For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned?  Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"
> 
> I normally don't get flustered over being described as someones "Indian friend" just because I know it's harmless and that I'd be a hypocrite for it, but my sister is ever aware of her descriptions; she'd hit the roof I mention the race as a descriptor.
> 
> I'm all over the place tonight...I'd love to read everyone's opinion.



I have no trouble using so-called race to describe a person. It doesn't worry me to say "Gopi is Indian" or "Nguyen is Vietnamese" or "Bruce is Maori" or  "Maxiogee is Irish" or "Sandor is Hungarian".


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people? Is race ever a factor? For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned? Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"
> 
> .


 
That might depend on how distinguishing saying "in the green shirt" might be. At an Irish rugby match, with most of the crowd wearing replica jerseys, I probably wouldn't use it 

I think I'd go for the single most distinguishing feature of the person. If that happened to be sex, race or colour then I think I'd use it. No-one would fault me for saying, of one woman in a crowd of men, "that woman over there" - so why should they fault me for saying of one black face in a sea of white ones, "the black person", or "that Chinese man"?


----------



## TRG

Society as a whole, at least in the U.S., has developed a hypersensitivity about race. We are supposed to be "color blind" in our attitudes and the way we treat people, which is a good thing, but some carry this a bit far in expecting people to be literally color blind so as never to utter or note anything about a person's race. Being aware that someone has external features that associate them with a racial group does not make you a racist. Some have argued that there is no such thing as race. I think they are simply in denial and hope to end racism by forbidding anyone to ever mention it. This is not truth. It's ok to describe someone has have physical characterists that are usually associated with some racial group.


----------



## Outsider

Most of the "races" mentioned in this thread are nationalities, geographical names, or other ethnic terms. "Black" seems to be the only exception. 

If I wanted to describe a black friend I had, I'd probably use his nationality or a geographical term like "African". In most cases, that would make his race clear. 

And, anyway, why even mention race? I honestly can't think of any situation where I would feel that it was expected of me to state the race of a friend of mine. Maybe if it were a girlfriend... I wonder how my parents would react to that, lol. I guess I'd try to ease them into it with more neutral terms like "African", or (say) "Angolan". Or, who knows, shock treatment might be the best solution: just bring her home, and present her "Mom, dad, this is my girlfriend".  

When I was a kid, I remember a few children who were sometimes called "black", but they weren't actually black; just a little darker than usual. I was called "whitey" a few times (I'm a bit pale for a Portuguese). It was just a physical descriptor, there was no malice in the term, but it still upset me, because it meant I was different.


----------



## jinti

I think it depends on the relevance of the person's race.

For instance, my grandfather used to tell many stories about his life.  A good number started with something like "There was a black fellow who worked at our company....", and then the rest of the story would have nothing to do with the fact that he was black.  You'd keep waiting for the connection, but it would never come.  In that case, I can't see the point of mentioning someone's race.

But if you're trying to point someone out and distinguish him/her, then you pick the most salient distinguishing features.  In some cases, that's race.  In others, it's not.


----------



## TRG

What about dogs and cats? If you pet is lost and someone asks you what it looks like, you are going to say "it's a Dachsund" or "it's a Siamese", or "it's a mutt". Why is it ok to refer to other animals of the same species by their breed, but not for people? I don't even know if a breed of dog is the same as race in humans, but it seems so to me. They are all of the same species. The big difference is that your St. Bernard is not going to be insulted if you refer to him as a Dachsund.


----------



## faranji

Aren't those who bend over backwards not to mention someone's race when describing him/her actually giving that person's race an awful lot of significance? Would they be so squeamish to describe someone as 'blond'? To me they're racists.


----------



## Poetic Device

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people? Is race ever a factor? For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned? Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"
> 
> I normally don't get flustered over being described as someones "Indian friend" just because I know it's harmless and that I'd be a hypocrite for it, but my sister is ever aware of her descriptions; she'd hit the roof I mention the race as a descriptor.
> 
> I'm all over the place tonight...I'd love to read everyone's opinion.


 
I would have to take into consideration the place, who people were and what everyone was wearing.  If I can avoid it I will not use race.  That is my last resource.

Personally, if someone described me as the short, pregnant Jewish girl I don't think I would be too mad.  It all depends on the person.


----------



## vachecow

Poetic Device said:


> I would have to take into consideration the place, who people were and what everyone was wearing.  If I can avoid it I will not use race.  That is my last resource.



I agree with you on that one.  I usually describe people by their hair. "No, she/he is the one with the long/short black/brown/blond/etc hair."  
No one is offended by that.


----------



## CrazyArcher

I don't think there's anything offending in mentioning peoples' race... It's a personal feature, after all, and a major one. If two people speak about another person from abroad they know briefly (an exchange student or whomever), there's nothing wrong with referring to him as "the Chinese guy" if they don't remember his name. It's not that they mean any disrespect towards the person, it's just his nationality that makes him stand out in a certain group.


----------



## Hockey13

faranji said:


> Aren't those who bend over backwards not to mention someone's race when describing him/her actually giving that person's race an awful lot of significance? Would they be so squeamish to describe someone as 'blond'? To me they're racists.


 
That depends on your definition of a racist, my blunt friend. If you haven't lived in the United States, I can imagine that it would be difficult to understand what I mean when I say that I wouldn't rush into saying "over there, the black guy" to a black person. Yes I am giving race some significance, but that is because I know that if I don't in this circumstance, it is often very likely to bite me in the ass.


----------



## faranji

I'm sorry for my bluntness, Hockey. Please accept my apologies if I offended you.


----------



## Bienvenidos

I think it's a problem when you identify a Vietnamese person as Chinese or a Korean person as Japanese. It's an error to call a person from Afghanistan or Pakistan Middle Eastern or Arab, because those two countries are not in the Middle East or Arab; Iran isn't Arab or Middle Eastern either. And although Indians and Pakistanis and Brazilians and the Portuguese are great people, it bothers me when I'm called, "Brazilian" "Portuguese" "Indian" or "Pakistani" when I'm not. Of course, it is not the speaker's fault; it is sometimes difficult to recognize a person's nationality. But, in my opinion, it's disrespectful to just "pick and choose" a race. 

Then again, I get uncomfortable when people avoid using or speaking about my race when I'm the only non-"white" person in the room....my natural skin color is tan (I have a great skin color, thank you God for blessing me with it...never have to bake in the sun! I've already got it goin' for me!  so sometimes people have a real hard time figuring out where I'm from. But I love to tell people I'm from Afghanistan, but it bothers me when they try to brush it off in the name of "equality." 

On the third hand, if there is a black and white person in a room, I don't think it racist to recognize them by race. This is simply description, not racism. The person should be confident and proud of his/her skin color and ethnicity, so that shouldn't bother them.

This is a really hot-button issue; it's all about situations, that's my final conclusion.


----------



## faranji

_[Using race as a description] is, of course, a politically sensitive matter, a point I heard being amusingly lampooned by a West African medical researcher at a gathering of about 20 scientists. At the beginning of the conference, the chairman asked each of us around the table to introduce ourselves. The African, who was the only black person there --and he really was black, unlike many 'African-Americans'-- happened to be wearing a red tie. He finished his self-introduction by laughingly saying, 'You can easily remember me. I am the one with the red tie.'_

R. Dawkins - The Ancestor's Tale


----------



## badgrammar

Funny, I was thinking, and my mi amigo danieldelfranco perhaps will step up and give his opinion on the subject... as a texas girl, I still, to this day, feel like it mght just be taken wrong if I say "Mexican"..; it's so silly, really, because it is certainly not bad to be Mexican. Yet, I would hesitate, and probably come out with "hispanic" or "latino", if it were really just about pointing someone out in a crowd.  If it were a friend, I wouldn't hesitate to say Mexican, but what a shame that the nationality be construed somehow as an insult.  I bet Mexicans don't think of being described as "Mexicans" as an insult, but white Texans, whether they want to or not, are very aware of the meaning(s) behind the word.  

Weird how a nationality can become synonomous with some sort of racial slur.  Even as I am aware of it, I don't know if tomorrow I would feel any less akward saying "The Mexican, over there".

Just read Bien's post - maybe it is true that we USA'ers use Mexican to describe anyone that looks hispanic, and often in a less-than-favorable light...  And we are wrong.  But hell, mexico is a cool place to be from, it shouldn't be an insult to call someone "Mexican".  So why does it feel so strange?


----------



## vachecow

badgrammar said:


> Just read Bien's post - maybe it is true that we USA'ers use Mexican to describe anyone that looks hispanic



That is a problem....it is a bit embarassing to say this, but growing up I thought anyone that spoke Spanish (all Mexicans/South Americans) were Spanish.  Luckily I have come a long way since then...


----------



## JazzByChas

I would first like to say that I celebrate different races and cultures...the world would be boring if we all looked and acted the same.

And, in describing someone, I would probably say s/he has dark chocolate brown skin, piercing dark brown/black eyes, and then describe other physical characteristics. Even within a race, no two people look exactly alike, so _per se_, I would not always describe someone as African, or Arab, or European, or Asian...unless I was referring to their culture.

These days, with the world being a global community, there are people from all different cultural backgrounds all over the place, so cultures (happily) are becoming intermingled. So to say that you are Persian or French would not always be culturally correct. And ethnicities are becoming more and more intermingled, so that is becoming a less and less precise description of people.


----------



## Brioche

Hockey13 said:


> That depends on your definition of a racist, my blunt friend. If you haven't lived in the United States, I can imagine that it would be difficult to understand what I mean when I say that I wouldn't rush into saying "over there, the black guy" to a black person. Yes I am giving race some significance, but that is because I know that if I don't in this circumstance, it is often very likely to bite me in the ass.


 
As I understand it, in the US, a white person is _by definition_ a racist.  It's a racial characteristic of whites.


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people?  Is race ever a factor?  For example, if you make a friend *and decide to tell your other friends and family about them*, is race a topic that need be mentioned?  Or if you are *pointing out an individual in a crowd*, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"
> 
> .





Bienvenidos said:


> I think it's a problem when you identify a Vietnamese person as Chinese or a Korean person as Japanese. It's an error to call a person from Afghanistan or Pakistan Middle Eastern or Arab, because those two countries are not in the Middle East or Arab; Iran isn't Arab or Middle Eastern either. And although Indians and Pakistanis and Brazilians and the Portuguese are great people, it bothers me when I'm called, "Brazilian" "Portuguese" "Indian" or "Pakistani" when I'm not. Of course, it is not the speaker's fault; it is sometimes difficult to recognize a person's nationality. But, in my opinion, it's disrespectful to just "pick and choose" a race.
> 
> .



A) The question mentions describing your new friend to another. It presumes that this friend is not present at the time. The other part of the question mentions pointing out someone in a crowd. It presumes that the person cannot hear you, as they are described as "over there".

B) I presume that the friend has already told you what their country of origin is. The other person, the one being pointed out, will not know (and will probably never know) what nationality you have foisted on them.

C) I still have occasional problems in telling male from female. Thwere was a family at a table beside us in a restaurant recently and my wife spoke of the 'brother and sister' who were assisting a third sibling - one in a wheelchair - and I said I thought that all the children were female. I still don't know for certain if I was right or wrong. This person's hairstyle and facial features were very feminine/asexual.


----------



## Sepia

Brioche said:


> I have no trouble using so-called race to describe a person. It doesn't worry me to say "Gopi is Indian" or "Nguyen is Vietnamese" or "Bruce is Maori" or "Maxiogee is Irish" or "Sandor is Hungarian".



But that is a totally different story, I'd say. Those are nationalities. Nationalities are a very strong indicator of what culture a person is from or of which language he is native. Race isn't. 

Race is saying that Maxiogee is white or Jean is black. A white person may just as well be a Russian speaking guy from Estonia and not even the name Jean (in writing) tells us if it is a female person from an anglophone area or a male from francophone area. Which leaves a good deal of North America, Africa and even a few corners of South America open for probable guesses ...


----------



## jonquiliser

I think this is such a difficult question - particularly because I am of so-called white skin colour, and I don't think I can fully appreciate what it must been to always stand out as a "racialised" person. Because that is often what it is about - whether to talk about non-white people in terms of their race. There doesn't see to be the question about the white colour; it is as if it were transparent, or invisible. "People of colour" are of a race, "white people are just people". I'm not saying everyone thinks so, but there seems often to be that unreflected thought behind all. So I don't really know if I can answer the question whether it is ok to use race as a description... 

But obviously, and as I think many have pointed out, it depends on the context. It is sometimes precisely 'race' that is central (as when talking about racism) and then it seems normal to talk about someone's "race" - as long as one is clear about the complexity and scope of the concept (and doesn't use it as a form of racialising _some_ people). As one example, there are many, of course.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:
It depends... I don't see why is wrong to point someone in a crowd and say "Do you see that Chinese man over there? If he is the only with Eastern features in the middle of a black crowd, it would be the easiest way to point him out. Not neccessarily an insult, even if he turns out to be Japanese. 
But in describing a friend, I would not use race. I would say "he's Korean", "he's British" or whatever. 
My youngest niece is Chinese. When she comes home she usually shouts "hey auntie, the Chinese Spaniard has arrived, are my pancakes ready?
Alexa


----------



## Poetic Device

So, instead of saying Chineese or what have you can't you say something like Asain.  You know?  something that is "polotically correct" that would describe the person best?  Sort of like a politician's answer for race/nationality?


----------



## badgrammar

Well, I don't knkow, we can turn the question around...  I had a black boyfriend once, and you can be sure that when we went to all-black functions, I was called "the white girl".  
When a white person goes to majority non-white countries, they will most certainly be called "the white girl/guy" or the stranger, or the foreigner, or whatever other term.  If you're in India, Africa, or Asian countries, you are certainly the odd man out, and in that case, your white skin color is very much visible, not transparent at all.  
At a crowded marketplace in Kenya and saying "The black guy over there",  is not helpful as a description.  Likewise, at the marketplace in Helsinki, "the white guy over there" won't clue people in either.  

I guess as physical descriptors, we identify people by what makes them different, so we can distinguish them from others.  Just like we point out the color of the sweater they're wearing, or that they're wearing a hat, etc. 



jonquiliser said:


> I think this is such a difficult question - particularly because I am of so-called white skin colour, and I don't think I can fully appreciate what it must been to always stand out as a "racialised" person. Because that is often what it is about - whether to talk about non-white people in terms of their race. There doesn't see to be the question about the white colour; it is as if it were transparent, or invisible. "People of colour" are of a race, "white people are just people". I'm not saying everyone thinks so, but there seems often to be that unreflected thought behind all. So I don't really know if I can answer the question whether it is ok to use race as a description...
> 
> But obviously, and as I think many have pointed out, it depends on the context. It is sometimes precisely 'race' that is central (as when talking about racism) and then it seems normal to talk about someone's "race" - as long as one is clear about the complexity and scope of the concept (and doesn't use it as a form of racialising _some_ people). As one example, there are many, of course.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> So, instead of saying Chineese or what have you can't you say something like Asain.


Maybe because the Chinese man is not the only Asian 'over there'? 




Poetic Device said:


> You know?  something that is "polotically correct" that would describe the person best?


Unless I'm very much mistaken, Chinese describes a Chinese person 'better' than Asian does!


----------



## JazzByChas

I would have to agree here..."Asian" describes a vast amount of people, from China to the Middle Easterners.
(so much for political 'kerrektitude'  )



			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> Unless I'm very much mistaken, Chinese describes a Chinese person 'better' than Asian does!


----------



## jonquiliser

badgrammar said:


> Well, I don't knkow, we can turn the question around...  I had a black boyfriend once, and you can be sure that when we went to all-black functions, I was called "the white girl".
> When a white person goes to majority non-white countries, they will most certainly be called "the white girl/guy" or the stranger, or the foreigner, or whatever other term.  If you're in India, Africa, or Asian countries, you are certainly the odd man out, and in that case, your white skin color is very much visible, not transparent at all.
> At a crowded marketplace in Kenya and saying "The black guy over there",  is not helpful as a description.  Likewise, at the marketplace in Helsinki, "the white guy over there" won't clue people in either.
> 
> I guess as physical descriptors, we identify people by what makes them different, so we can distinguish them from others.  Just like we point out the color of the sweater they're wearing, or that they're wearing a hat, etc.



Good points, I guess in some circumstances it works a little the other way around. But isn't it, even in those, that "white" represents something different than "coloured" (of some non-white skin colour, that is)? What I mean is, white is often associated with wealth, power, education etc (in popular culture like movies etc this is exploited to the maximum, the good guys are white and the baddies black, or Asian... sometimes, there's a medium good black guy just to avoid racism, even if the rest of the movie may stink of racism...  ). LIke, I guess what I am trying to say, it isn't always a symmetrical thing that white people and black or Asian, for example, face the same situation even if it might look similar.. Though somtimes it is, of course.. Make any sense? 

Regards,


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> Unless I'm very much mistaken, Chinese describes a Chinese person 'better' than Asian does!



In North America, "Asian" has in recent years become the officially favored (some would say PC) term for -- to put it as precisely as possible -- Chinese people and other persons whom a clueless Westerner might mistake for Chinese based on their appearance. It's never used for any other people originating from Asia (e.g. Russians coming from East of the Urals or people from the Indian subcontinent). However nonsensical this usage might be, it has become firmly entrenched in both formal and informal contexts. From what I've read, it's very different from the usual meaning of the term "Asian" in the UK (and, I guess, Ireland).


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> It's never used for any other people originating from Asia (e.g. Russians coming from East of the Urals or people from the Indian subcontinent).



Mistaking an Indian for a Pakistani (and vice versa) is more likely to cause serious offence than calling a Korean a Chinese, I would imagine.
What do people do when someone is 'obviously' either Indian or Pakistani?


----------



## lizzeymac

Athaulf said:


> In North America, "Asian" has in recent years become the officially favored (some would say PC) term for -- to put it as precisely as possible -- Chinese people and other persons whom a clueless Westerner might mistake for Chinese based on their appearance. It's never used for any other people originating from Asia (e.g. Russians coming from East of the Urals or people from the Indian subcontinent). However nonsensical this usage might be, it has become firmly entrenched in both formal and informal contexts. From what I've read, it's very different from the usual meaning of the term "Asian" in the UK (and, I guess, Ireland).



