Ice,

indeed.

You missed it. And I just don't know how else to break it down to you.

Identity is part who we want to be and part how others perceive us, and the interaction of those parts. Maleness/Femaleness are both based on a physical distinction--i.e., whether or not someone has a penis or vagina, etc.--but those physical distinctions do not dictate how someone dresses, what kind of haircut they get, how they talk, their mannerisms, or even more significantly what kind of job they get, how much they get paid, etc. Those things are dictated based on social, political and cultural constructed notions of what/who a wo/man is.

Can a woman pass for a man and vice versa based on the markers that are used in these constructed identities? In some instances they can, but ultimately to the degree that society connects these identities to whether or not someone has a penis, a woman cannot pass for a man and vice versa.

At one time, it was considered ridiculous for a man to be a nurse, stay-at-home mom, flight attendant, etc.; or a women to be a cop, soldier, etc. However as society is evolving, we are realizing that by and large it was SOCIETY's identity constructions, not physiology, that dictated what a "woman's job" and "man's job" was. Nothing changed in wo/man's physiology, only society's definition of what the significance of that physiology is.

Regarding, "race," it is somewhat similar.

IceNine said:

Okay let me try this again. How about this: there is no scientific basis for the meanings that society has attached to people's phenotypical differences. Those meanings are given according to socially, politically, and culturally constructed ideas.

I gave in my post what the definition is of "black" as it is socially, politically, and culturally constructed, clearly indicated that one's appearance (skin color, hair texture) and personal history (parentage, life experience, etc.) are critical factors in such definition. Therefore, the mere adoption of so-called "black" cultural ideals, mores, traditions, etc. are insufficient for someone to be "black" according to the way that "black" is currently politically, socially, and culturally constructed.

Whether or not someone accepts a "white" looking person as "black" has nothing to do with prejudice as it does with their deployment of the basic social, cultural, and political definition of "black" and "white."



It is. I think that by trying to attack poverty as though it is the result of someone's racial identity does not really get to the heart of what is the cause of poverty. Using "race" helps only to the degree that people's lives have been impacted by their social, political, and cultural constructions of "race." But once you get there and lift the veil of "race" you'll find other factors that cut across the board to other "races." Check out William Julius Wilson's "The Declining Significance of Race," for a very convincing and thorough argument in this vein.



There is no scientific reason for anyone to be called anything. That's been my point all along. The reasons to call anyone "white" or "black" are all culturally, socially, and politically constructed; and based on those constructions someone who looks "white" by and large cannot be "black" and vice versa.



"Race" has no basis in genetics HOWEVER as a social, political, and cultural construct it has been used to shape the life chances of people based on their identities. As such, policies seeking to reverse those effects should take into account those identities. Race (as socially, culturally, and politically constructed) and poverty, as well as gender identity (as socially, culturally, and politically constructed) in my opinion have been used against people and the combination of all those should be used to reverse those effects.

As far as reparations designed to address the effects of slavery on a socially, culturally, politically identifiable segment of the population, it can still do so.
.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 23:19:17 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

1st of all, no need 2 get snippy. It's all in the name of clear and genuine discussion, I'm not a flamer. I'm not offering 2 cheer 4 u or any other orger here. I don't even own pom-poms!

Secondly, I agree with not passing judgement based on appearance as well. However, if u do know the context of the person (Robert Van Winkle aka Vanilla Ice comes 2 mind), then passing judgement based on their loss of self identity becomes acceptable.

Elvis was a product of his environment.

Eminem is a product of his environment.

Robert Van Winkle was not, and the "joke" caught up with him.

Elvis and Eminem have embraced the culture, both artistically and personally... yet, they r still mocked 4 their use of their black styled music. Only difference is, Eminem gives the black man the credit due 4 his style.

June7 said:

My bad. But I didn't understand why you felt the need to say "sorry NuPwrSoul" as though I was arguing a position that you disagreed with, especially since we seem to be on the same page in this mantter.

No worries, we're cool. I think, in retrospect & upon further review, we are on the same page here, maybe I just misunderstood ur post.

Glad we straightened this out.

June7 said:

cool It's all love, it's all love.

All I can say is that you Americans love to argue about race. Way more than most peoples on this earth.

What does that say?

bkw said:

America was built on it,feeds on it,and lives for it.