That may be true in Canada but in the US (also part of North America ;-) the term Southeast Asian is finally becoming pretty common on newscasts & government statements, in an effort (late but a start) to be more accurate.  Of course, that still is referring to a huge area of the globe & many different cultures by one clunky term, but it's slightly better than just using "Asian."   As Maxiogee mentioned, the Indian/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Tibet issue is most likely to cause problems here.  I think when referring to the regions east of Russia the name of the country is used most often- probably because it seems safest here in PC-land.
-


----------



## caballoschica

On Asia and when you say Asian....Remember you're including South East Asia in there, too.  South East Asians consider themselves Asian.  I know a Sri Lankan who took offense when someone said something about Asians, without meaning to consider Sri Lanka as Asian.  

I don't like to say Chinese or Japanese unless I know for certain.  It offends them if you call them the other... Trust me, I did it in elementary school, and haven't since.  I refer to them as Asian if I'm unsure.  Koreans don't really take offense.  But you can usually tell them apart from Chinese and Japanese.  

As for Mexican, Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino: I use Hispanic or Latino/a.  If I know with certainty they're from Latin America or have Latin American origins, I'll refer to them as Latino/a.  IF I happen to know with absolute certainty they're from Spain or Mexico, I will honor that.


----------



## vachecow

caballoschica said:


> Koreans don't really take offense.



That may be true in general, but I would be careful.  I have a Korean friend who does get upset about that sort of thing.


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> Mistaking an Indian for a Pakistani (and vice versa) is more likely to cause serious offence than calling a Korean a Chinese, I would imagine.
> What do people do when someone is 'obviously' either Indian or Pakistani?


 
The countries which at one time formed British India can be collectively described as "South Asia", and a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan can be called a "South Asian".

In the UK "Asian" it means "South Asian". In Australia, it means _East _and _South-East Asian_.

Australians don't think of Indians as Asians, and shops catering for Indians, or selling Indian products, don't call themselves Asian.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello again:
This was the original question:


> For example, if you make a friend *and decide to tell your other friends and family about them*, is race a topic that need be mentioned? Or if you are *pointing out an individual in a crowd*, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"


If you want to point out an individual in a crowd, you will mention his outstanding features. If he is a white man in the middle of a black crowd, you will say "that white man over there", (and vice-versa) simply because
it is the easiest way to point him out, not because you are a racist. It would be the same thing if a fan of the Real Madrid football team waves the white colours in the middle of a crowd of fans of the Deportivo football club waving the blue colours. The easiest way to point him out is saying: "the man waving the Real Madrid flag". 
But if you are talking about a _friend,_ you know perfectly well where he comes from, so describing him to your family as "Asian" instead of "Chinese" would be stupid. 
Alexa


----------



## John-Paul

1. There is only one human race - suggesting there is more than one race is, well, racism. Can you tell what my "race" is? 

2. There's only one reason why we use skin color or the shape of someone eyes to describe a person: laziness.

3. There's no correlation between skincolor and bigotry.

4. As long as we teach our children to designate a person "black", "asian", "white" or whatever we encourage racism and discrimination. Remember that speech about the dream, about being judged by your character and not by the color of your skin? That's what we strive for.

5. No, we are not color blind. The only thing external features represent is a certain culture and, in many cases, if the skin  is not white, a certain suffering. He have to acknowledge that. We cannot pretend that what has shaped the culture of my family 200 years ago doesn't have any influence on my personality today. The whole multi-cultural-pretend-we're-blind-culture has to end.


----------



## badgrammar

John-Paul said:


> 1. There is only one human race - suggesting there is more than one race is, well, racism. Can you tell what my "race" is?
> 
> 2. There's only one reason why we use skin color or the shape of someone eyes to describe a person: laziness.
> 
> 3. There's no correlation between skincolor and bigotry.
> 
> 4. As long as we teach our children to designate a person "black", "asian", "white" or whatever we encourage racism and discrimination. Remember that speech about the dream, about being judged by your character and not by the color of your skin? That's what we strive for.
> 
> 5. No, we are not color blind. The only thing external features represent is a certain culture and, in many cases, if the skin  is not white, a certain suffering. He have to acknowledge that. We cannot pretend that what has shaped the culture of my family 200 years ago doesn't have any influence on my personality today. The whole multi-cultural-pretend-we're-blind-culture has to end.



I am confused, because your last statement seems to directly conflict what you wrote before.  If we must stop pretending to be color-blind, then that means that we should be ok with recognizing and acknowledging people's different skin-colours, (or "ethnicities", which may be a better term than "races").  But before you say the opposite.  

If we go from the standpoint of not being bigoted towards people of other skin-colors, then I think we can feel comfortable addressing the fact that some people are of different colors.  If we consider "noticing" someone's skin color as an insult, then it is almost like implying that there is something wrong with their being of that color - and we should politely pretend we didn't notice, as we might do with someone who has a physical handicap.  It is too PC a concept for me, and it seems to want to deny reality, which is, in the end, dishonest.


----------



## Etcetera

badgrammar said:


> If we go from the standpoint of not being bigoted towards people of other skin-colors, then I think we can feel comfortable addressing the fact that some people are of different colors.  If we see think of "seeing" someone's skin color as an insult, then it is almost like implying that there is something wrong with their being of that color - and we should politely pretend we didn't notice, as we might do with someone who has a physical handicap.  It is too PC a concept for me, and it seems to want to deny reality, which is, in the end, dishonest.


I'd like to add that, if we all share one skin-colour, it would be pretty boring. 
I would recommend to read Ursula K. Le Guin's _The Lathe of Heaven_. The main hero of the novel has the ability to change reality through his dreams; one one stage he's asked to dream a world without racism, the skin of all people becomes uniform grey. A striking idea.


----------



## alexacohen

John-Paul said:


> 1. There is only one human race - suggesting there is more than one race is, well, racism. Can you tell what my "race" is?
> 4. As long as we teach our children to designate a person "black", "asian", "white" or whatever we encourage racism and discrimination.


The first time my five year old saw Michel she was terribly worried because she tought Michel was sunburnt; and consequently she advised him very seriously that he waz zo very black becauze he forgot to put on zun protection. She did, in fact, cover him with aftersun balm.
Yes, she called him black, and no, she was not a racist.
By the way, Michel thought it was so very funny that he still laughs when he remembers it.
My kid was not taught to designate a person "black". She could see it by herself. And I am not going to blind my children so they cannot see there are different skin colours. 
Alexa


----------



## John-Paul

The difficult part of this whole issue is our own cultural 'baggage'. Yes, in and ideal world we can acknowledge each others skin color or other typical features like red hair or hairy backs. But the reality is that we have preconceived notions which have been fed to us subliminally. This is a language forum, how many positive connotations of 'black' do you know? Black describes danger, evil, immorality and so on. Do you really think that children are able to understand these subtleties?

If I say to my child, on a clouded night, be careful it's totally black outside, I connect  'danger' with 'blackness'. The next day I say, look there is a black man standing in our yard. How do you think this child will perceive this man? 

You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts.


----------



## Kajjo

John-Paul said:


> 1. There is only one human race - suggesting there is more than one race is, well, racism. Can you tell what my "race" is?


Maybe you mean this to be about special terms -- OK, please suggest a better one than race, e.g. ethnicity. I agree that the term _race_ is overfreighted with history. However, there is only one human _species_, but obviously there are many _races (substitute your favorite term her)_. This property is genetically encoded and inherited, thus it is clearly a biological property with a variety of possible values. Being in denial about this issue is the cause of racism, and by far not a step towards the solution.



> 2. There's only one reason why we use skin color or the shape of someone eyes to describe a person: laziness.


Totally wrong and ill-conceived. Skin color, hair color, eye color, hair style, head shape and whatever are equal aspects of one's outer appearance. There is no issue that dictates that skin color is less important than other features.



> 4. As long as we teach our children to designate a person "black", "asian", "white" or whatever we encourage racism and discrimination.


As soon as we start to teach children that adults to not see the same things as children do, they will not believe and trust us anymore. Children have the right to know that in diffeent parts of the world, people look different. This is absolutely natural and nothing bad is connected with a variety of skin colors. Claiming the absence of skin colors will make children being curious about what is so special about skin colors that adults are lying or ignoring obvious facts. 



> 5. No, we are not color blind. The only thing external features represent is a certain culture


The skin color is not a feature produced by culture, but by biological, natural processes of adaptation. The skin color does not say anything reliable about cultural background. A black pupil in my school could not have been more German in culture and behaviour, even if he had had white skin. Linking culture and skin color is much more racistic than linking skin color and ethnicity.

Kajjo


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *John-Paul*
> You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts.


Excuse me? 
You haven't got the least idea about me. You don't know my past, the colour of my skin, if I'm able bodied or disabled, my religion, my cultural background, nothing at all.
You know nothing at all and yet you dare make such a remark? How can you? 
What right have you to decide that I cannot give my opinion?
Alexa


----------



## Poetic Device

alexacohen said:


> The first time my five year old saw Michel she was terribly worried because she tought Michel was sunburnt; and consequently she advised him very seriously that he waz zo very black becauze he forgot to put on zun protection. She did, in fact, cover him with aftersun balm.
> Yes, she called him black, and no, she was not a racist.
> By the way, Michel thought it was so very funny that he still laughs when he remembers it.
> My kid was not taught to designate a person "black". She could see it by herself. And I am not going to blind my children so they cannot see there are different skin colours.
> Alexa


 
Not only that, but there is a difference in describing someone and being a racist *^$%@!


----------



## Poetic Device

Quote:
2. There's only one reason why we use skin color or the shape of someone eyes to describe a person: laziness. 
Yeah...  That is why when someone is attacked the cops ask for skin colour along with other things...  Brilliant.  What's next?



> ...how many positive connotations of 'black' do you know?


 
YOu do realise that there are a few countries where black is for purity and such?


----------



## jonquiliser

I have to agree with alexacohen and Poetic_Device here; talking about (or noting in any sense) skin colour is not necessarily and always in itself racist - why would it be? Difference is not necessarily bad - it is what we claim differences to be that can become problematic, as in claiming or thinking that a particular skin colour means this or that particular thing (as associating 'black skin' with 'mugger', for example). But other times seeing how others are different can be an expression of care (rather than distance) - a care to see how others are _in themselves_, and not only wanting to see in which ways the "are like me" (which can actually be quite self-absorbed, to only want to see similarities).

Also, "difference" is not always an evident thing, in the sense that it might not be obvious which things are pointed out as "_the_ differences" between some people. Take an example of ten white Swedes and one black American. If someone were asked to point out what difference there is between these people, she might well say "language" sooner than skin colour. Or, she might say skin colour. Or religion. Or any of a number of things. Differnces aren't static things that can just be pinned down; what constitutes a difference in a given situation depends on that situation and the person to speak of the difference..


----------



## HistofEng

John-Paul said:


> The difficult part of this whole issue is our own cultural 'baggage'. Yes, in and ideal world we can acknowledge each others skin color or other typical features like red hair or hairy backs. But the reality is that we have preconceived notions which have been fed to us subliminally. This is a language forum, how many positive connotations of 'black' do you know? Black describes danger, evil, immorality and so on. Do you really think that children are able to understand these subtleties?
> 
> If I say to my child, on a clouded night, be careful it's totally black outside, I connect 'danger' with 'blackness'. The next day I say, look there is a black man standing in our yard. How do you think this child will perceive this man?
> 
> You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts.


 
I must say that I quite agree with this statement too!


----------



## John-Paul

alexacohen said:


> Excuse me?
> You haven't got the least idea about me. You don't know my past, the colour of my skin, if I'm able bodied or disabled, my religion, my cultural background, nothing at all.
> You know nothing at all and yet you dare make such a remark? How can you?
> What right have you to decide that I cannot give my opinion?
> Alexa



I'm not talking about you, I don't care about you, I'm talking about your language and about my language. You can look at language like archeologists look at the soil, there's historic material to be found. Isn't this a language forum?


----------



## Sepia

Whatever you all say, the whole PC thing is absolutely hysterical - I've quit paying attention to it a long time ago. 

Why:

There is actually no way to satisfy everyone. During the 90ies it was suddenly not PC to say "Black" in the US while a lot of people in the UK defined themselves as "Black". And of course there was no way to know what to call them without having some hysterical PCness freak from the US jumping you. 

And if I am pointing out a person in a crowd, most of them with dark hair and no distinct clothing what should be wrong in saying the Chinese guy over there - if there is anything that indicates he might be Chinese.

And boys and girls, be serious - if you are describing a friend is his nationality or racial features the first or most important thing that comes into your mind to describe him? - To those who answer this with "yes", I don't want you as friends. 
How about: "Wong is coming tonight".

"Who is Wong?"
"That is a guy I met at the art school"

What do you imagine comes next?

This question?

"Oh, is he a painter?"

or

"So, you have a friend who is Chinese ...? Wong IS a Chinese name, isn't it?"

You get the point?

I am not saying that you never need boxes or cathegories to describe a friend, but how often is race or nationality the more important one?


----------



## John-Paul

K. please,

1. The genetic differences between people are so small that we cannot speak of different 'races'. I don't think we have to argue about this unless you are talking about non-genetic races.

2.What I mean with being lazy is that it is easer to say: look at that Asian girl than, look at that girl with the bleu jacket and the green shirts who looks at me all the time. Being Asian has nothing to do with her being attractive, smart, well dressed etc. How often do you hear, do you date black girls, or, what do you think of Asian girls? You can't make these kinds of generalizations, that's insulting.

Please, read, I'm not saying we should ignore skin color, I'm only saying that we are not supposed to make generalizations based on the color of someone's skin, eyes, feet, arm-pit hair or whatever.

The only reason why people in Africa were rounded up and sold as cattle to work as slaves was the color of their skin. Don't you think that being sold and raped and abused as a slave has some impact on someone's culture? Again, in a perfect world, yes, there would be no racism and we would all be lovy dovy. Is it different in the US than in Europe? Sure, for one because in Europe we did all the slave business on plantations in our colonies, while the US is one of the few countries where former slaves now live together with their former owners.


----------



## Poetic Device

> Whatever you all say, the whole PC thing is absolutely hysterical - I've quit paying attention to it a long time ago.
> 
> Why:
> 
> There is actually no way to satisfy everyone. During the 90ies it was suddenly not PC to say "Black" in the US while a lot of people in the UK defined themselves as "Black". And of course there was no way to know what to call them without having some hysterical PCness freak from the US jumping you.
> 
> And if I am pointing out a person in a crowd, most of them with dark hair and no distinct clothing what should be wrong in saying the Chinese guy over there - if there is anything that indicates he might be Chinese.
> 
> And boys and girls, be serious - if you are describing a friend is his nationality or racial features the first or most important thing that comes into your mind to describe him? - To those who answer this with "yes", I don't want you as friends.
> How about: "Wong is coming tonight".
> 
> "Who is Wong?"
> "That is a guy I met at the art school"
> 
> What do you imagine comes next?
> 
> This question?
> 
> "Oh, is he a painter?"
> 
> or
> 
> "So, you have a friend who is Chinese ...? Wong IS a Chinese name, isn't it?"
> 
> You get the point?
> 
> I am not saying that you never need boxes or cathegories to describe a friend, but how often is race or nationality the more important one?


I really think that you are being overly sensative... Like I said before, If someone were to describe me as the prego-Italian JewI would not care.


----------



## Etcetera

Poetic Device said:


> I really think that you are being overly sensative... Like I said before, If someone were to describe me as the prego-Italian JewI would not care.


Maybe because your self-esteem is high enough to let you not to care what other people may say. It's a good quality.


----------



## maxiogee

John-Paul said:


> If I say to my child, on a clouded night, be careful it's totally black outside, I connect  'danger' with 'blackness'. The next day I say, look there is a black man standing in our yard. How do you think this child will perceive this man?
> 
> You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts
> 
> .



"Black" people used to be, generally, called "negro" - _they_ chose the word 'black' for themselves. It was a word with negative connotations (which had nothingto do with race!) long before it was ever applied to a person's skin colour.

In Irish the phrase for a black person is "duine gorm" - which translates as "blue person" - should we stop saying things such as 

"he was screaming blue murder"
"it only happens once in a blue moon"
"he's in a blue funk"
"I've got a bad case of the blues"


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *John-Paul*
> You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts.





> I'm not talking about you, I don't care about you,


I couldn't care less about you either, but you are denying me the right to express my opinion. And you have no right at all.


> The only reason why people in Africa were rounded up and sold as cattle to work as slaves was the color of their skin.


The only reason Hebrews in Central Europe were rounded up and put into cattle wagons to work as slaves at the Concentration Camps and then killed with Zyklon-B was their "_race"._
They are my ancestors. 
So what?
Alexa


----------



## JamesM

We have an interesting, unintended confusion that happens around our house regularly. My son's best friend Erik from kindergarten is American of Asian ancestry. His name is Jue, a Chinese name. We've heard it thousands of times and rarely think about the homophone of "Jew". My son will say, "I'm going over to the Jues' house" or we'll say, "We have to wait for the Jues to come and pick up their son before we can leave. We'll head out as soon as the Jues show up." We get some odd stares from people who don't know us very well.   We don't do it on purpose; it's just a family name to us. It can be very funny when they see Erik, with his long jet-black pony tail and Asian eyes; his looks definitely go against their expectations. To me, though, it's an example of certain expectations and connotations around words, or in this case, sounds.

When my son was much younger he was telling me about a boy at school he had met. I said, "What does he look like?" and he said, "Well, his skin is almost black." To me, that was a perfect use of "black"; it told me what he looked like and was describing his skin color to me. I see no problem with a description like that. I do agree, however, that "he's black" has very different connotations in the U.S. It assumes a culture and a background as well as skin or facial features. "He's a black" has even stronger connotations. That kind of pigeonholing doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Poetic Device

John-Paul said:


> K. please,
> 
> 1. The genetic differences between people are so small that we cannot speak of different 'races'. I don't think we have to argue about this unless you are talking about non-genetic races.  Small my arse.  Have you ever studied the different bone structures between races/ethnicities?  Thought not.
> 
> 2.What I mean with being lazy is that it is easer to say: look at that Asian girl than, look at that girl with the bleu jacket and the green shirts who looks at me all the time. How about "did you see the chick that's always looking at me?"  Yeah, in that situation it would work.  How about a time when you do not know what the person will look like.  For example, you are meeting people at a bowling alley or a park and you only know one person but they won't be there until after you.  Chances are the late person is going to say, "Just look for Wong.  He's a blonde chinese guy."  Chances are with that description I will find Wong and all will be well.  THere's nothing wrong or insulting about that description.  Being Asian has nothing to do with her being attractive, smart, well dressed etc. How often do you hear, do you date black girls, or, what do you think of Asian girls? You can't make these kinds of generalizations, that's insulting.  You're joking, right?  So, if I don't like dating asian men then I'm a racist?  Are you serious?
> 
> Please, read, I'm not saying we should ignore skin color, I'm only saying that we are not supposed to make generalizations based on the color of someone's skin, eyes, feet, arm-pit hair or whatever.
> 
> The only reason why people in Africa were rounded up and sold as cattle to work as slaves was the color of their skin. Wow, that is the biggest load of crap!  Here's a little history lesson for you.  Before the white man came, the tribes in Africa would go into battle, have wars, whatever you want to call it and the victorious village would take whoever was left from the other tribe and use them as servants.  THEN the white man came, and bought the enslaved people from their own.  Don't you think that being sold and raped and abused as a slave has some impact on someone's culture? Yeah, it does.  The Irish should know for one (due to the Vikings and English).  Again, in a perfect world, yes, there would be no racism and we would all be lovy dovy. Is it different in the US than in Europe? Sure, for one because in Europe we did all the slave business on plantations in our colonies, while the US is one of the few countries where former slaves now live together with their former owners.


----------



## John-Paul

I guess you're right, I can't set the conditions for this thread, nor am I to demand anything. But I do think that if you want to be taken seriously you have to be aware of how our languages color our perception. Is that too much to ask in a language forum? Our languages have been shaped and formed throughout the centuries but only after WWI we became somewhat critical of our own culture and our own language. If feminists have issues with the male domination of language, can't you say the same about 'white' being dominant. We take it for granted that pure, clean, virginity, holy are all associated with white, while it doesn't seem to have any negative connotations. We also have forgotten that devils in paintings and plays were black. We were raised with this kind of imagery, don't deny this doesn't have any impact.

The Germans, by the way, during the second World War, didn't only pick up the Jews because of their religion, mainly because of their 'race' (the Germans used that term to indicate they were the superior race). A converted German who kept quiet would have been able to sit out the war unharmed. But if you would look Jewish or your ancestors were Jewish, then you would be deported for sure. I know a guy whose family hadn't been religious for many generations, but because they had a Jewish name they were deported. He, by the way escpade to England to join the merchant marines and later the US NAVY. Jews who didn't 'look' Jewish, had a better change to survive, so yes, maybe not skin color, but certainly external features played an important role in the ideology of the Nazis.


----------



## xrayspex

_We take it for granted that pure, clean, virginity, holy are all associated with white while the opposite is true._ 


Oh please, do continue.


----------



## John-Paul

"So, if I don't like dating asian men then I'm a racist?"

I don't know, there are how many billion Asian men? And you don't like any of them?


----------



## Athaulf

John-Paul said:


> The only reason why people in Africa were rounded up and sold as cattle to work as slaves was the color of their skin. Don't you think that being sold and raped and abused as a slave has some impact on someone's culture? Again, in a perfect world, yes, there would be no racism and we would all be lovy dovy. Is it different in the US than in Europe? Sure, for one because in Europe we did all the slave business on plantations in our colonies, while the US is one of the few countries where former slaves now live together with their former owners.



Do you know where the Dutch word "slaaf" comes from?


----------



## CrazyArcher

John-Paul said:


> _"So, if I don't like dating asian men then I'm a racist?"_
> 
> I don't know, there are how many billion Asian men? And you don't like any of them?



You didn't answer the question =]


----------



## JamesM

> You're joking, right? So, if I don't like dating asian men then I'm a racist? Are you serious?


 
Along the same lines of John-Paul's response, what could be a common thread among every possible person who had Asian body features that would make them all undesirable to date, in your opinion?

Mr. Jue, whom I spoke about earlier, speaks with a slight Southern twang that he picked up growing up in central California, is a "quiet farmer type" by nature, enjoys the outdoors, and works in electronics. Another friend of mine, Mr. Tan, was born and raised in the Phillipines, has an outgoing and cheerful personality, is interested in Big Band music, and owns his own print shop. Mr. Lee is a pastor, surfer-dude type, typical Southern California guy, born and bred, very laid-back, and is an accomplished speaker and world traveler. 

These three men that I know have completely different body builds, personalities, backgrounds, interests, and temperaments, yet they all have Asian features; in fact, they're all of Chinese ancestry.  Would you include all of them in the group you don't date? If so, why?


----------



## xrayspex

_The genetic differences between people are so small that we cannot speak of different 'races'. I don't think we have to argue about this unless you are talking about non-genetic races.
_ 
The genetic differences between me and my twin sister are also very small.  Are you saying that there are no significant differences?   The whole argument about "our genes are 99.99% the same" is incredibly misleading.    How about the difference in genes between Albert Schweitzer and Adolf Hitler?  They were probably pretty close, genetically, as well. 

You're trying to make points by painting others as foolish racists, when, in fact, you are the one who seems wholly preoccupied with the concept.


----------



## Outsider

xrayspex said:


> The genetic differences between me and my twin sister are also very small.  Are you saying that there are no significant differences?


You and your sister belong to the same family. I assume you had the same parents. That's why you are genetically close: if one goes back far enough in the family trees of each of you, one finds common ancestors, which are not shared by most of the rest of mankind. 

That does not happen with people of the same race (black, white, Asian; Anglo versus Hispanic; or even French and English, if you wish).


----------



## lizzeymac

John-Paul said:


> I guess you're right, I can't set the conditions for this thread, nor am I to demand anything. But I do think that if you want to be taken seriously you have to be aware of how our languages color our perception. Is that too much to ask in a language forum? Our languages have been shaped and formed throughout the centuries but only after WWI we became somewhat critical of our own culture and our own language. If feminists have issues with the male domination of language, can't you say the same about 'white' being dominant. We take it for granted that pure, clean, virginity, holy are all associated with white, while it doesn't seem to have any negative connotations. We also have forgotten that devils in paintings and plays were black. We were raised with this kind of imagery, don't deny this doesn't have any impact.



 I really wish you would stop saying "we" & "we all" - you are making several false assumptions.

Not everyone on the planet, or in this forum, was raised in the same religion as your were, so not "all" of us possess the internalized prejudices you describe above. 
Amazingly, some of us who were raised in that same Christian religion you seem to refer to were raised to reject those associations you describe by _that very religion_.  

As was mentioned previously: In a few Asian cultures & in several Native American religions, white is the color of death & mourning, not black. You are expressing a Euro-centric opinion, this makes sense as you are European, but you are expressing a generalization.  
 
 Describing a dark moonless night as black is relatively accurate & has no inherent negative connotation, 
Describing the dark or black night as dangerous is based on your perception of danger, 
Connecting the "black" night sky with "danger" & deciding that means you are teaching a child that describing a black person as a black person is calling them dangerous is ludicrous & lacking in common sense. 
I think you picked a poor example of negative association, though such a thing certainly exists.

 You are right that "race" based descriptions can be negative & oppressive, but the negative impact comes from the intention & viewpoint of the speaker, it is not inherent in a word for a color though there are many idioms in English that reinforce the negative associations. 
You want to change the stereotype? Don't use idioms that reinforce the stereotype & don't use colors to describe anything of other than a color. Skin comes in a variety of colors.

One more thing - you appear to be assuming that everyone in this forum is "white."
Interesting.


----------



## John-Paul

You are absolutely right, we are not a community, what was I thinking. I'll stick to the "I". Also, I want to make sure you understand that I'm not judging anyone. If you choose to be prejudiced or you think stereotypes are reality based, please do so, who am I to tell you what to believe? 

To get back to the subject. My point is that in our - sorry: my Indo-european languages, there are remnants of the racist past of the cultural groups which represent the languages I like to speak. The word "race" for instance is a good example. (For those who still believe there are human races please show me the data that supports your statement - I couldn't find it.) Purity, that's also a word that comes to mind. It's a word that doesn't need much context to create a bad taste in my mouth (think about the mudbloods).


----------



## Kajjo

John-Paul said:


> 1. The genetic differences between people are so small that we cannot speak of different 'races'. I don't think we have to argue about this.


Different races of animals (e.g. dogs) are as close as different races of humans.

The are several diseases that prefer certain ethnic groups. Medicine started to adapt treatment to the ethnicity. There are several chemical substances that interact differently with different ethnic groups.

Political correctness teaches us to ignore differences. It is my serious opinion that such behaviour leads to racism rather than fighting against it. I am a vocal opponent of political correctness.

You have not answered to my replies to points 2-5 of your prestigious list.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Different races of animals (e.g. dogs) are as close as different races of humans.


Interesting unsubstantiated statement. 

In any case, races of dogs are not comparable to human races, because the former were produced through artificial _human_ selection, while the latter were most definitely not.


----------



## lizzeymac

John-Paul said:


> You are absolutely right, we are not a community, what was I thinking. I'll stick to the "I". Also, I want to make sure you understand that I'm not judging anyone. If you choose to be prejudiced or you think stereotypes are reality based, please do so, who am I to tell you what to believe?
> 
> To get back to the subject. My point is that in our - sorry: my Indo-european languages, there are remnants of the racist past of the cultural groups which represent the languages I like to speak. The word "race" for instance is a good example. (For those who still believe there are human races please show me the data that supports your statement - I couldn't find it.) Purity, that's also a word that comes to mind. It's a word that doesn't need much context to create a bad taste in my mouth (think about the mudbloods).



I didn't say we are not a community - I said you should not presume to speak for anyone but yourself, and perhaps the people you know directly.
Of course you are judging people - most people make judgments of one sort or another all day long.  That is also not inherently evil.
You appear to mean that you are not prejudiced against prejudiced people.
OK.

Of course there are racist idioms, phrases, word associations, in language - but to contort oneself so completely into PC postures that one condemns & confines a color into being inherently & absolutely evil & racist is not sensible.



> Purity, that's also a word that comes to *mind.* It's a word that doesn't need much context to create a bad taste in my mouth (think about the mudbloods).


What comes to _*your* mind_ is exactly my point, your associations with that word are your own.  Do not project your issues with certain words onto everyone else - sometimes you might be right but sometimes you will be wrong.


As to your use of the word "mudbloods"
I know exactly what* you mean *by *your words.*


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:


> In any case, races of dogs are not comparable to human races, because the former were produced through artificial _human_ selection, while the latter were most definitely not.


How many dog races have been produced through artificial human selection and how many have developed independently?

How often have human races been barred from mixing with other races? It's also a kind of artificial selection, isn't it?


----------



## Outsider

Hakro said:


> How many dog races have been produced through artificial human selection and how many have developed independently?


All dog races are the product of artificial selection. The dog "species" itself is a product of artificial selection. Some biologists still place them in the same species as wolves (they can interbreed, and have fertile offspring).



Hakro said:


> How often have human races been barred from mixing with other races?


Never for very long. A few ethnic groups did try to ban intermarriage with other ethnic groups every now and then (I think the Spartans did that), but they were always a minority, and in most cases their civilizations were not terribly long-lasting, on an evolutionary scale.



Hakro said:


> It's also a kind of artificial selection, isn't it?


Yes, but it's a drop in the ocean of human variability.


----------



## John-Paul

lizzeymac said:


> .. sometimes you might be right but sometimes you will be wrong.



I might be right but I will be wrong - good to know.
Isn't that exactly the reason why "I" am contributing to this forum?


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:


> All dog races are the product of artificial selection. The dog "species" itself is a product of artificial selection. Some biologists still place them in the same species as wolves (they can interbreed, and have fertile offspring).


How about the millions of wild dogs living today? Artificial selection?



Outsider said:


> Never for very long. A few ethnic groups did try to ban intermarriage with other ethnic groups every now and then (I think the Spartans did that), but they were always a minority, and in most cases their civilizations were not terribly long-lasting, on an evolutionary scale.


As far as I have seen, intermarriage with other ethnic groups is more or less banned in most of the nations, maybe not by law but...


----------



## Outsider

Hakro said:


> How about the millions of wild dogs living today? Artificial selection?


To the extent that they differ from other dog breeds, that's because the other dog breeds were artificially selected. So the _differences_ between them and other breeds are indeed the result of artificial selection.



Hakro said:


> As far as I have seen, intermarriage with other ethnic groups is more or less banned in most of the nations, maybe not by law but...


Certainly not by law, and I'm not even sure what you're referring to.


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:


> Certainly not by law, and I'm not even sure what you're referring to.


I'm referring to any nation today. In most of the countries there's no law against intermarriages. Haven't you ever wondered why there are still so few intermarriages?


----------



## Outsider

Few intermarriages between whom?


----------



## alexacohen

John-Paul said:


> But if you would look Jewish or your ancestors were Jewish, then you would be deported for sure.
> Jews who didn't 'look' Jewish, had a better change to survive, so yes, maybe not skin color, but certainly external features played an important role in the ideology of the Nazis.


What does a Jew_ look_ like?
Alexa


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:


> Few intermarriages between whom?


If you haven't seen this all around the world it seems to be useless to go on this discussion.


----------



## Maja

Outsider said:


> If I wanted to describe a black friend I had, I'd probably use his nationality or a geographical term like "African". In most cases, that would make his race clear.


But what if he/she is not  African? Just because their ancestors come from Africa some 400 years ago that  doesn't make them Africans!!! Besides, there are white folk in Africa as well...  and then we have Egyptians, Moroccans... 
To be honest, I never understood  this African-American thing... would all people whose family came from Europe or Asia  then be European-Americans or Asian-Americans?


----------



## John-Paul

alexacohen said:


> What does a Jew_ look_ like?
> Alexa



What I was trying to explain, forgive me my clunkiness, was that the nazis would go after people because in their perception they looked jewish. In history books you can find pictures of how jews looked like in the eyes of the nazis, and also, how the germans thought they were supposed to look. Actually there were a lot of studies before the war on how certain tribal features were to be found among people in certain areas in Europa: Saksen, Salland, Friesian etc. I thought they were far-fetched. 

But to answer your question, dear Alexa, what does a jew look like? I have no idea.


----------



## Poetic Device

John-Paul said:


> "So, if I don't like dating asian men then I'm a racist?"
> 
> I don't know, there are how many billion Asian men? And you don't like any of them?


 
Are you bloody joking?!  Wow, are you ever reaching!  I am not saying that I do not like them.  Nor would anyone else if they say that statement.  If one was to say that they prefer not to date a certain nationallity, they may be saying that because of religious reasons, bad experiences and so on.  If you really want me to continue the list I will.  All that statement is declaring is a sense of preference in relationships.  That does not necessairily mean that the person hates, detests, or refuses to converse with those people.  If Alice said that she does not date black men, that does not mean that she has a white hood under her bed.


----------



## Poetic Device

Athaulf said:


> Do you know where the Dutch word "slaaf" comes from?


 
Wow, I completely forgot about that one!!!  Good point!  I wish I remembered it!


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> Along the same lines of John-Paul's response, what could be a common thread among every possible person who had Asian body features that would make them all undesirable to date, in your opinion?
> 
> Mr. Jue, whom I spoke about earlier, speaks with a slight Southern twang that he picked up growing up in central California, is a "quiet farmer type" by nature, enjoys the outdoors, and works in electronics. Another friend of mine, Mr. Tan, was born and raised in the Phillipines, has an outgoing and cheerful personality, is interested in Big Band music, and owns his own print shop. Mr. Lee is a pastor, surfer-dude type, typical Southern California guy, born and bred, very laid-back, and is an accomplished speaker and world traveler.
> 
> These three men that I know have completely different body builds, personalities, backgrounds, interests, and temperaments, yet they all have Asian features; in fact, they're all of Chinese ancestry. Would you include all of them in the group you don't date? If so, why?


As I said in one of my last two posts, just because someone says "I don't like to date (enter nationality) does not mean they don't want to converse with them.  For the rest, see above.

*NOTE:*  I am not saying anything negative about Asians or any other nationality.  They are soley examples.  My honest feelings about people of any race, gender, heritage and nationality is just that:  they are people.


----------



## Poetic Device

John-Paul said:


> What I was trying to explain, forgive me my clunkiness, was that the nazis would go after people because in perception they looked jewish. In history books you can find pictures of how jews looked like in the eyes of the nazis, and also, how the germans thought they were supposed to look. Actually there were a lot of studies before the war on how certain tribal features were to be found among people in certain areas in Europa: Saksen, Salland, Friesian etc. I thought they were far-fetched.
> 
> But to answer your question, dear Alexa, what does a jew look like? I have no idea.


 
We look like every other "white" person.  If you met us on the street you probably would have no idea or mistake us (or others) for Italians, Spaniards, or Polish.  My money is on you mistaken a "Jew" of an Italian, though.

People of Jewish heritage, because of what I just said, should not count in this thread.  THere is no distinct racial look to them--except for maybe our hair.  The on ly reason why people that I know know that I am Jewish is because I let it be known (because I am proud of who and what I am).  If I was of Hindu or other descent that would be a different story.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> As I said in one of my last two posts, just because someone says "I don't like to date (enter nationality) does not mean they don't want to converse with them. For the rest, see above.
> 
> *NOTE:* I am not saying anything negative about Asians or any other nationality. They are soley examples. My honest feelings about people of any race, gender, heritage and nationality is just that: they are people.


 
Asians are not a nationality, PD. Neither is black. We're not talking about nationalities here, we're talking about races. 

What do you mean by Asian? Someone born in Asia, someone with an accent in English from an Asian country, or someone who looks Asian?



> If one was to say that they prefer not to date a certain nationallity, they may be saying that because of religious reasons, bad experiences and so on.