4LOVE said:

Yes my friend, it seems that way.

It really strikes me as a non-American how often the issue is raised. It really says something I think.

bkw said:

It says that America is trying to move forward as one of the most diverse, if not THE most diverse, nation on the planet.

4LOVE said:

"america was built on that racist bullshit"

i'm exhausted right now, so my brain's not working too well... but i'm pretty sure that was ice-t...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
or was that chuck d...?

i need sleep... y'all get the point...
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 22:31:18 PST 2002 by EllisDee]

NuPwrSoul said:

Nupwrsoul,

:LOL: for sure!

I didn't miss it, I just don't agree with you at all. Your argument is very weak if you think that reparations, affirmative action, etc. are cool, yet there is NO real way to tell if someone is black.

June7 made a good point about white kids who grew up in black neighborhoods and are not being fake in their actions or trying to be "cool." Since you don't believe that there is any scientific basis to race, would you say that these people are still white, even though it is scientifically impossible to say that they are NOT black???

Your argument is very funny, as you base it on culture and external characteristics... what about a person who has so many white ancestors that they look white, yet they have "black" parents and live in a "black" neighborhood. Would you say that they are "white" or "black" based on their appearance?

You are saying that there is no such thing as black or white from a scientific standpoint but you can tell who is black or white by looking at them... but in your next breath you are saying that there is no way to determine race in relation to crime.

You claim that society's definition works for everything other than crime or if a white kid wants to be black is absurd.

Is Eminem black?

This argument really isn't going anywhere, but your logic is tragically flawed and is not internally consistent. Your argument falls down any time a white person grows up in a black area.

I guess we can let this one die.

:LOL:

...
[This message was edited Thu Dec 19 4:56:39 PST 2002 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

Yeah we gonna have to let this one die, because you seem to be missing the points about how identity is constructed. It is a mix of the following:

1. appearance
2. family
3. cultural interpretation of that appearance
4. social organization of that appearance
5. political classification of that appearance

Of these 1 and 2 are loosely related to biology in as much as phenotypes are based in biology and biological families provide DNA information for coding those phenotypes.

But that's it. One's identity is not simply based on appearance. One's identity is based on how that appearance is interpreted by the person bearing the appearance and how everyone around that person interprets and treats that appearance.

The identity that is formed based on this is very real but has no basis in science. No basis in science because how people interpret these appearances and what they mean is totally based on cultural, social and political ideas.



I assume that by "real" you mean biological? Because political, social and cultural constructs are just as real.

Do you believe that there is a biological way to tell if someone is black? How would you go about doing that? How would you determine the biological blackness or whiteness of someone who has one black parent and one white parent? Are they half and half?

So called "biracial" people weaken your whole race-as-biology argument, because it does not know how to classify people with parentage from different so-called biological "races."

Yet and still, while there is no biological basis to determine whether or not someone is "black," there are other ways to tell if someone is likely to live their life or have lived their life as a socially, culturally, politically constructed "black" or "white" person:

1. how do they look? does their appearance conform to what the majority of people would consider "black" or "white"?

2. who is their family? does their family look like or come from a place that the majority of people would consider "black" or "white"?

3. what cultural traditions do they participate in? traditions that the majority of people would consider "black" or "white"?

4. who do they socialize most with--is their social group predominantly what the majority of people would consider "black" or "white"?

5. finally, how does the state view and treat them--as someone who is "black" or "white"

There is a sixth factor, and that is

6. how does the individual in question want to be viewed? (this is not weighted as equally as the other questions since individual assertions of identity are tremendously limited in this culture with regard to race)

Now the answers to this added up and weighed will determine if the individual in question is likely to live their life as a "black" person or "white" person enjoying the privileges as such or suffering the consequences/discrimination/etc. as such as the case may be.



According to the racialization process in America, they would most likely be considered white... though if their appearance was sufficiently different than the majority of "white" people it is possible that they could "pass" for other than "white."



Again, re-read what I've outlined as the racialization process in America as I understand it... based on that, people who have "black" parents but look "white" can possibly live their lives as "white" people. It happens all the time. It is called "passing." There is a whole library of literature that examines this phenomenon.