 
What religion teaches that certain nationalities/races should not be dated? 
If they had a bad experience with one person who had certain racial characteristics and then decided that all (fill-in-the-blanks) were no good because they had the same appearance, how is that not racist?

Taking it from an ethnic point of view, if someone said, "I don't like to date Jews. I dated a Jew once and she was shrill and demanding. I can't stand shrill and demanding women, so I don't date Jews", wouldn't that sound prejudiced to you? What on earth would justify taking an experience with one woman who happened to be Jewish and applying her unsavory characteristics to every Jewish woman in the world?  If that same prejudice were applied based on racial characteristics, what is unusual about calling it racist?


----------



## JamesM

Hakro said:


> I'm referring to any nation today. In most of the countries there's no law against intermarriages. Haven't you ever wondered why there are still so few intermarriages?


 
Perhaps it's different in Finland. In my lifetime I've experienced the abolition of laws against interracial marriages in some U.S. states. Interracial marriages have gone from 1 in 200 when I was a child (1960 U.S. census figures) to 1 in 20 now, nationwide, and the number of interracial marriages is rapidly increasing.

Here's an interesting article on the changing views in the U.S., based on generation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/dec98/melt29.htm

Perhaps there are still few interracial marriages in Finland because there are very few non-Finnish? I can't find any statistical information on racial make-up of the Finnish population. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.


----------



## alexacohen

John-Paul said:


> This is a language forum, how many positive connotations of 'black' do you know? Black describes danger, evil, immorality and so on. Do you really think that children are able to understand these subtleties?
> If I say to my child, on a clouded night, be careful it's totally black outside, I connect 'danger' with 'blackness'. The next day I say, look there is a black man standing in our yard. How do you think this child will perceive this man?
> You can't talk about these issues if you are not aware of how our languages contain remnants of vile and racist pasts.


I am well aware that our languages contain remnants of racism. But the trouble is that you are assuming that in every nation, every culture they are the same. "Negro" (black) doesn't have any negative connotations in Spain. It's just a colour. My daughter never perceived black as dangerous, or she would have been scared when she met Michel instead of concerned about him. It is *your own* perception, not ours. Spain is a mostly Roman Catholic country. The most revered saint in Barcelona is "La Moreneta", the black virgin. Nuns, symbols of purity and virginity, and priests, wear black. People in mourning wear black, and then is the colour of sadness. The devil is depicted as a very attractive _white_ man. If a person is "blanca" (white) means that he/she is ill. So, if I point out a man in the middle of a crowd and say, "the black man over there", I am not implying anything, and if a man pointed me out saying "the black haired woman over there" would not be implying anything either except that I have long black hair. It would be quite the natural thing to say, as I am the only black haired person in a village where everybody else is blonde haired. 
Alexa


----------



## danielfranco

I must disagree. "Black" certainly has been reviled in Mexican culture. My personal theory (who could possibly dissuade me?) is that the poor Mexican natives, after the conquest, lost their nobility (and I'm not being elitist, but surely they were better fed and educated than the vast majority of other natives, especially in such a culture as the Mexica) and effectively lost the will to rebel within a couple of generations. Instead, the black slaves brought over from Africa and the Antilles were strong enough and had the gumption to actually rebel, escape and become the very first "banditos" of legend. So our natives resented them and spoke ill of them.
I think in Mexico we were handed down some prejudices about being "black". I distinctly remember being a put-down to tell somebody that his skin was certainly darker than anybody else's around.

Or maybe I lived my whole childhood in an enclave of ignorance and bigotry. Wonders never cease, no?

And John-Paul was correct in one of his first posts in this thread oh-so-many-pages-ago when he said that there is only ONE human race. Scientifically (genetically speaking) there is only one race: the black one. The rest of us are minor adaptations to different climates in the last fifty thousand years or so.

But anyway, why are we talking about black people? Whatever. 
I often tell my kids to spare me physical descriptions of people. If they can't come up with descriptions of people about _what they do_, I'm not interested in finding out if they are fat, skinny, short, tall, black, white, smart, stupid, rich, poor, smelly or flowery-scented.
I think it invites divisiveness. 

But what do I know? I'm probably raising future hermits, no?


----------



## alexacohen

danielfranco said:


> I must disagree. "Black" certainly has been reviled in Mexican culture.(...) But anyway, why are we talking about black people? Whatever.


But this is precisely what most of us were saying. "Black" may have been reviled in _Mexican_ culture. I cannot know, as I haven't been brought up in Mexico, but in Spain, and here it is just a colour. Therefore my perception of the word is not the same as yours. If you perceive something vile in the word, it would be your own perception, not mine. 
I was not aware we were talking about "black people" exclusively. Korean, Chinese, White, Asian, Egyptian, Japanese and many others were mentioned too.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

JamesM said:


> what could be a common thread among every possible person who had Asian body features that would make them all undesirable to date, in your opinion?
> Would you include all of them in the group you don't date? If so, why?


The answer to the first question is: none
And the answer to the second question is that Poetic Device was just stating a fact.
An the fact is: we have all prejudices of one kind or another. If my beloved one left me for a, say, lovely Ukranian girl, I would become strongly prejudiced against _all _Ukranian people. Would it be stupid? Yes, of course. But all the same, any Ukranian person would remind me of my unhappiness and my sadness, so I would refuse to meet any of them. If you want to call it racism, it is your privilege. Me, I just call it being human.
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> In any case, races of dogs are not comparable to human races, because the former were produced through artificial _human_ selection, while the latter were most definitely not.


Right, human races evolved -- an even better sign that there _must_ be genetic differences. Skin color and body shape are most certainly not a consequence of culture or education, aren't they?

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> The answer to the first question is: none
> And the answer to the second question is that Poetic Device was just stating a fact.
> An the fact is: we have all prejudices of one kind or another. If my beloved one left me for a, say, lovely Ukranian girl, I would become strongly prejudiced against _all _Ukranian people. Would it be stupid? Yes, of course. But all the same, any Ukranian person would remind me of my unhappiness and my sadness, so I would refuse to meet any of them. If you want to call it racism, it is your privilege. Me, I just call it being human.
> Alexa



Surely to be prejudiced about an entire nation on the basis of what you feel was an offence one of them caused you is the essence of racism - and not just a 'want to call it'.
Were this thing to happen you would not, I presume, be prejudiced against all girls - yet she would have been a girl. So, why draw the line at her nationality? Let us assume that she were to be taller than you - would you be prejudiced against all girls taller than you?

And anyway, she having taken your beloved, what offence could another Ukrainian girl do you?


----------



## alexacohen

Ok, it was an exaggeration. What I was trying to say (very clumsily, I have to admit) is that everyone of us has preferences of one kind or the other, for a wide variety of reasons. And that they are not necessarily racism. Let's forget about human beings. Many people don't like Pit-bulls, and say they're dangerous dogs. And it's not true. Or  black cats, because they bring bad luck (in Spain). And that's not true either. And so on... 


> Surely to be prejudiced about an entire nation on the basis of what you feel was an offence one of them caused you is the essence of racism - and not just a 'want to call it'.


Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> Many people are prejudiced against Pit-bulls, and say they're dangerous dogs. And it's not true.



But these felings of danger which people have about pit-bulls are justified. Many of them have attacked people - adult and children and have left them with appaling injuries. Not only are the dogs seen as attack-prone, but they are also seen as more likely than any other breed to leave serious injuries.

These feelings, being based on actual events, are not _prejudice_ - they are the very opposite of pre-judging. The reports in the media which highlight these dogs may be disproportionate to the incidents when weighed against all dog attacks - but the public are working with the "knowledge" they have. The dogs are only 'judged' on the evidence. 
If pit-bulls are tame and cuddly then let the defence put up their evidence.


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> Surely to be prejudiced about an entire nation on the basis of what you feel was an offence one of them caused you is the essence of racism - and not just a 'want to call it'.


No, it is not the essence of racism. It would be simply that I don't want to remember an unhappy fact, and the Ukranian people remind me about it. And nothing more.
If I were attacked, raped and tortured by a man with tattoos, rasta hair and piercings, I would be afraid of any male with tattoos, rasta hair and piercings for the rest of my life, and be scared to death every time I saw one. And it wouldn't be racism either. 
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

> But these felings of danger which people have about pit-bulls are justified.


They're not. Dogs do as they are _taught_ to do. It's their owners who taught them to attack. The owners are the dangerous ones. Not the dogs.
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

alexacohen said:


> They're not. Dogs do as they are _taught_ to do. It's their owners who taught them to attack. The owners are the dangerous ones. Not the dogs.
> Alexa



That doesn't occur to the person walking down a street who sees a loose pit-bull running towards them and barking.
I have never heard of a poodle or a chihuahua biting anyone, let alone savaging them. Pit-bulls have a reputation based on facts - that totally rules out 'prejudice'.
That the owners train them is irrelevant. An owner may train a dog but they can't train the biting itself, and I don't believe that they can train the savagery involved.


----------



## Outsider

Hakro said:


> If you haven't seen this all around the world it seems to be useless to go on this discussion.


_Few marriages between whom?_ Gypsies and non-Gypsies? Jews and non-Jews? Finns and Portuguese? Blacks and whites in the U.S.?...

Your statement is unverifiable unless you clarify whom you are speaking of.


----------



## Outsider

Maja said:


> But what if he/she is not  African? Just because their ancestors come from Africa some 400 years ago that  doesn't make them Africans!!!


I was thinking of African immigrants in Portugal, who typically have been here for only one or two generations.



Maja said:


> Besides, there are white folk in Africa as well...  and then we have Egyptians, Moroccans...


Sure, and there are black Swedes and Finns, too. But I don't care much about skin tone. It's usually more useful to describe nationality or place of origin. I'll let the people who think skin tone is oh-so important come up with their own words for it.


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Right, human races evolved [...]


That's not what I was saying. Please do not put words into my mouth.



Kajjo said:


> Skin color and body shape are most certainly not a consequence of culture or education, aren't they?


Race is not just about physical features. In this thread, people talked about "Indian", "Vietnamese", "Korean", or "Irish" as "races". What on earth do those terms have to do with skin tone or body shape? The Netherlands recently had a dark-skinned Muslim in their government -- did her "Dutch genes" make her that way?


----------



## Hakro

Outsider said:


> _Few marriages between whom?_ Gypsies and non-Gypsies? Jews and non-Jews? Finns and Portuguese? Blacks and whites in the U.S.?...
> 
> Your statement is unverifiable unless you clarify whom you are speaking of.


Just to give you one example: 
"The number of interracial marriages in the United States has been on the rise: from 310,000 in 1970, to 651,000 in 1980, and 1,161,000 in 1992, according to the US Census of 1993. Interracial marriages represented 0.7% of all marriages in 1970, rising to 1.3% in 1980 and 2.2% in 1992." (Wikipedia)
Although the number is rising, I'd still use the word _few_.


----------



## Outsider

If racial segregation is natural, why did the percentage of intermarriages increase in such a short time span?


----------



## JamesM

Hakro said:


> Just to give you one example:
> "The number of interracial marriages in the United States has been on the rise: from 310,000 in 1970, to 651,000 in 1980, and 1,161,000 in 1992, according to the US Census of 1993. Interracial marriages represented 0.7% of all marriages in 1970, rising to 1.3% in 1980 and 2.2% in 1992." (Wikipedia)
> Although the number is rising, I'd still use the word _few_.


 
And I provided a citation showing that it's now at nearly 5%, a rise of nearly 3% of all marriages in the space of 14 years (at most, perhaps only 12 years), or, looking at it another way, more than doubling in 14 years. Given that we are still dealing with the oldest generation in our country coming from a time when such marriages were illegal in many states, I'd say that's significant, because you have to take into account that all lasting marriages from decades ago are included in that 100%.

It would be interesting to see statistics on new marriages, rather than percentage of total marriages. I imagine you'd see a much more dramatic rising trend.

Even without those numbers, you'd say over a million interracial marriages in 1992 were "few"? Isn't that 2/5ths of the current population of Finland (counting two in each marriage)? If we are indeed at 4.9% now, the number of Americans in interracial marriages now roughly matches the population of Finland.

If you were looking at a graph that showed something basically doubling every 12 years, you wouldn't consider this a significant trend? (1970 - 0.7%, 1980 - 1.3%, 1992 - 2.2%, 2006 - 4.9%)


----------



## alexacohen

Hello all:
We've wandered so far off from the original question that I really don't know what we're talking about.


> How do you describe people? Is race ever a factor? For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned? Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"


I would point out a person in a crowd by signaling the most outstanding characteristic about him: be it the colour of his shirt or the colour of his skin, his fatness, his wheelchair or his red hair; apparently there will be always someone who will find this racist if he/she wants to; there's nothing I can do about it, and if they want to call me racist, then so be it.
Friends are friends because we like how they are inside; how they look "outside" doesn't matter at all.
Alexa


----------



## gaer

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people?


Any one who tries to answer such a general question will be misunderstood.


> Is race ever a factor?


Too general. I can't answer that.


> For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned?


No. Never. It never NEEDS to be mentioned. I might mention race, "color", religion, etc. I might not.


> Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"


It I point out a person in a crowd to my wife or a close friend, I will pick whatever appears most noticeable.

If there is one "black" man (Afro-American) in a crowd of 100 people, I may use "color" to "pick him out". However, if there are several blacks/African-Americans in the crowd, and only one of them speaks with a very clear English accent, I'd say "the guy with the English accent". 

Gaer


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> Asians are not a nationality, PD. Neither is black. We're not talking about nationalities here, we're talking about races.
> 
> What do you mean by Asian? Someone born in Asia, someone with an accent in English from an Asian country, or someone who looks Asian?
> 
> 
> 
> What religion teaches that certain nationalities/races should not be dated?
> If they had a bad experience with one person who had certain racial characteristics and then decided that all (fill-in-the-blanks) were no good because they had the same appearance, how is that not racist?
> 
> Taking it from an ethnic point of view, if someone said, "I don't like to date Jews. I dated a Jew once and she was shrill and demanding. I can't stand shrill and demanding women, so I don't date Jews", wouldn't that sound prejudiced to you? What on earth would justify taking an experience with one woman who happened to be Jewish and applying her unsavory characteristics to every Jewish woman in the world? If that same prejudice were applied based on racial characteristics, what is unusual about calling it racist?


 
You are right.  I'm sorry.  It is a race.  When I posted that it was 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. my time and the twins turned my stomach into a hockey rink.  so, please forgive me.

When I say Asian, "Black" or any other race I mean a person that was birthed by anyone with that gene in them.  Meaning, they have a mother, father or grandparent that is a native to that area of the world.  Should I be more specific?

You are also taking what I said and turning it into the thread's topic.  Let's try not to do that before the mods get upset.

What religion teaches this, you ask?  Any Jewish/Christian religion that is to my knowledge does.  Let me put it this way, and then I will drop this:  if the twelve tribes of Isreal could not inter marry (and they were all of the same race/descent) then what makes you think that two people of seperate races can marry?

As far as your experience with that particular Jewish woman is concerned, I am sorry to hear that.  There are a lot of us like that.  I would not constitute that as racism, though, because first of all, you have a right to your opinion because it is an understandable thing.  If you cursed out thew Jews (God, I hate that terminology) then that would be a different story.  That is why I posted that question to begin with.  There is a difference between preferring and being racist.  Just because you prefer not to date out of your race/ethnicity does not mean you are a racist.


----------



## Poetic Device

danielfranco said:


> ...And John-Paul was correct in one of his first posts in this thread oh-so-many-pages-ago when he said that there is only ONE human race. Scientifically (genetically speaking) there is only one race: the black one. The rest of us are minor adaptations to different climates in the last fifty thousand years or so.


 
Where on God's green earth did you find that fertilizer?!

BTW, I don't think that you are raising a bunch of hermits, just children that have a better chance of thinking outside the box.


----------



## danielfranco

Poetic Device said:


> Where on God's green earth did you find that fertilizer?!
> 
> BTW, I don't think that you are raising a bunch of hermits, just children that have a better chance of thinking outside the box.



Here's a very interesting link, but it has so much info crammed into it that it may take a while to read. Click!!!

Erm, forgot to mention it's the link to the National Geographic "Genograhpic Project". So, if after some consideration you still find it to be a load of bullcrap, just know it isn't my own bullcrap. I just peddle it, savvy?
Groovy.


----------



## vince

I don't think that the problem is with people identifying others' race. But this does become a problem when people use race as the *defining characteristic* in people, even when knowledge of one's skin color is not important. I just hate it when people start of saying "I met this black guy at work today who told me...". I mean, what does he being black have to do with anything? One could have used descriptors about their personality, and if they had to bring in physical appearance (say, to help the listener visualize the situation) there are so many other features on the same level as or more important than race: height, clothes, weight (tho this may be sensitive), hair color, culture (e.g. goth, emo, Asian fob, nerd, etc.). But people seem to be obsessed with using race as a descriptor.

Someone mentioned language as being racist. This is not a very tenable argument since, in a particular language, not all words for "black" are necessarily positive. There are always good things that are black and bad things that are white, and vice-versa.

Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist. If someone refuses to go out with people of Indian-race because they think they all smell funny (whether or not they are from the U.S. or from India), then they are most definitely racist. Then there are some who are more physically attracted to certain skin colors. While I personally don't understand this, I kind of accept it since to me it's comparable to preferring blonds over brunettes and redheads, another thing I don't get: Isn't fixating on a minor physical attribute (e.g. hair color, "ass" (posterior) size, skin color) rather than the whole package considered fetishism?


----------



## alexacohen

> But people seem to be obsessed with using race as a descriptor.


*NO*. What we have said is that when pointing out a man in a crowd, we would pick up whatever was the most noticeable thing about him. It's the easiest way. I first said "the Chinese man over there" and was automatically branded as "racist", "obsessed by race" and told "why couldn't I have said Asian that is the politically correct term". And it was all lies.
Because when I arrive at the XXX airport with the crew, I'm usually offered a lift home. And I usually say, "No thanks, my brother in law is waiting for me at the terminal"
"Oh really? And who is him?"
"He's the Chinese man over there".
And then I run to my brother in law, hug and kiss him, pick in my arms my half Chinese lovely niece and go home with them.
I am not going to twist my mind or my words to comply with a completely artificial concept of what is politically correct or not.
I am not an hypocrite. So I will call my brother in law a Chinese because he is a Chinese and that's all there is to it.
And as for what the rest of the world may think: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
Alexa


----------



## Hakro

JamesM said:


> And I provided a citation showing that it's now at nearly 5%, a rise of nearly 3% of all marriages in the space of 14 years (at most, perhaps only 12 years), or, looking at it another way, more than doubling in 14 years. Given that we are still dealing with the oldest generation in our country coming from a time when such marriages were illegal in many states, I'd say that's significant, because you have to take into account that all lasting marriages from decades ago are included in that 100%.
> 
> It would be interesting to see statistics on new marriages, rather than percentage of total marriages. I imagine you'd see a much more dramatic rising trend.
> 
> Even without those numbers, you'd say over a million interracial marriages in 1992 were "few"? Isn't that 2/5ths of the current population of Finland (counting two in each marriage)? If we are indeed at 4.9% now, the number of Americans in interracial marriages now roughly matches the population of Finland.
> 
> If you were looking at a graph that showed something basically doubling every 12 years, you wouldn't consider this a significant trend? (1970 - 0.7%, 1980 - 1.3%, 1992 - 2.2%, 2006 - 4.9%)


I'm afraid that we are drifting very far from the original question and I find this discussion quite useless. Comparing American marriages to Finland's population doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## JamesM

alexacohen said:


> *NO*. What we have said is that when pointing out a man in a crowd, we would pick up whatever was the most noticeable thing about him. It's the easiest way. I first said "the Chinese man over there" and was automatically branded as "racist", "obsessed by race" and told "why couldn't I have said Asian that is the politically correct term". And it was all lies.
> Because when I arrive at the XXX airport with the crew, I'm usually offered a lift home. And I usually say, "No thanks, my brother in law is waiting for me at the terminal"
> "Oh really? And who is him?"
> "He's the Chinese man over there".
> And then I run to my brother in law, hug and kiss him, pick in my arms my half Chinese lovely niece and go home with them.
> I am not going to twist my mind or my words to comply with a completely artificial concept of what is politically correct or not.
> I am not an hypocrite. So I will call my brother in law a Chinese because he is a Chinese and that's all there is to it.
> And as for what the rest of the world may think: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
> Alexa


 

In this case, you know the person is Chinese, so it makes perfect sense. I think the whole Asian label came about because anyone with Asian features was being called Chinese. Saying that anyone with particular characteristics must be from one particular country is not very appealing to a lot of people. Ask a Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese person who is constantly called "Chinese" if they find it respectful.

Let's say you have darker Hispanic features, alexacohen. (I don't know you, so this is all comlpletely hypothetical.) It wouldn't bother you to have Americans, for example, constantly saying, "That Mexican woman over there"? "No, she's from Spain." "Well, I'm sorry. She looks Mexican." Does that statement even make sense? She has facial and skin features that tell me what country she's from?

To me, if I don't know the person, "Asian" or "Hispanic" makes a lot more sense as a descriptor than "Chinese" or "Mexican."   And, to tie back in to the original question, no, I wouldn't have a problem using either one to describe someone in a crowd.


----------



## HistofEng

vince said:


> I don't think that the problem is with people identifying others' race. But this does become a problem when people use race as the *defining characteristic* in people, even when knowledge of one's skin color is not important. I just hate it when people start of saying "I met this black guy at work today who told me...". I mean, what does he being black have to do with anything? One could have used descriptors about their personality, and if they had to bring in physical appearance (say, to help the listener visualize the situation) there are so many other features on the same level as or more important than race: height, clothes, weight (tho this may be sensitive), hair color, culture (e.g. goth, emo, Asian fob, nerd, etc.). But people seem to be obsessed with using race as a descriptor.
> 
> Someone mentioned language as being racist. This is not a very tenable argument since, in a particular language, not all words for "black" are necessarily positive. There are always good things that are black and bad things that are white, and vice-versa.
> 
> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist. If someone refuses to go out with people of Indian-race because they think they all smell funny (whether or not they are from the U.S. or from India), then they are most definitely racist. Then there are some who are more physically attracted to certain skin colors. While I personally don't understand this, I kind of accept it since to me it's comparable to preferring blonds over brunettes and redheads, another thing I don't get: Isn't fixating on a minor physical attribute (e.g. hair color, "ass" (posterior) size, skin color) rather than the whole package considered fetishism?


 
This was very well stated!

I think it's something anyone arguing in here should be able to agree with.


----------



## alexacohen

JamesM:


> Let's say you have darker Hispanic features, alexacohen. (The answer is: dark haired dark skinned jew). It wouldn't bother you to have Americans, for example, constantly saying, "That Mexican woman over there"?


To repeat what I have said before: Frankly, I wouldn't give a damn. 
Alexa


----------



## Etcetera

Speaking about descriptions - people are born with different hair colours, for example. Is it fair to say, for example, "This blonde woman over there" or "That black-haired lad"?
Skin-colour is in a way the same as hair-colour. We're born with it, it's perfectly natural, so why make all the fuss about it? Take it easy, folks.


----------



## alexacohen

Etcetera:


> so why make all the fuss about it?


I haven't got a clue.

HistofEng:


> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist


*NO*. It is hard enough to live with a husband/wife who has the same cultural background you have. Living with a husband/wife with a totally alien cultural baggage is even harder. So, choosing a mate who shares your own culture and your own beliefs, is quite logical. Not racist at all.
Alexa


----------



## vachecow

Ok....this is sounding familiar to page one....
But hair color is different than skin color because if I want green hair I can go to the hairdresser and get that.  If I want long, blond hair I can get hair extensions and get the rest died blond.  If I wanted purple skin, I don't think that would be possible without alot of pain...


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:


> What do people do when someone is 'obviously' either Indian or Pakistani?



I wish I knew myself!!!  I never know what to fill out on the damn surveys...I'm not exactly Caucasian (O.K., so that's arguable but it's a side note) and I don't qualify as being from the continent Asia because of popular consensus.  I once was told a barber that I am Asian and she laughed and said I wasn't.  

So tell me when you figure it out!  South Asians have a word for people of South Asian descent: desi.  It is very much used and avoids any qualms with nationality.


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> It appears that you do, Alexa.


I haven't got the least idea what you're talking about. But the interesting thing is that when I first mentioned "a Chinese man" everybody cried "political correctness" & co. No one thought I was speaking of a man I love and respect. He was "the Chinese man over there", and I should have said whatever, but not "Chinese", oh no, that was "racist".
Let me say that I was very much surprised at the reaction. I wanted to point out that referring to people by the colour of their skin is not necessarily a racist treat. Somehow the whole thing got out of hand.
But what I said it's true. Whether you, or any of the rest of the people in this thread consider me a "racist", means nothing to me. In other words: Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Alexa


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> _Right, human races evolved._ That's not what I was saying. Please do not put words into my mouth.


I am sorry! But don't you think that human ethnicities evolved? I thought that was common ground!



> Race is not just about physical features.


Ethnicity (race) is about genetic differences, of belonging to a certain _variety_ of the human species. I do not know all kinds of physiological changes that might include, but easily said those features of humans that cannot be changed by education and culture are part of ethnicity. Imagine a black baby raised in Germany. It will stay black, and no matter how _native German_ it will be, it will still be _ethnic_ black.

I cannot understand why you do not want to see the obvious? Is it for reasons of political correctness? What term do you suggest to use to describe what I call ethnicity?

Kajjo


----------



## HistofEng

alexacohen said:


> Etcetera:
> 
> I haven't got a clue.
> 
> HistofEng:
> 
> *NO*. It is hard enough to live with a husband/wife who has the same cultural background you have. Living with a husband/wife with a totally alien cultural baggage is even harder. So, choosing a mate who shares your own culture and your own beliefs, is quite logical. Not racist at all.
> Alexa


 

Seeeee!! There you go, looking at a person's physical features and assuming things about his or her personality/culture. This is what makes race different than "hair color", because people are much more likely to attach ideas and preconceptions and generalizations to race than they would to hair color. That is the definition of prejudice.

You or some other people in here may not have these prejudices when pointing some one out, but many many people do (esp in the United States) and that's part of why it's considered controversial to do so.


----------



## alexacohen

HistofEng said:


> Seeeee!! There you go, looking at a person's physical features and assuming things about his or her personality/culture.


Excuse me, but where in my post have I referred to what a person's physical features are, and have assumed anything about their personality? The only thing I said is that it is easier to live with someone who has a similar culture as you have. 
I don't assume anything about anybody. And I would like very much to know where I am suppossed to be looking at a person's physical features. On my computer's screen?
Alexa


----------



## gaer

panjabigator said:


> How do you describe people? Is race ever a factor? For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned?


I think you asked some thoughtful questions, and since you still seem to be reading answers, here are mine.

As I was growing up, my family was very concerned with race, religion and nationality. I'm talking primarily about my grandparents, my mother's parents. I loved them, but they were bigots. I can't say it any other way. My family expected me to marry a women who was "white", Protestant—and American, English or Northern European.

And definitely not German, so perhaps you can imagine how "popular" my choice of "German" as a second language was. 

You might also guess that I had numerous fights with my family, because I never even pretended to go along with their prejudices!

Race plays no role in friendships in my life, and I feel NO obligation to mention anything about a friend to anyone else unless I feel like it. Period.


> Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"


For purposes of identification, I might use any label that doesn't seem rude to me, but I would only say such a thing to my wife or another close friend.


> I normally don't get flustered over being described as someones "Indian friend" just because I know it's harmless and that I'd be a hypocrite for it, but my sister is ever aware of her descriptions; she'd hit the roof I mention the race as a descriptor.


I do have one contact in India, someone I very much like. He was a student until recently. I've seen pictures of him. I know where he lives, I know about his family, and I know a lot of other things. We've been talking for several years now.

I refer to him as "my Internet friend in India". I've never used the word "Indian", and I don't even know if it is inappropriate, or why. 

Gaer


----------



## HistofEng

alexacohen said:


> Excuse me, but where in my post have I referred to what a person's physical features are, and have assumed anything about their personality? The only thing I said is that it is easier to live with someone who has a similar culture as you have.
> I don't assume anything about anybody. I surely would find very hard to live with a Masai. Not because I couldn't find him attractive, cultured, interesting, handsome, and good, but because in their culture is customary to drink blood, and in my culture blood is absolutely forbidden.
> Of course, he would find it very hard to live with me as well!
> And please, please, this is just an example.
> This is common sense, not racism, HistofEng.
> Alexa


 

This thread is about *race*, and about pointing someone out based on their physical features

Here is what you quoted, and then your reply to which I, in turn, replied to:



			
				alexacohen said:
			
		

> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific *races* as romantic partners is racist *NO*. It is hard enough to live with a husband/wife who has the same *cultural background* you have. Living with a husband/wife with a totally alien cultural baggage is even harder. So, choosing a mate who shares your own *culture* and your own *beliefs*, is quite logical. Not racist at all.
> Alexa
Click to expand...


----------



## cuchuflete

alexacohen said:


> *NO*. It is hard enough to live with a husband/wife who has the same *cultural background* you have. Living with a husband/wife with a totally *alien cultural baggage* is even harder. So, choosing a mate who shares your own *culture and your own beliefs*, is quite logical. Not racist at all.
> Alexa





HistofEng said:


> Seeeee!! There you go, looking at a person's physical features and assuming things about his or her personality/culture. This is what makes race different than "hair color", because people are much more likely to attach ideas and preconceptions and generalizations to race than they would to hair color. That is the definition of prejudice.



The words in red have no relationship to the words in blue!

Clearly HistofEng had a racially, ethnically, culturally preconceived notion of something, such that he or she didn't read carefully.

How can you berate someone for words that have nothing to do with your accusation?


It may be politically correct (a foolish euphemism for indirect, muddled, cowardly language?),
but it is illogical and wrong.  What's a nice politically correct term for mistaken?  Erroneous?


----------



## HistofEng

cuchuflete said:


> The words in red have no relationship to the words in blue!
> 
> Clearly HistofEng had a racially, ethnically, culturally preconceived notion of something, such that he or she didn't read carefully.
> 
> How can you berate someone for words that have nothing to do with your accusation?
> 
> 
> It may be politically correct (a foolish euphemism for indirect, muddled, cowardly language?),
> but it is illogical and wrong. What's a nice politically correct term for mistaken? Erroneous?


 

Oh no, I suggest you examine the post he quoted in his reply:



Vince said:



			
				vince said:
			
		

> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific _*races*_ as romantic partners is racist


 

And alexacohen only replied to that statement in saying:



			
				alexacohen said:
			
		

> *NO*. It is hard enough to live with a husband/wife who has the same *cultural background* you have. Living with a husband/wife with a totally alien *cultural baggage* is even harder. So, choosing a mate who shares your own *culture* and your own beliefs, is quite logical. Not racist at all.
> Alexa


 
and than I wrote: 



			
				HistofEng said:
			
		

> Seeeee!! There you go, looking at a person's physical features *[race]*and assuming things about his or her personality/*culture*....


 



The words in red bare no relation to the words in blue!!

You sir, or ma'am, are the one who did not read carefully


----------



## gaer

vince said:


> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist. If someone refuses to go out with people of Indian-race because they think they all smell funny (whether or not they are from the U.S. or from India), then they are most definitely racist. Then there are some who are more physically attracted to certain skin colors. While I personally don't understand this, I kind of accept it since to me it's comparable to preferring blonds over brunettes and redheads, another thing I don't get: Isn't fixating on a minor physical attribute (e.g. hair color, "ass" (posterior) size, skin color) rather than the whole package considered fetishism?


 
_"Fetish: a sexual interest in an object or a part of the body other than the sexual organs"_

Source

The moment we talking about "going out with people", we're talking about romance, more than friendship, at least the possibility of sexual involvment, which of course is dependent upon sexual attraction.

If I am not sexually attracted to a woman because of age, height, skin color, hair color, weight, a big nose, big breasts, small breasts—or a million other factors—what in the devil does that have to do with racism?

I think this is a huge smoke screen and has _*nothing*_ to do with the questions asked at the beginning of this thread.

Gaer


----------



## JamesM

gaer said:


> If I am not sexually attracted to a woman because of age, height, skin color, hair color, weight, a big nose, big breasts, small breasts—or a million other factors—what in the devil does that have to do with racism?


 
The difference, as I see it, Gaer, is that the discussion was about "Asian men" (which we can change to "Asian women"), not about one particular woman. Any particular Asian woman may be of any age, height, skin color, hair color (admittedly most likely processed if not black), weight, nose size, breast size , or a million other factors. If you are saying "I don't date Asian women", it can't be because of any of these things, now, can it, since any of these variations may be found. So what is the unifying factor other than race?

I suppose you could say, "I don't find almond-shaped eyes attractive" and it would make sense, but otherwise.... ?


----------



## cuchuflete

Post #1:



> How do you describe people? Is race ever a factor? For example, if you make a friend and decide to tell your other friends and family about them, is race a topic that need be mentioned? Or if you are pointing out an individual in a crowd, would you opt to say "that black/white/Indian/whatever person over there" over "the person in the green shirt?"
> 
> I normally don't get flustered over being described as someones "Indian friend" just because I know it's harmless and that I'd be a hypocrite for it, but my sister is ever aware of her descriptions; she'd hit the roof I mention the race as a descriptor.



It's interesting how a question about how we describe people has wandered so far off course.  Having read this, and many other threads, about race, color, racism, and related topics, I'm still not sure what the word
race really means, or if it has a single commonly accepted meaning for all those who participate in these threads.  

If race really exists as a set of biological characteristics, some of which may be visible, then there will be times when it is useful to invoke it to describe a person's physical appearance.  I think of a time when I was the only person with a particular skin color and hair style in a village in a country in which nearly everyone had a different range of skin color and hair styles.  I hadn't identified myself by political citizenship, and spoke a language that was neither that of the local people nor my own.  Had I gone missing unexpectedly, I assume that the local people would have told the police that the ______(color) man with the _________(hair style) was missing, last seen taking photographs of blue chameleons and boa constrictors near the bridge at the entrance to the village.  

That would have been a useful description.  Those who would have given it might have included people totally free of any racist spirit or thought, as well as some virulent racists.


----------



## gaer

JamesM said:


> The difference, as I see it, Gaer, is that the discussion was about "Asian men" (which we can change to "Asian women"), not about one particular woman. Any particular Asian woman may be of any age, height, skin color, hair color (admittedly most likely processed if not black), weight, nose size, breast size , or a million other factors. If you are saying "I don't date Asian women", it can't be because of any of these things, now, can it, since any of these variations may be found? So what is the unifying factor other than race?


Someone slipped in "Asian men" between the time this discussion started and the time it went so far off topic from the questions that were originally asked that I don't even recognize the topic any more.

I believe very strongly that who we are attracted to is very independent of what we are told we SHOULD be attracted to—conditioning by family, friends, society—and that trying to analyze physical attraction as if it's something very logical we can change is pointless.

Gaer


----------



## JamesM

Maybe I don't yet quite understand the function of these discussions. I agree that the "intermarriage" thing got off-topic, but I don't see how posts about how people classify entire races and then make decisions about them is not on-topic to a thread that is questioning if you use race to describe someone.

To me, it is a natural outgrowth of a discussion about classifying someone by race, even in a description, to discuss what "race" is, and what preconceptions we have about race. 

Otherwise, I suppose the thread could be confined to a "yes/no" type format of "yes, I do use race to describe someone" or "no, I don't." If that is the function of these threads I think I'm probably not in tune with the concept.


----------



## vince

alexacohen said:


> Maybe because the meaning of the word "race" doesn't mean the same for you and me?
> What Poetic device said is that she preferred to date men from her own
> cultural background. Jew. Which is, as far as I know, not a race.
> Anyway, if you want to classify me as a racist, by all means, go ahead, and misinterpret everything I say (which is exactly what you're doing, because if you had really read what I said you wouldn't have called me "he").



I agree with HistofEng's inquiry about why you suddenly brought up the person's culture when I was strictly talking about race. Being a North American who is not of the same race as you, I find it racist that you are insinuating that I do not have the same values and culture as you do just because of my skin color.