The phenomenon of "passing" actually bolsters my argument that race is a social construct depending in part on appearance, and undermines your biological-deterministic definition. Because according to biology, where would YOU put such a person? And would it even matter what biology said if a person looks "white" and society treats them "white" and they participate in "white" culture, and identify themselves as "white" to the state?

Oftentimes, however, because racialization is based on more than appearance, even if someone can pass for white based on their appearance those other factors of racialization--i.e., familial ties, cultural heritage, social organization, etc.--limit someone's ability to pass if those other factors are pulling them in a direction opposite of where their appearance is taking them. But it certainly is possible either way.



I can only assume by looking at someone, what their socially constructed identity is. If they have dark skin, kink hair, thick lips, I can only assume that they have lived their lives as socially constructed black people. And if that assumption is one held by a majority of people who see this same person, chances are they are in fact a socially constructed black person.

People usually do other things to signify their socially constructed identity in cases where there apperance is not enough... these racial signifiers will include often certain engagements of culture, hairstyles, fashion, etc.



I am saying that there is no way to determine race in relation to biology, period. Can crime be organized according to socially constructed racial identities? Of course. I never disputed that. I disputed the UTILITY of doing so.

What does it prove? What does it say? And what conclusions can be drawn from that?

Since race is not biologically based, then there is not anything inherent or innate in these "races" that make them more or less likely to commit crimes.

But since race is socially constructed, then perhaps there is something inherent in these SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS that can correlate with crime. I contend that crime is a function of socio-economic status and education--and while those things cut across socially constructed racial identities, certain of these social conditions may preponderate (not sure if tha's a word, but you know what i mean) in one of these social constructions more than the other.



According to the factors outlined above that I understand contribute to racialization in America (the formation of racial identity in America), Eminem is not black.



Actually it's biological race determinists whose argument falls down. Because they would like to construct these neat notions of rigid biological categories to place people into that just don't hold water.

:LOL:

Really, we are going to have to let this one die, as your point is made weaker with each post...

Here is a very simple example:

YOU SAID:

SO: A black person growing up very rich in a private community populated by whites, with all residents making over $2,000,000 per year, who was never subjected to social persecution based upon his appearance and who was accepted by everyone that he came in contact with in his life would necessarily be white, as he had been accepted as a peer. BUT: by your definition, he ceases to be white the moment someone "interprets and treats" his appearance as different!

:LOL:

This is the crux of your whole weak and absurd argument. A person is WHATEVER people think he is!!!

By that token, if someone like Eminem dresses like a black man, speaks like a black man, exhibits mannerisms and gesticulations associated with black culture, gets his hair done in a manner that is closely associated with black culture and is accepted as a peer, he has become black and has transcended race.

Do you not see how pathetic that argument is? Your argument falls down on every level in that it is based on how OTHERS perceive a person and NOT on the person THEMSELVES!

:LOL:

Here is more VERY weak stuff that

you said:

Do you not see how amazingly weak your argument is in that it is SOLELY based on the perceptions of others???

Are you a Puerto Rican if you go to Puerto Rico and everyone there thinks that you are Puerto Rican? :LOL: Do you not see the tremendous, gaping hole in your logic?

I will stop now, as your argument makes absolutely NO logical sense and is completely absurd.

Have you ever thought about this ... Its okay for a black guy to act white, but it's not okay for a white boy to act black, Can't you see the irony in this???

DigitalLisa said:

If a black guy talks white he's speak proper
If a white guy talks black he's speaks Ebonics ...
Nobody ever critized Diana Ross for acting white 2days society.

DigitalLisa said:

I can see the irony in it!

What is acting white, by the way? We are so fucking bland and stiff that it is hard to pin us down... anyone who is basically boring and bland could very well be white.

:LOL:

IceNine said:

Where do you get that definition of yourself from?

The only difference between black and white is that the words are spelled different

4LOVE said:

I just looked in the mirror and then went with a general cultural consensus. We whites are all a bunch of stiff, bland, uptight business guys who run the world.

:LOL:

IceNine said:

well you know, I am contradicting myself, but there is a difference cultraly. So whenever someone of a different race tries 2 mimic that cultral, they're so called acting white or black so 2 speak, it makes no sense 2 me but that's just the way it is ...

IceNine said:

If that's how you see yourself,there is nothing i can do to change it.And i don't feel like typing a million words trying only to get booted by Ian.