Imagine a person who says he has no racial preference in terms of sexual partner, but also says that he is much less sexually attracted to Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Desis, Africans, Arabs, and Europeans because he does not like / is not comfortable with their cultures. They just give off a "foreign" vibe to their physical appearance to him whenever he sees them. He prefers to date North Americans only, since they share more in common with him in terms of culture, values, tastes, and experience.

If you see a contradiction, then you are racist. If not, you probably aren't.

(by the way, that person is a real person)


----------



## Kajjo

gaer said:


> If I am not sexually attracted to a woman because of age, height, skin color, hair color, weight, a big nose, big breasts, small breasts—or a million other factors—what in the devil does that have to do with racism?


Absolutely right! Racism is mostly what some political correctness extremists make out of ordinary thoughst.

The real, dangerous racism is not dealt with by such we-see-racism-everywhere statements!

Kajjo


----------



## panjabigator

> Originally Posted by *gaer*
> 
> 
> If I am not sexually attracted to a woman because of age, height, skin color, hair color, weight, a big nose, big breasts, small breasts—or a million other factors—what in the devil does that have to do with racism?



Good point.  Attraction is attraction, plain and simple, and just because you aren't attracted to person X for whatever feature doesn't mean that you are racist.

This discussion is very interesting...so much so that I've been neglecting my other work!


----------



## xrayspex

_I believe very strongly that who we are attracted to is very independent of what we are told we SHOULD be attracted to—conditioning by family, friends, society—and that trying to analyze physical attraction as if it's something very logical we can change is pointless._


I'm not taking a position here, just throwing gas on the fire, I think.  

I've noticed that when it comes to interracial relationships, there is a strong correlation between sex and preference.  

In black/white relationships, 90% of the time the male is black, and the female is white.  Why? 

In white/asian relationships, 90% of the time the male is white, and the female is asian.  Why?  (I'm white and had a chinese girlfriend for several years, but I have no insight into this either.) 

I have NEVER seen a desi/non-desi couple.  Ever.


----------



## jinti

xrayspex said:


> I have NEVER seen a desi/non-desi couple. Ever.


I have.  My best friend is desi, married to an African-American man.  Her brother married a Costa Rican woman.  We're running a pool on who her sister will end up with....


----------



## alexacohen

vince said:


> I agree with HistofEng's inquiry about why you suddenly brought up the person's culture when I was strictly talking about race. Being a North American who is not of the same race as you, I find it racist that you are insinuating that I do not have the same values and culture as you do just because of my skin color.


This is a joke. Do you believe that I can pick up the colour of anyone's skin thousands of miles away through a computer screen? Sure I can't. But you have decided that I'm racist. I "insinuated" something because of your skin colour. I never did anything of the kind. I don't know why you choose to think so. But it's your own choosing. Therefore, your problem. Not mine.
*And by the way, getting mad at me because I brought up "culture" instead of "race" is quite funny for someone who has chosen as his/her signature "Culture is everything, race is nothing". *
If you choose to find racism in every word a complete stranger says, it is your privilege.
And it is my privilege to say: I don't give a damn!
Alexa


----------



## Poetic Device

vince said:


> Finally, the question about whether preferring specific races as romantic partners is racist. If someone refuses to go out with people of Indian-race because they think they all smell funny (whether or not they are from the U.S. or from India), then they are most definitely racist. Then there are some who are more physically attracted to certain skin colors. While I personally don't understand this, I kind of accept it since to me it's comparable to preferring blonds over brunettes and redheads, another thing I don't get: Isn't fixating on a minor physical attribute (e.g. hair color, "ass" (posterior) size, skin color) rather than the whole package considered fetishism?


 
Could you take what I said out of context any further???

I am not saying "Tome does not date Asian girls because they all smell." I am not saying that there is one particular reason. What I am saying is that just because someone prefers to date solely within their race it does not mean that they are racist.A black man can have a hundred white female friends and not want to have anything to do with them romantically, and the like with everyone else.

A very wise person once said to me we see the things that we dislike about ourselves amplified in other people.  Are you sure that you aren't just lashing out on me because I said something that you (shamefully) at least somewhat understood?  Tell me (no one in particular), Do you enjoy being in an interracial relationship?  Do you _try_ to be in one?  If you are a white person, do you only date those of a diferent pigment?  Why don't we ever hear those people being called racist?  Thay are, you know.  They are racist against their own.  Why is it that we are only focusing on one end of the spectrum?  Please keep in mind that all of these questions are meant to be rhetoricle.  Just think about it.


----------



## vince

Poetic Device:
I wasn't referencing your post actually, it was just a commentary on the issue at large.

Alexacohen: Race ought to be nothing, but people seem to be making a big fuss about it as though that is what defines a person. It should be a person's culture one is looking at. We were discussing race, then you brought up culture, implying that one's race determines one's culture, which I disagree with and hence gave a reply.

You are free to post wherever you want, but it is your problem if you reply to posts that you "don't give a damn" about.


----------



## alexacohen

vince said:


> We were discussing race, then you brought up culture, implying that one's race determines one's culture, which I disagree with and hence gave a reply.


If you had read carefully, you would have noticed that I only used race twice:
- First time, when I answered Panj question which specifically said if we would ever mention "race" as a description. My answer was, No.
- Second time, when I replied to John Paul and said that we Jews had been picked out for extermination because of our "race" (and the " " were written on purpose).
What I mentioned was Chinese (a nationality) and the colour of the skin. I do not believe in any such concept as "race". For God's sake, what have in common an Egyptian person with a Zulu person? their African "race"? 
What have in common a Swedish person and me? Our European "race"?
Or a Japanese and and Turkish? Their Asian "race"?
But cultural backgrounds are different. Different, not worse, not better. Just different. So our different cultures clashed. I assumed that when all of you spoke about "race" you were speaking about culture. I don't understand at all the concept "race" as you seem to understand it. The concept is totally alien to me. And I said it. 
I did not imply that one's "race" determines one's culture. I merely pointed out that many of us would feel uncomfortable living in a culture which is alien to us. Not worse, not better, just alien. It was you who chose to read it as such.
What I don't give a damn about is your lousy opinion of me.
Alexa


----------



## Poetic Device

Sing it, Girl!


----------



## alexacohen

JamesM said:


> The difference, as I see it, Gaer, is that the discussion was about "Asian men" (which we can change to "Asian women"), not about one particular woman. Any particular Asian woman may be of any age, height, skin color, hair color (admittedly most likely processed if not black), weight, nose size, breast size , or a million other factors. If you are saying "I don't date Asian women", it can't be because of any of these things, now, can it, since any of these variations may be found. So what is the unifying factor other than race?


Maybe that a _Jew_ doesn't find very attractive to go to a Chinese restaurant where sweet and sour _pork_ is served? 
If I remember rightly, the whole issue begun because I mentioned "Chinese". And, as apparently Chinese is not a politically correct name,
it was changed to Asian. Which is absolute nonsense. Saying that a Chinese, a Japanese, an Indian, a Russian, a Turkish, an Arab, an Iranian, a Thai,the Dalai Lama and Vladimir Putin all belong to the Asian "Race"
is downright stupid.
Maybe politically correct. But downright stupid.
Alexa


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Sing it, Girl!


 
Sing it?
She's on the fourteenth chorus, it seems 





alexacohen said:


> Saying that a Chinese, a Japanese, an Indian, a Russian, a Turkish, an Arab, an Iranian, a Thai,the Dalai Lama and Vladimir Putkin all belong to the Asian "Race" is downright stupid.


Who says that Asian _is_ a 'race'?
Is it not a term detailing someone's geographical origins, or their ancestors' geographical origins.

Beijingean is not a race… Chinese is not a race… Asian is not a race… northern hemispherean is not a race… all of those are cultural distinctions, possibility ― *human* is a race.


----------



## alexacohen

maxiogee said:


> Who says that Asian _is_ a 'race'?
> Beijingean is not a race… Chinese is not a race… Asian is not a race… northern hemispherean is not a race… all of those are cultural distinctions.


 


JamesM said:


> The difference, as I see it, Gaer, is that the discussion was about "Asian men" (which we can change to "Asian women"), not about one particular woman. Any particular Asian woman may be of any age, height, skin color, hair color (admittedly most likely processed if not black), weight, nose size, breast size , or a million other factors. If you are saying "I don't date Asian women", it can't be because of any of these things, now, can it, since any of these variations may be found. So what is the unifying factor other than race?
> 
> I suppose you could say, "I don't find almond-shaped eyes attractive" and it would make sense, but otherwise.... ?


Here is your answer. I was not the one who said Asian is a "race". Have you finally seen?
Alexa


----------



## JamesM

alexacohen said:


> Maybe that a _Jew_ doesn't find very attractive to go to a Chinese restaurant where sweet and sour _pork_ is served?


 
This is a silly argument.  You are saying a person would not date another person because of the food served at a restaurant that they _might _be taken to based on the person's _presumed_ culture?  I know Chinese Americans who have no interest in Chinese food.  I think at this point you are simply angry and taking shots.

You've made it very clear that you are unfamiliar with the concept of race. In the U.S., it is a common (mis)perception of a way to group people. The distinctions are finer than continents, though, in most cases. I think you have assumed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the "race" names used and continents. That is not the case. They are broad groupings, but not _that_ broad. 

In my experience of how racial groupings are used in descriptions, a Russian would be considered "Caucasian" broadly, and "Northern European" by some. A Turk would be considered "Middle Eastern". So would an Arab, and an Iranian. A Thai would be South-east Asian, or just Asian. An Italian could be "Southern European" if more olive-skinned with dark hair, or "Caucasian" or just "European" if northern Italian and fair-skinned. An Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi would probably be called "Indian". The groups are not clearly defined, and they can be wildly inaccurate. It's a generalization of a stereotypical physical appearance.

Some people's groupings are much broader: White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Amerindian (or Native American or First People or American Indian. There are lots of names for this group.) The more exposure a person has in daily life to a wider range of people from different regions of the world, the more refined the group names tend to be.

The concept is to group people by common physical characteristics by the presumed region of origin.

As I said earlier,* we need to discuss what "race" is when describing someone if we're going to make any sense of the original poster's question.* You've obviously assumed it meant "culture" and/or country while others of us have been applying racial groups we are familiar with. No wonder there's a great deal of confusion and upset.

When you said "the Chinese man", it made perfect sense since you knew he was from China, as I've said before. However, in the U.S., it is more common these days if you _don't_ know the person to say "Asian" when describing someone by appearance if they have almond eyes and Asian light-olive (sometimes called yellow) skin, since it's often impossible to know if they are Chinese, Japanese, or Korean or even Mongolian from a distance. We don't know their country, so we're describing the look that they have that is consistent with a certain region of the world. 

In the U.S., for whatever reason, a Japanese person can be deeply offended if you call them Chinese, and vice versa. The same is often true for Korean people. "Asian" is a way to group by look, not by country.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> Sing it?
> She's on the fourteenth chorus, it seems


 
At least she has a head on her shoulders.


----------



## Poetic Device

> JamesM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a silly argument. You are saying a person would not date another person because of the food served at a restaurant that they _might _be taken to based on the person's _presumed_ culture? That is not what she said at all. What she is saying is that it is just as possible for a person--Jewish or not--to prefer to date people that are within their race as it is possible that a Jewish individual might not want to go to the Chineese resteraunt because it is not kosher. These two examples, which are very common, do not mean that a person is racist or anything like that. I know Chinese Americans who have no interest in Chinese food. That is because it is not real chinese food. I think at this point you are simply angry and taking shots. Or do you just not want to listen?
Click to expand...


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Sing it, Girl!


 
The song she's been singing and the song you've been singing, Poetic Device, have two different sets of words.  



			
				Poetic Device (on the topic of "small" differences in race) said:
			
		

> Small my arse. Have you ever studied the different bone structures between races/ethnicities? Thought not.


 


			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> When I say Asian, "Black" or any other race I mean a person that was birthed by anyone with that gene in them. Meaning, they have a mother, father or grandparent that is a native to that area of the world. Should I be more specific?


 


			
				Poetic Device said:
			
		

> ...if the twelve tribes of Isreal could not inter marry (and they were all of the same race/descent) then what makes you think that two people of seperate races can marry?


 
We are both from the U.S., Poetic Device. We both obviously have an idea, clear or fuzzy, of a concept called "race." I don't think Alexa does. It makes for a lot of confusion when trying to answer the question about "using race as a description."


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> The song she's been singing and the song you've been singing, Poetic Device, have two different sets of words.


 
Funny, I have yet to disagree with her about anything...

They may have different words, but they have the same melody. 





JamesM said:


> We are both from the U.S., Poetic Device. We both obviously have an idea, clear or fuzzy, of a concept called "race." I don't think Alexa does. It makes for a lot of confusion when trying to answer the question about "using race as a description."


 
What does living in the United States have to do with anything about knowing what race or racism is?  That sort of negativity is all across the globe.  I don't think you are giving our pretty Jewish princess enough credit, Luv.  She understands basic concepts.  She understands that calling someone a n_____ and so on is racism.  I think that is all that you need to know in order to answer the question.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Funny, I have yet to disagree with her about anything...
> 
> They may have different words, but they have the same melody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does living in the United States have to do with anything about knowing what race or racism is? That sort of negativity is all across the globe. I don't think you are giving our pretty Jewish princess enough credit, Luv. She understands basic concepts. She understands that calling someone a n_____ and so on is racism. I think that is all that you need to know in order to answer the question.


 
I am not in any way saying that alexacohen is _unable_ to understand "racism."  I am saying that what she presumed, _by her own words_, was that "race" meant "culture."  What you and I have said, _by our own words_, is _not_ about culture.  If we cannot start with that, I don't think it's productive to discuss this with you.


----------



## cuchuflete

As JamesM has pointed out, the term needs some definition.  I find little value in using the word race.
It has lots of problems.  

1- _scientifically dubious_:  What is the "race" of people in places where there has been centuries of interbreeding among peoples from different parts of the world?  Try Puerto Rico or much of Brazil for some obvious examples.  People in those places have biological lineages that often include ancestors who were autochthonous ("native"), as well as others from two or more continents.  If 'race' refers to geographic origin of ancestors, it becomes rather quickly misleading or even useless when there are multiple origins.

2-_Cultural implications_:  geographic origin and culture sometimes coincide, and often do not.  "Race" may assume that there is a one-to-one relationship, and that will be a wrong assumption much of the time.  

3- _Physical appearance_:  "Race" is an extremely imprecise term for people who may share some general
similarities in appearance, when perceived by people who share a different set of characteristics. I have no issues with describing somebody as 'very pale' or 'brown haired' or 'short and wide', or 'extremely dark',  but these are physical characteristics visible to the eye; they are not 'racial'.  I know Guaraní people in Paraguay who are darker-skinned than many people who are called "black" in the U.S.  By any definition of race, these people come from different groups.

The initial post in this thread raised up the confusion of physical appearance and the word 'race' without defining the latter.  We still haven't come to grips with this lack of definition.


----------



## JamesM

I agree, it's problematic, but it exists, at least in the U.S. Otherwise, why would we have phrases like: "he played the race card", "race riot", "interracial conflict", "race relations"? It's written into our employment laws, our census taking, our housing laws. As you say, it's difficult to pin down, though.

In the context of this question, though, I took it to mean "physical description."  It was about describing someone to someone else, so I presumed it meant appearance.  That still leaves the question of what "race" might mean when describing someone's appearance.


----------



## Poetic Device

When it comes to describing someone, I still do not understand what is wrong with saying, "the skinny white guy with brown hair" or "the tall black guy".  What's so bad about that?  I think it goes right back to what I said before:  it's only what the surrounding people make it out to be.  If my daughter said "my black friend" it would not be horrible because of the purity and innocence.  Well, right there, doesn't that say something to you? A small child does not know what racism or prejudice is and that is how they described the person.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> When it comes to describing someone, I still do not understand what is wrong with saying, "the skinny white guy with brown hair" or "the tall black guy". What's so bad about that? I think it goes right back to what I said before: it's only what the surrounding people make it out to be. If my daughter said "my black friend" it would not be horrible because of the purity and innocence. Well, right there, doesn't that say something to you? A small child does not know what racism or prejudice is and that is how they described the person.


 
I think children are often more specific than this. I've heard them say things like: "the guy with the orange hair and the pink nose" (painfully accurate) or "the man with the black hair on his lip and the squinty eyes." "The skinny white guy" is not something that I've heard children say as a personal description without first learning "we/they are white". 

Most "white people" aren't white; they're pink, or tan, or yellowy, or reddish, or creamy, or olive-y, or something. "White" is an abstraction. Children are more observant of the actual color in front of them, rather than the group, in my experience.

As for "black", I've heard all sorts of interesting descriptions from children: "brown", "woody", "silver-brown" (that was an interesting one that I wondered about until I saw the person and saw that their skin was flaking and the top layer really was silvery looking), "like chocolate", "black", "burnt brown". "Black" is another abstraction. It's actually not as descriptive as a lot of words that children come up with to describe a skin color.

"The man with cocoa-colored skin" or "the man with onyx skin" would be a better description for picking someone out of a crowd. The grouping "black" is a much larger grouping. That's where this discussion of race comes up, in my opinion. What is it that is determining for us that the man falls into the larger group called "black"? I think for most Americans it is first a very dark skin color, then a broad nose, in general. Otherwise, you wouldn't get descriptions like "Lena Horne is a black woman who doesn't look black."


----------



## ElaineG

What is this thread about, does anyone know?

I'm so confused, is someone really advocating that it's "_racist_" to date certain groups and not others? 

Well, if that's the case, let me stand up and say that not only am I "_racist_" (I am only attracted to men with dark eyes, olive skin and curly dark hair usually hailing ancestrally from the rim of the Med (Sicily, Lebanon, Turkey etc.), but I am "_sexist"_ as well! I'd better go and get mentally reprogrammed.

What's next? Community service/reparations dating where we'll all be obliged to demonstrate our non racism by sleeping with someone we're _not physically attracted to_ for 40 hours a year?


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> What is this thread about, does anyone know?
> 
> I'm so confused, is someone really advocating that it's "_racist_" to date certain groups and not others?
> 
> Well, if that's the case, let me stand up and say that not only am I "_racist_" (I am only attracted to men with dark eyes, olive skin and curly dark hair usually hailing ancestrally from the rim of the Med (Sicily, Lebanon, Turkey etc.), but I am "_sexist"_ as well! I better go and get mentally reprogrammed.
> 
> What's next? Community service/reparations dating where we'll all be obliged to demonstrate our non racism by sleeping with someone we're _not physically attracted to_ for 40 hours a year?


 
I don't think anyone's advocating this, ElaineG, at least not that I see. I'm certainly not.  I think there is a difference, though, between "I'm not attracted to Asian-looking men" and "I don't date Asians."   That is beside the point we're trying to get back to, though, which is, when describing a person to another person, do you use race as part of the description, and, if so, what is race?

Do you have an answer for that one?  It gets very muddy, actually, when you start examining it, I think.


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> I think children are often more specific than this. I've heard them say things like: "the guy with the orange hair and the pink nose" (painfully accurate) or "the man with the black hair on his lip and the squinty eyes." "The skinny white guy" is not something that I've heard children say as a personal description without first learning "we/they are white".
> 
> Most "white people" aren't white; they're pink, or tan, or yellowy, or reddish, or creamy, or olive-y, or something. "White" is an abstraction. Children are more observant of the actual color in front of them, rather than the group, in my experience.
> 
> As for "black", I've heard all sorts of interesting descriptions from children: "brown", "woody", "silver-brown" (that was an interesting one that I wondered about until I saw the person and saw that their skin was flaking and the top layer really was silvery looking), "like chocolate", "black", "burnt brown". "Black" is another abstraction. It's actually not as descriptive as a lot of words that children come up with to describe a skin color.
> 
> "The man with cocoa-colored skin" or "the man with onyx skin" would be a better description for picking someone out of a crowd. The grouping "black" is a much larger grouping. That's where this discussion of race comes up, in my opinion. What is it that is determining for us that the man falls into the larger group called "black"? I think for most Americans it is first a very dark skin color, then a broad nose, in general. Otherwise, you wouldn't get descriptions like "Lena Horne is a black woman who doesn't look black."


 
My point was that children, who don't know any better, are not afraid to say something about a person's colour. You aparently understand that. I am growing very tired of the nit-picking and singling out that is going on here, James. You do realise that there are others that are in this convorsation. You do also realise that just because you do not see eye to eye with someone does not mean that it is all right or they deserve to have you venemously attack them.

Also, no one is advocating that it is racist to not date out of your race?  What in God's name was the reason for jumping on my back, then?  And don't worry, I know that it was not just you.  Read the past blogs.  You as well as others said pleanty about what was from me (at first) a hypothetical question.  



> Originally Posted by *ElaineG*
> 
> 
> What is this thread about, does anyone know?
> 
> I'm so confused, is someone really advocating that it's "_racist_" to date certain groups and not others?
> 
> Well, if that's the case, let me stand up and say that not only am I "_racist_" (I am only attracted to men with dark eyes, olive skin and curly dark hair usually hailing ancestrally from the rim of the Med (Sicily, Lebanon, Turkey etc.), but I am "_sexist"_ as well! I better go and get mentally reprogrammed.
> 
> What's next? Community service/reparations dating where we'll all be obliged to demonstrate our non racism by sleeping with someone we're _not physically attracted to_ for 40 hours a year?


 
What can I say?  Thank you!


----------



## JamesM

Can you point to my "venomous attacks"? That's certainly not my intention, and I'm not aware of any personal attacks that I've made. Describing my experience with children relative to their way of describing people by physical description rather than larger groups of race seems entirely relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure why that would appear to be an attack. As for who is in the discussion right now, it seems to be you, me, Cuchuflete and ElaineG as the most recent. I've responded to everyone, not just you.

Accuracy in language can be called "nitpicking", definitely. If we're to have a discussion about a topic, though, I think it makes sense to know the definition of the terms in use. I have heard a lot about what is not racist, but not a lot about what is race. I'm going to keep bringing up that up as my interest in this topic at this point until I find either that others would like to discuss that or they would not. I don't think that's unreasonable in a topic called "using race as a description."

I think it's at the heart of the discussion to look at how a child goes from "the skinny guy with red-speckled skin" to "the skinny white guy." What is that group called "white" and how is it defined? I'm not attacking you.  I'm simply using that example as one jumping-off point to discuss these classifications.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Also, no one is advocating that it is racist to not date out of your race? What in God's name was the reason for jumping on my back, then? And don't worry, I know that it was not just you. Read the past blogs. You as well as others said pleanty about what was from me (at first) a hypothetical question.


 
(The "dating out of your race" is worthy of a completely different thread. I'm doing my best not to contribute to "topic drift" by setting aside that particular discussion in this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread, though.) 

THIS is the question, Poetic Device.. it may seem like the answer is painfully obvious to you, but _what is the definition of someone "out of your race"?_ It may seem like a brain-dead question and that I'm nitpicking, but the word continues to get used with no definition. 

Just as a point of discussion, you have said at one point a "race" is defined by anyone having the gene of that race, or having parents or grandparents from "that region of the world." These are not one and the same thing. "Black" is not a region of the world, yet it has been used in a couple of the descriptions you've provided as descriptions of race. "African" would be more in line with "Asian", "Indian", "Middle Eastern", "Scandanavian" and other regional groupings. I totally agree that "Black" is used as a racial identifier; I'm not saying you're making things up, using weird groupings, or inventing race classes. I'm saying that the more you look at it, the odder the groups appear to be.

All I'm asking is to examine what "race" is when we say "race" - when you say it, when I say it, when anyone in this discussion says it. It's very muddled. I think it's a hodgepodge of things for those of us who use it, yet it's silly to say it doesn't exist.  It is a way of classifying people, at least for some of us.  I have only brought to your attention earlier that, despite applauding a person who was saying it didn't exist, you (and I) still use it as a classification - an undefined classification.


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> (The "dating out of your race" is worthy of a completely different thread. I'm doing my best not to contribute to "topic drift" by setting aside that particular discussion in this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread, though.)
> 
> THIS is the question, Poetic Device.. it may seem like the answer is painfully obvious to you, but _what is the definition of someone "out of your race"?_ It may seem like a brain-dead question and that I'm nitpicking, but the word continues to get used with no definition.
> 
> Just as a point of discussion, you have said at one point a "race" is defined by anyone having the gene of that race, or having parents or grandparents from "that region of the world." These are not one and the same thing. "Black" is not a region of the world, yet it has been used in a couple of the descriptions you've provided as descriptions of race. Where did black people originate from?  Before they were unfortunately turned into slaves?  That is why I used it. "African" would be more in line with "Asian", "Indian", "Middle Eastern", "Scandanavian" and other regional groupings. No, I used black instead of African because there are PLEANTY of Africans that are white.  It's called South Africa.  I totally agree that "Black" is used as a racial identifier; I'm not saying you're making things up, using weird groupings, or inventing race classes. I'm saying that the more you look at it, the odder the groups appear to be.  I think that is one of the first things that I can agree with you on.
> 
> All I'm asking is to examine what "race" is when we say "race" - when you say it, when I say it, when anyone in this discussion says it. It's very muddled. I think it's a hodgepodge of things for those of us who use it, yet it's silly to say it doesn't exist. It is a way of classifying people, at least for some of us. I have only brought to your attention earlier that, despite applauding a person who was saying it didn't exist, you (and I) still use it as a classification - an undefined classification.


 
Okay, I can respect you for that.  Let's go to the dictionary (again).  Maxi, I am sorry for doing this again.  I know that everyone has a reference book.  I just figured that I would do the work for them.

Main Entry: *3race*
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian _razza_
*2 a* *:* a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock *b* *:* a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English _race_>
*3 a* *:* an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; _also_ *:* a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group *b* *: BREED* *c* *:* a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits


----------



## JamesM

Let me try a poor attempt to define what I use as "race" in a description. Since we're talking about physical characteristics in a description, it seems to be me that "race" corresponds a lot to "region of the world",as Poetic Device has put it, with a few exceptions. I"m not saying that any of this makes sense, mind you. 

I would put a tall, thin, blond, fair-skinned person in the group "Scandanavian". That doesn't mean they come from Scandanavia, just that they look like what I think of as a typical Scandanavian. (If they are shorter, stockier, and blond, I might group them as a German, simply because my impression of Germans is that they are generally shorter than Scandanavians. Do I have any proof for that? No. These categories don't necessarily make sense.)

"Asian" is Chinese, Japanese, or Korean-looking - almond eyes, light olive-yellow skin, usually shorter stature (but not always), proportionately shorter legs, black hair (unless dyed), rounder, flatter face and features than others (including nose), high prominent cheekbones.

"Southeast Asian" is a category from my experiences meeting Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian people. I would also probably describe some from Indonesia as "Southeast Asian looking." Thin build, for the most part, darker skin than Asian but lighter than Indian, sort of a blend in appearance to me between Asian and South Pacific.

"Indian" describes people from India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh. It is a hue of brown that is distinctive to me, sort of a yellow-brown, although the color range varies a lot, along with a certain eye shape and nose shape. I'm afraid I don't have a good description the eye or nose shape I envision with Indian faces - the eyes are somewhat like Middle Eastern and the nose is flatter and rounder than Middle Eastern, but not Asian.

"Middle Eastern" covers Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Iraq/Iran, and the like - paler skin than Indian, prominent features, dark, thick lashes and brows, thick hair - dark-brown to black.

"Eastern European" is shorter, stockier, pale skin and dark hair, for the most part, wavy-curly hair often.

"Southern European" is a Caucasian type of body with darker skin and coloring, but only subtly. A typical Italian men's suit model comes to mind. Generally thin, but not always, and can be tall.

"Northern European" overlaps with "Scandanavian", but includes red-haired people as well. Of course, there are Scandanavians with red hair, but that's not how I use the term when describing someone.

"South African" is really Dutch-looking, to me, if we're talking about the white-skinned people, and dark black skin if we're talking about the black-skinned people.

"Central African" is very dark skin and, in many cases, fine-featured, in my image. 

"North African" is much like "Middle Eastern". I'd probably call someone from North Africa "Middle Eastern-looking", although there seems to be more European in their look than most Middle Easterners.

"Latino" is South/Central America for me - hispanic features blended with indigenous features. I don't think of Spaniards as "Latino", for example. Latinos have medium brown skin, but like any group has a wide range of color variation. I would be describing dark brown/black hair/brows/lashes, slightly rounded faces.

"Irish/English" is fair-skinned with anywhere from medium brown to medium blond hair, or even red hair. It is the look of many Americans, although "American-looking" is a totally useless classification. 

I would use "Polynesian" or "Pacific Islander" to describe another group of people. Broad faces like Asian, dark thick black hair, but a different body build and face shape. The noses are often broader and the skin is darker than Asian skin. The body is often stockier and broader. 

When it comes to black or dark-dark-brown skinned African-looking people, I think I've grown up in the U.S. with the knowledge that most of these people I see do not come from Africa; they were born right here. In fact, many of them have deeper roots in the U.S. than I do; my grandfather came here from England. For that reason, "black" gets used as a description, not anything with Africa in it. It's an anomaly in the categories because of our history.  (Of course, we went through a period when the preferred label was "African American", which in a way made more sense to me, but that's fallen out of use, I think.)

I've probably missed several groups, but I think this gives an idea of what I mean when I say, "He was the Scandanavian-looking guy standing at the ticket counter", or "The Asian kid riding the skateboard."

Yes, I do use these, and I think there's a lot of assumptions about how the people I'm talking to classify people as well. There's overlap and then there are probably places where there's no agreement at all, but I think we keep using the groupings as one way to categorize a set of features.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Okay, I can respect you for that. Let's go to the dictionary (again). Maxi, I am sorry for doing this again. I know that everyone has a reference book. I just figured that I would do the work for them.
> 
> Main Entry: *3race*
> Function: _noun_
> Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian _razza_
> *2 a* *:* a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock *b* *:* a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English _race_>
> *3 a* *:* an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; _also_ *:* a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group *b* *: BREED* *c* *:* a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits


 
Thanks for the definition. There are several here to choose from, with very different meanings. 

For purposes of this discussion, I'm using *3c* as the definition of what I would use to describe a person to another person ("_a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits_"). As a side note, I would not use "race" in the sense of "the English race" (2b); that definition makes no sense to me at all.

Which one are you using?


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Where did black people originate from? Before they were unfortunately turned into slaves? That is why I used it.


What is a black person? Someone whose skin is dark? Let's skip the question "How dark?" (--> which is not as easy to answer as you may think). Very dark-skinned people originated in many different, disconnected parts of the globe:

- Africa;
- Southern Asia;
- New Guinea;
- Australia

I bet some of these you weren't considering. But this observation destroys the notion that the black race can be simply defined by colour, and that it originated in one particular geographical area. Australian aborigine peoples have been relatively isolated, genetically, from the rest of mankind for longer than any other human population, for instance. Whatever these four groups of humans may have in common, it's not a couple of genes that no one else has.



JamesM said:


> As a side note, I would not use "race" in the sense of "the English race" (2b); that definition makes no sense to me at all.


I've never encountered a definition of "race" which made sense for humans, when examined closely. Given that, speaking of an "English race" is no more absurd than speaking of a "black race". We're just more used to the latter than the former, in the modern world.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> No, I used black instead of African because there are PLEANTY of Africans that are white. It's called South Africa.


 

Just as a note, there are roughly 4.5 million white South Africans, compared to roughly 887 million people in Africa. In other words, white South Africans are less than 1% of the population of Africa. Statistically speaking, it's a very small percentage. Or, as another way to look at it, the percentage of Asians living in New Jersey is ten times the percentage of white South Africans in Africa. (underlined phrases are links to sources.)


----------



## badgrammar

If anybody actually wants factual information on what we commonly call "races or "ethnic groups", there is, as Danieldefranco pointed out in this thread, and as I have pointed out in others, a fascinating research product underway by National Geographic.  This is one of the few studies that gives real insight into which human haplotypes (I guess you could say genetic traits, to make it simple), originated in which parts of the world, and the corresponding physical traits associated with these origins.  It's what many of you have been talking about, but without all the guess work.  By the way, we are all descended from someone in Mother Africa, and that is beautiful .

The project is called "The genographic project".  In any case, before going on and on about race and ethnicity, and what is it, and does it exist, and how do we define it...?  Please, check this out...

You can even participate in it by requesting a kit to give a sample of your own DNA, and find out more about your origins.  Go to: https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html.

Now that that's said, how about getting back to topic before this thread gets closed down?


----------



## JamesM

badgrammar said:


> If anybody actually wants factual information on what we commonly call "races or "ethnic groups", there is, as Danieldefranco pointed out in this thread, and as I have pointed out in others, a fascinating research product underway by National Geographic.


 
Thanks. Great link.  I just did a quick look around, but I don't see a list of racial or ethnic groupings there.  Is there such a thing, or a page on the site that discusses it?



> Now that that's said, how about getting back to topic before this thread gets closed down?


 
How are we off-topic at this point?


----------



## gaer

Outsider said:


> I've never encountered a definition of "race" which made sense for humans, when examined closely.


I haven't either, and we are certainly no closer to a consensus in this discussion than we were several pages ago.


> Given that, speaking of an "English race" is no less absurd than speaking of a "black race".


The problem is that if we agree with you, and I do, there will be very little left to argue about here and much more reason to find some sort of "common ground". 

Gaer


----------



## badgrammar

Hi James.  Well, the topic is using "race" when describing someone, and now we're talking more about what is race and ethnicity, and do they exist, etc... 

There's a lot of info on that first page, but if you follow the project through, you will get to a map.  On that map you can click onto where different geneological traits (haplotypes) originated, and then, how they migrated over centuries around the world.  It is Fascinating, with a capital F , and I must have spent a couple of days looking at the whole thing when I came upon it a year or two ago.  

The list you made above is spelled out in DNA!  Take the time to get into the site, it is great.

Now back to topic, I will occasionally describe someone by their nationality and/or race, but it all depends on the circumstances, the context, who I'm speakingto and for, what I need (and what I want to say), how much time I've got to be understood, where I am...  So very many variables!  

Sometimes if I point out such a thing it is because it is something I like about that person, for my own reasons:  Oh!  She's Turkish!  He's from Rajastahn!  He's Texan, just like me   !


----------



## JamesM

badgrammar said:


> Now back to topic, I will occasionally describe someone by their nationality and/or race...


 
I didn't see an example in your post of a race.  What are you calling race?  Certainly not Turkish or Texan. 

If you were describing someone by their race (not nationality), what would be examples of the words you would use?


----------



## Kajjo

badgrammar said:


> The project is called "The genographic project".  In any case, before going on and on about race and ethnicity, and what is it, and does it exist, and how do we define it...?  https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html.


Excellent! Everyone should read the genetic section before stating anymore half- or non-truths. Very early in this thread I stated that we can call the phenomenon _race_ whatever we want. There are reasons of political correctness (of which I am a vocal opponent) to avoid the term _race_ and substitute it by _ethnicity_ or whatever.

Anyway, it is clear that there are some common features that distinguish certain groups of people from others. In layman's terms, imagine naked people photographed in front of a absolutely neutral background. Could you imagine to fairly well recognise and distinguish Inuit, Indian, Egyptian and Massai? Could you imagine other groups to add here? How would you rate your chances if only darker coloured people where in the set? Massai, Cuba, dark Hispanic? Still fairly well? How do you call the features you use to do that? 

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> Excellent! Everyone should read the genetic section before stating anymore half- or non-truths. Very early in this thread I stated that we can call the phenomenon _race_ whatever we want. There are reasons of political correctness (of which I am a vocal opponent) to avoid the term _race_ and substitute it by _ethnicity_ or whatever.
> 
> Anyway, it is clear that there are some common features that distinguish certain groups of people from others. In layman's terms, imagine naked people photographed in front of a absolutely neutral background. Could you imagine to fairly well recognise and distinguish Inuit, Indian, Egyptian and Massai? Could you imagine other groups to add here? How would you rate your chances if only darker coloured people where in the set? Massai, Cuba, dark Hispanic? Still fairly well? How do you call the features you use to do that?
> 
> Kajjo


 
Yes, this is, I think, where I'd like to see the discussion go.