4LOVE said:

:LOL:

No... that is how we have been portrayed by SO MANY people on here!

:LOL:

I see myself as a HUMAN, no different than anyone else... but according to NuPwrSoul's definition above, I am WHATEVER people believe me to be, therefore I am in control of corporate America and I am responsible for the social ills of the masses.

If I was left to define people, I would say that we are all human and that there is no difference between people, only their actions. I judge people based upon their actions, not their appearance. If someone is black and cool, they are cool... if someone is white and a criminal, he is a fucking asshole who should be locked up. It is plain and it is simple, people are equal in my eyes... their actions make them bad or good.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?

IceNine said:

You must not be familiar with the phenomenon of passing. If this person in question looked "white," treated themselves and was treated as "white" then yes, they are socially constructed as a "white" person. And they pass for white. It happens. Might sound absurd to you but I can't help it if you are unfamiliar with concept.

There have always been light-skinned people who looked "white" enough to pass and did so with little or no problem. And as long as no one thought them to be other than "white" they could live their lives as "white" people.



A person's racial identity is part what other people think s/he is, and part what that person would like to project, what their family raises them to believe, what their social group accepts, and what the state defines.

This is why some people can go to different parts of the country, or world, and "pass" for a different "race" at each stop along the way. And if they can access the cultural, social, and political resources and signifiers for that "race" they could live their lives as such.

In England, for example, Indians, Pakistani, Africans, Caribbeans, etc. historically have all been racialized as "Black." In Brazil, "Black" is not sufficient enough an identifier, so they have over 1,000 different "racial" groups for people to put themselves in. It IS based in large part on societal, cultural, and political pressures.

Of course people can assert who they are all they want. Some will be able to pass, but others will butt their heads up against the wall due.



Not necessarily. He'd certainly be far enough along. But there are other factors, such as family, and actual appearance. By and large, hair texture and skin color still are significant. So no. It is very unlikely that Eminem could become socially constructed black based on the criteria you have put forth.



So you believe that someone's racial identity is innate? They are born with it right?

And what exactly does that mean to be born "black"? Does that "black" have any meaning? Or does it acquire meaning as we grow and move through society? And where does that meaning come from?

[quote]Here is more VERY weak stuff that

you said:

No. We are a who we want to be to the degree that who we want to be is a viable option in society. I can say that I can put down "white" in my applications, say that I'm white until I'm blue in the face, but that is not a viable option for someone who looks like I do.



See above response to #1.



Clearly when I outlined these factors I indicated that ALL are considered. No one factor in and of itself is sufficient to confer socially constructed racial identity. Hence, a "white" person's participaton in "black" culture is insufficient in making them a socially constructed "black" person.



See my response to #3.



Does it really amuse you? If so, talk to so-called "mixed-race" couples and ask them of their experiences when applying for their newborn's birth certificate and having to choose "white" or "black" to describe their babies' "race."

I have. And even when they attempted to indicate "white" they would often be superseded by the doctor certifying the birth certificate. They usually end up having to classify their child as "other" or "black." So yes, the state does exercise some influence in this decision.



Only if they have passed all their life as "black" based on the factors indicated above would that be possible.



If you were in Puerto Rico, looked Puerto Rican, was treated all your life as Puerto Rican, your family was considered Puerto Rican, the state considered you Puerto Rican, your social group considered you Puerto Rican, and your cultural orientation was Puerto Rican, then you could pass for Puerto Rican.

Does that make you Puerto Rican? What are you if you are not?

That same person, by the way, if they look "black" could grow up in America and live in America as a "black" person... and if they looked "white" could do the same as a "white" person (as the people of Puerto Rico cover the full range of phenotypical features).

Now let me ask you this:

-You have posted an article that argues that race is biologically determined.

-You have posted several articles that list crime rates according to racial categories--categories that you seem to believe are biologically determined

-You have suggested that it is useful for law enforcement to engage in profiling people by racial categoreis--categories that you seem to believe are biologically determined

Is this correct?

Do you believe that biology is the sole determinant in forming racial identity?

What do you believe the role of biology to be in those crime statistics which are organized by racial identity which you believed to be based in biology?