Just for convenience, I've linked images to the groups Kajjo mentioned:

Inuit, Indian, Egyptian , Massai (I spell it Masai) , Cuban, dark Hispanic


----------



## alexacohen

> Originally Posted by *JamesM*
> ... the discussion was about "Asian men" (which we can change to "Asian women"). So what is the unifying factor other than race?
> I suppose you could say, "I don't find almond-shaped eyes attractive" and it would make sense, but otherwise.... ?





> This is a silly argument. You are saying a person would not date another person because of the food served at a restaurant that they _might _be taken to based on the person's _presumed_ culture? I think at this point you are simply angry and taking shots.


But absolutely. As gross a generalization as saying that Asian People all have "almond-shaped eyes". But you're wrong, I am not angry in the least. _Au contraire_, I find this quite instructive. Otherwise I would have gone a long long time ago.


> You've made it very clear that you are unfamiliar with the concept of race.


That's right. I am totally unfamiliar with your conception of "race".


> The concept is to group people by common physical !!!!!!characteristics by the presumed region of origin.


Omigod. This is the silliest thing! My family consists of tall, blue eyed, fair skinnned, light blonde people/black haired, brown eyed, dark skinned people, and the redheads. If such differences are found in a family how can anyone seriously say what your have said? 


> I think there is a difference, though, between "I'm not attracted to Asian-looking men" and "I don't date Asians."


I see none: I don't date blonde haired/blue eyed fair skinned men. Because I'm not attracted to them.


> I am only attracted to men with dark eyes, olive skin and curly dark hair


So am I. Supposse I'm a racist the other way round?
Alexa


----------



## Outsider

Can you tell somebody's race by looking at them?


----------



## Benjy

This is quite brilliant 



> The concept is to group people by common physical !!!!!!characteristics by the presumed region of origin.


you respond..



> Omigod. This is the silliest thing! My family consists of tall, blue eyed, fair skinnned, light blonde people/black haired, brown eyed, dark skinned people, and the redheads. If such differences are found in a family how can anyone seriously say what your have said?


So you say that it is silly to define race as common physical characterics, that it is absurd to look for any correlation beween the two. Fine.



> I think there is a difference, though, between "I'm not attracted to Asian-looking men" and "I don't date Asians."


Your response..



> I see none..


Then you say that there is no difference between a man who looks Asian and one who actually is. That is to say that there is perfect correlation between looks (phsyical features) and race. Superb. Internal consistence is usually the first hurdle to pass before crediblity can be offered.


----------



## JamesM

Have I said the concept was sensible, Alexa? Have I in any way defended its rationale? I am trying to describe something that exists that is _not _sensible in some ways. Saying it doesn't exist for people in the U.S. (I can't speak for elsewhere), though, as a concept is as silly as the concept of grouping people by physical characteristics.

Can you show me an Asian person who does not have almond-shaped eyes? You see, the one word's definition (Asian) when talking about characteristics includes the other (almond-shaped eyes.) There are, to be sure, Asians who have had their eyes altered (several prominent Chinese film stars, to name one set), and there are, of course, Asians that go back generations but whose ancestors were from Europe. I have already said, though, that I am using the definition of race provided by Poetic Device's research that says, "_a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits." _You can decide that this definition makes no sense at all, in which case there isn't much left for you to discuss about this definition. 


You've made it clear that you think it is a nonsensical definition, and I certainly understand. It is not just _my_ definition, though. It is prevalent enough to make it into our dictionaries. 

If someone started a topic called, "Why Pigs Are From Mars", I wouldn't have much to contribute to it since I don't believe pigs come from Mars. In this case, though, I do think, as irrational as it is when examined, there is a "thing" that floats around in conversation in my world that is called "race" and it groups people by physical characteristics, so I am continuing along that path.


----------



## cuchuflete

Excellent test, Outsider....I'm assuming most people will not score very well.  I thought about half were
easy choices, and guessed wildly for the remainder.  Final score, 11 out of 20.  So I guess this supports the
point I made earlier--so-called 'race' as a predictor of even physical appearance is not a consistently useful term.


----------



## JamesM

Outsider said:


> Can you tell somebody's race by looking at them?


 
Awesome site, Outsider!  Thanks!


----------



## gaer

cuchuflete said:


> 1- _scientifically dubious_: What is the "race" of people in places where there has been centuries of interbreeding among peoples from different parts of the world? Try Puerto Rico or much of Brazil for some obvious examples.


This is becoming almost as true where I live, in South Florida. It's one of the things that makes my work so interesting. 


> If 'race' refers to geographic origin of ancestors, it becomes rather quickly misleading or even useless when there are multiple origins.


I would say that "misleading", if anything, is an understatement.


> 2-_Cultural implications_: geographic origin and culture sometimes coincide, and often do not. "Race" may assume that there is a one-to-one relationship, and that will be a wrong assumption much of the time.


A very wrong and very dangerous assumption.

This topic started out with a question about how we describe people we see in a crowd, or how we might describe friends or people we have met to our friends and family.

It had nothing to do with romance, dating, etc.

Gaer


----------



## Outsider

JamesM said:


> Awesome site, Outsider!  Thanks!


I tried their test twice. I think I got about 50% right the first time around. The last time (today), I didn't even think much about what I was doing. It got pretty funny by the end, me scratching my head trying to figure out how the people that were left could possibly belong in the empty places that remained.


----------



## JamesM

I scored worse than you, cuchuflete. A whopping 7 out of 20.  There is a slightly misleading statement on the site when it says "how each of these people would be identified based on current U.S. racial categories." It was actually how these people identified _themselves_ based on current U.S. racial categories. Small thing, but the Irish extract woman who identifies herself as Latino is a good example of the difference between how others might classify her and how she might classify herself. 

I worked with a woman who was half-Russian, half-Mexican. She had pale skin, a round face, and red hair. She spoke English with a Western American accent, no trace of Spanish in it. She was also fluent in Russian and Spanish. She definitely identified herself as Latino, although pointing her out in a crowd I would probably have said "Irish" because of her hair (Irish is not a race, I know, but red hair and "Irish" are associated in my experience.)


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> Thanks for the definition. There are several here to choose from, with very different meanings.
> 
> For purposes of this discussion, I'm using *3c* as the definition of what I would use to describe a person to another person ("_a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits_"). As a side note, I would not use "race" in the sense of "the English race" (2b); that definition makes no sense to me at all.
> 
> Which one are you using?


 
Now we are getting somewhere.  I was using 2.


----------



## JamesM

Poetic Device said:


> Now we are getting somewhere. I was using 2.


 


> *2 a* *:* a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock *b* *:* a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English _race_>




2a or 2b?  I have a hard time picturing either one in the context of describing someone to someone else.

If it's 2a, how do you know when looking at a person that they belong "to the same stock"?


----------



## alexacohen

Benjy said:


> Then you say that there is no difference between a man who looks Asian and one who actually is. That is to say that there is perfect correlation between looks (phsyical features) and race. Superb. Internal consistence is usually the first hurdle to pass before crediblity can be offered.


Read it as you like, sir. I did not say such a thing. What _*I*_ said is that_ *I *_didn't feel attracted to men who were such and such and so _*I* _didn't date them. And that's all it means. I didn't say _there is no difference between a man etc. or correlation between looks and race._ That is what you say I mean. But the words you chose were not my words, but a quotation, and I used that quotation because for me there is no difference between "I'm not attracted to XXX" and "I don't date XXX", which is the first part of the sentence. And I clearly explained it in my answer. Which you chose to ignore, and just quoted "none" taking the word totally out of context to make a score. Fine. But then, my native language is Spanish. 
Maybe my meaning got lost in translation...... 
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

JamesM said:


> Have I said the concept was sensible, Alexa? Have I in any way defended its rationale? I am trying to describe something that exists that is _not _sensible in some ways. Saying it doesn't exist for people in the U.S. (I can't speak for elsewhere), though, as a concept is as silly as the concept of grouping people by physical characteristics.
> "_a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits." _You can decide that this definition makes no sense at all, in which case there isn't much left for you to discuss about this definition.
> You've made it clear that you think it is a nonsensical definition, and I certainly understand. It is not just _my_ definition, though. It is prevalent enough to make it into our dictionaries.


You're right, JamesM. There is nothing left for me to say. I got completely lost with your descriptions. It's a long list!
Just one more thing:
I don't use the same dictionary as you. Mine says:
raza. _s.f_. 1. Conxunto de individuos que teñen unha ascendencia común. 2. _fig. _liñaxe_._ 3_. De r. _aplícase ós animais pra indicar a recoñecida calidade da súa especie.
raza. _s.f._  1 Raiola de sol; razada; 2 Luz que penetra por unha abertura. 3. Fenda,greta.
None of the meanings of the word matches those that you gave. But if I had to choose a meaning, the one I like most is Raiola de sol: "ray of sun".
Alexa


----------



## Número Uno

When I think of the term 'race' I think of someone being either black or white or indian or whatever...that's just my own opinion.

Yes I do use race to describe people, usually you use physical appearance to describe someone and colour of skin is one of the most vivid features of a person. Of course if you live in a society where there are mainly white people you aren't going to say 'That white person over there...' but if there's only 2 black person in a crowd of about 10 or 20 or an Indian person I would say 'That black person over there...'. It's not in a racist, disapproving manner, it's just stating their appearance to make it easier for the listener to notice. I would notice someone's skin colour before their eye colour or their height.


----------



## panjabigator

> The initial post in this thread raised up the confusion of physical appearance and the word 'race' without defining the latter.



I have no idea how to define race, and I didn't foresee it being the polemic it is now...


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:


> I have no idea how to define race, and I didn't foresee it being the polemic it is now...



I'm surprised that it has gone to where it has and not been closed.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> Can you tell somebody's race by looking at them?


The test is highly misleading insofar as exceptions are used to demonstrate how difficult it is to assign race -- that, in turn, is no wonder, because exceptions always break the rule. You can click on any single face and get a self-description. I think this site is politically motivated and violates fairness and subjectiveness. To have Germans say "I know I tan easily and most people think I am Mexican." is just that: Choice of misleading pictures. Also the pictures were very small and coarse, the face is not everything, but body shape and stature is important, too. We need to discuss whether we can pick 25 typical X out of a mixture of hundred. Not picking the single exception!

We can easily find apples looking a little bit pear-shaped, and pears looking apple-shaped and so on and no one would seriously doubt that _in average_ we are able to easily distinguish apples from pears. Don't we?

Generally, when we are in far-away vacations we realise that the local people look different -- while they still exhibit a tremendous variability there is also something common to them.

The experiment I suggested is not easily to carry out, but would be much more fair and effective. 

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> The test is highly misleading insofar as exceptions are used to demonstrate how difficult it is to assign race -- that, in turn, is no wonder, because exceptions always break the rule.


Exceptions? What exceptions?!



Kajjo said:


> To have Germans say "I know I tan easily and most people think I am Mexican." is just that: Choice of misleading pictures.


??



Kajjo said:


> Also the pictures were very small and coarse


You can click on them to make them larger.



Kajjo said:


> [...] the face is not everything, but body shape and stature is important, too.


Wait, aren't those races you love so much supposed to be "black", "white", "yellow", etc? Surely, that information can be gleaned from a person's face.



Kajjo said:


> We need to discuss whether we can pick 25 typical X out of a mixture of hundred. Not picking the single exception!


The pictures in the website are not "exceptions". They are ordinary people.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> Wait, aren't those races you love so much supposed to be "black", "white", "yellow", etc? Surely, that information can be gleaned from a person's face.


I don't love the concept of race. But I believe that _ethnicity _is factual and denial of ethnic differences is purely motivated by poltical correctness rather then objectivity.



> The pictures in the website are not "exceptions". They are ordinary people.


You can take 100 ordinary people of the same origin and maybe 90 have common feature of a degree to easily assign the origin. Of course, there are a lot of families with several ethnicities mixed and thus can not be taken anymore as example of origin.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> I don't love the concept of race. But I believe that _ethnicity _is factual and denial of ethnic differences is purely motivated by poltical correctness rather then objectivity.


This thread is about race, not ethnicity. Many authors make a distinction between the two notions.



Kajjo said:


> You can take 100 ordinary people of the same origin and maybe 90 have common feature of a degree to easily assign the origin.


Where does that 90% percentage come from? How do you know the actual percentage wouldn't be much lower? The test I linked to certainly suggests that it's considerably lower.



Kajjo said:


> Of course, there are a lot of families with several ethnicities mixed and thus can not be taken anymore as example of origin.


Ethnicity and origin are two different things, to many people. That's two more words that would have to be clearly defined, besides race...


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> This thread is about race, not ethnicity. Many authors make a distinction between the two notions.


OK, I don't for the sake of this thread. Define the words if you like.



> The test I linked to certainly suggests that it's considerably lower.


The test is meant to demonstrate a point from the perspective of political correctness. It is an example that it can be difficult, but not a proof that it is always difficult. 

Honestly, where I live you could enter 10 school classes after each other and without any difficulty pick the 1 or 2 children per class that do not have many generations of regional ancestors. A Hispanic, Black, Turkish or so might be difficult to spot in groups of Asians, Indians, Egyptians and so on, but they are really, really easy to be spotted in a typical group of Northern German school children. I bet the same applies to Irish, Swedish or English classes.



> Ethnicity and origin are two different things, to many people. That's two more words that would have to be clearly defined, besides race...


I would be absolutely glad to discard the politically overfreighted and misconceived term _race_ to be replaced by clearly defined terms, e.g. ethnicity. 

Have you had a look on the National Geographic website posted earlier here? That clearly shows significance and factuality of ethnicity.

Kajjo


----------



## badgrammar

Political correctness on the matter is so overdone....


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> Have you had a look on the National Geographic website posted earlier here? That clearly shows significance and factuality of ethnicity.


That's another thing, Kajjo. Genetic tests don't tell you a person's race (or ethnicity); what they tell you is their ancestry. It may seem like the same thing, but it isn't.


----------



## danielfranco

Oh, crud! Y'all still at it? I gotta unsubscribe from this thread already... Laters.


----------



## Poetic Device

JamesM said:


> [/color]
> 
> 2a or 2b? I have a hard time picturing either one in the context of describing someone to someone else.
> 
> If it's 2a, how do you know when looking at a person that they belong "to the same stock"?


More 2b than 2a.


----------



## John-Paul

Race is a term invented for just one purpose: segregation. The Romans needed slaves, so they took in Germans who were of a 'lower' race because they looked different (and they wore pants) and talked funny, hence the word barbarian. Then the tribes in Europe mixed and discovered another inferior group of people who also talked different, looked different and wore different clothes: the Africans. The Africans were considered inferior by law until the 1960's.

We're so inundated with this concept of race that it seems to be impossible to comprehend the fact that there is only one race and that we all are unique.

It's hard for some people to understand because it would mean they would have to invest time in people who they deem inferior in order to realize they're not, so in a way the concept of race is self-perpetuating.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I'm surprised that it has gone to where it has and not been closed.


 
SSSHHHHHH!!!  Bite your tongue!


----------



## JamesM

danielfranco said:


> Oh, crud! Y'all still at it? I gotta unsubscribe from this thread already... Laters.


 
I don't understand this. Or this:



			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that it has gone to where it has and not been closed


 
Why is the _length _of a discussion a problem? 

I think some very interesting things have come out of this discussion so far. I have learned that for at least one Spaniard the concept of race as used in the U.S. is foreign enough that it is completely confusing and silly. I've been directed to a site that shows DNA heritage and the migration of man over time. I've also been shown a test that deals with attempting to identify people's own classifications of themselves as compared to how they look to me. We've discussed race vs. ethnicity (although that's still a little murky). I think some of the discussion about "what does the word 'race' mean to me" has been very enlightening. Two Americans have been engaged in the discussion for quite a while before discovering that they were using different definitions.

I think I'm still not clear about what these cultural discussions are supposed to be about. Although the original poster produced an unintended result, isn't this exchange of the different ways in which words and concepts are interpreted by people living in different parts of the world and in different cultures (and the same culture) exactly what "cultural discussion" is about? 

Parts of it have gotten heated and it hasn't always been on track, but I think in general it has steered back to the topic at hand with a little nudging from moderators.

I am confused by this idea that we're still "at it." Why is that a bad thing? I'd go another 100 posts to learn some more things like those I've already learned.


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> That's another thing, Kajjo. Genetic tests don't tell you a person's race (or ethnicity); what they tell you is their ancestry. It may seem like the same thing, but it isn't.


 
Are you talking about like DNA testing?  If so, you could not be farther from the truth.  There are a lot of tests that can tell you everything about the person.


----------



## Outsider

You are mistaken. Your race (however you choose to define that) is not found in your DNA.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> You are mistaken. Your race (however you choose to define that) is not found in your DNA.


This could only be true if you use a definition of _race_ that is very far off from _ethnicity_. Genetics are able to tell whether a person is e.g. African-Black or Scandinavian-White. The more gene testing becomes widely available, there more information we will get. There are diseases that only apply to certain races, you could even test for eye color or many factors that were discussed in context of migrating genes during modern evolution and distribution of mankind.

Just discard the word _race _and go on with _ethnicity _if that makes a difference to you. Please let us talk about facts and not about which words to use to describe these facts.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Kajjo,

I would be more than happy to discard the word race, as it has no clear meaning.

Ethnicity, as commonly —and maybe incorrectly—used in my country refers to cultural practices.  You appear
to mean something else by it.  Please tell us what constitutes ethnicity for you.  That way we can avoid another
round of confusion, with people taking the same word to mean very different things.

Thanks.


----------



## cherine

panjabigator said:


> I have no idea how to define race, and I didn't foresee it being the polemic it is now...


This would teach you to avoid such questions in the future 
(kidding of course)


*Moderator note:*
*As the thread starter himself said, this thread created much wider controversy than expected.*
*Instead of answering the question in the first post, most of the contributors spent their time and effort identifying race, creating a heated off-topic debate.*

*I think it's time to close this thread.*

*Thank you all for your contributions *


----------