IceNine said:

No let's not get it twisted. That is according to WHAT YOU INTERPRET my definition to be, which is far from anything that I am saying.

NuPwrSoul said:

This is how white people are often treated by certain segments of society, and by our government. We're guilty the moment we're born and we owe another group something for this accident of birth.

So by your definitions, other people and structures defining us, we're guilty, or evil, or whatnot, and should be made to pay reparations and give special favors.

That is, if other people and institutions define what we are...

NuPwrSoul said:

I believe that there is one race and that race is human. I do, however, believe that there are genetic factors that are related to "race" as a phenotype and that give people their appearance and that this appearance is deemed race by society.

Do I believe that race is a useful distinction? No. A good person is a good person, regardless of ethnicity, nationality or whatever. I dislike people on an individual basis, as I dislike the person doing crimes and horrible things and not the race of the person doing the crimes. The fact is that INDIVIDUAL people are bad, NOT entire races and that has been my point through all of my posts.

I have ONLY referred to the racial statistics in response to your post about whites being more likely to shoot at unarmed blacks in laboratory experiments. Your post was intended to make it look like the results of the experiment showed tremendous racism in whites in that we would shoot more unarmed blacks than whites in experiments. I presented data that explained the perception that blacks might be more dangerous and would therefore be more likely to be shot at in laboratory experiments. It is a pretty simple concept.

AS I HAVE SAID 1,000 TIMES BEFORE: I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT BLACKS ARE GENETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO CRIME!

Now, I don't really care if everyone thinks that I am a racist because I present statistics and data and I cannot do anything other than be true to who and what I am. I absolutely believe that everyone is equal on a human level and that NOBODY is genetically more likely to do crime than anyone else. Anyone saying that I have said or implied that is a fool who has not understood ANYTHING that I have said.

I do, however, find it amusing that some people have decided that I am a racist when I have said nothing racist on here. I have presented information that is difficult for some to accept and I have shown that whites do not do as high a percentage of crime per capita. This does not mean that whites are superior to blacks. In fact, I agreed with you before when you proposed social reasons such as poverty, lack of education and the breakdown of the community structure as a possible explanation for high crime rates among black communities. Beyond that, I have said that I believe that the vast majority of all blacks are good people who value ethics and justice.

All of the posts that I have made were made with the specific purpose of showing data that people ordinarily do not see and presenting it in response to assertions that whites were racist.

TO CLARIFY MY POSITION FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND ME AT ALL:

I believe that all people are equal as humans and that it is only their actions that differentiate them. I am speaking only of my conception of people and how I view them, not society as a whole. I do not believe that any race is superior to anyone else in any way, intellectually, morally or ethically.

What does statics have 2 do with anything, I'm not a static

teller said:

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying here--are you saying that the government considers white people guilty from birth and in debt to another group of people? The government?

Are you also saying that certain segments of the society do the same?

Do you feel that those segments of the society can/have exercised enough pressure with the government to shape white people such that they live their lives frought with guilty and in debt to someone else?



My definitions have to do with how people are IDENTIFIED, not what the implications of those identities are. Once identified by the process of the racialization, the effects of this process in terms of what kind of meaning is attached to people based on this identity is another matter.

If people accept their constructed identities, and many do, they can still contest the meaning of those identities. People whose identities are constructed as "black" have long contested ideas that "black" means criminally inclined, intellectually inferior, hypersexual, physically superior, etc.

I would argue that in addition to contesting what these identities mean, we would be better served exposing and challenging how these identities are assigned in the first place. That is not possible however, if one subscribes to biological determinist notions of race.
.
EDITED to clear up quoting parameters.
[This message was edited Thu Dec 19 7:24:11 PST 2002 by NuPwrSoul]

IceNine said:

Thank you for your response.

DigitalLisa said:

Statistics have to do with a study that was conducted in which whites were shown to shoot at unarmed blacks more often than unarmed whites in a laboratory experiment.

I posted crime statistics which showed that blacks were more likely to commit crime as a function of population, or that the per capita crime commission rate was higher for blacks than whites. Specifically, murder which was nearly 600% higher... this data clearly shows why people were more likely to shoot at blacks in a study.

AND:

If you will read above, I have CLEARLY stated that I don't believe that ANY race is better or worse than another.

Read more closely next time, please.