User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 78

  1. #51
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    I don't mean to say that being proud of one's heritage is a bad thing, but is their any logical reason behind it?
    - homo sapiens sapiens are are 99.9% identical, in fact, we're practically inbred
    - one doesn't choose what heritage he was born into
    - one's heritage doesn't dictate anything about who she is

    if you are proud of your heritage, why? is their a logical reason? does it just make you feel better? do you feel an obligation to?
    Very good reasons.

    I think it's fairly obvious that pride in one's heritage (especially in today's world of globalization), makes absolutely no sense.
    Now, if some people wish to do that, it's definitely their prerogative. But -- scientifically speaking -- ethnicity and race are almost completely irrelevant. Humans, beyond superficial physical appearances, are almost identical in all areas of human life that matter.

    Moreover, it's one's pride in some ethnicity or another (from whence they derive their social "identity") which has largely led to intergroup conflict between various groups in history (such as Anglos/Africans, Anglos/Indians, Anglos/Mexicans, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites (in Iraq), and Serbs and Croats in areas of the former Yugoslavia, ect., ect). In fact, I'm sure that if people did not take ethnicity so seriously, a large portion of all conflict in human history would not have occurred.

  2. #52
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    In fact, I'm sure that if people did not take ethnicity so seriously, a large portion of all conflict in human history would not have occurred.
    I don't know about that. Ethnicity serves more often as a rationalization for conflict rather than a cause. Take Rwanda, for example; the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu was not an ethnic struggle so much as it was a class power struggle, even though on the surface it was presented as having ethnic origins.

    Let's not take things too far in this thread. It's one thing not to personally feel any particular pride for one's heritage, but it's another thing entirely to call for the erasure of all such pride by everyone. Often that's nothing more than a method for one dominant group (which would like to keep itself invisible by pretending that there's such a thing as color/nation/ethnicity-blind/free state of being) to wrest what little political power certain ethnic groups have gained through collectivization away from them.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  3. #53
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I don't know about that. Ethnicity serves more often as a rationalization for conflict rather than a cause. Take Rwanda, for example; the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu was not an ethnic struggle so much as it was a class power struggle.

    Let's not take things too far in this thread. It's one thing not to personally feel any particular pride for one's heritage, but it's another thing entirely to call for the erasure of all such pride by everyone. Often that's nothing more than a method for one dominant group (which would like to keep itself invisible by pretending that there's such a thing as color/nation/ethnicity-blind/free state of being) to wrest what little political power certain ethnic groups have gained through collectivization away from them.
    I think it's "racist ideology" that tends to "rationalize" conflict/inequality.
    But such conflict/inequality is often caused by one ethnic group exploiting another.
    Moreover, there's often a general sense of "ethnocentrism" involved in these circumstances, so that one group will not "empathize" with the exploited group.

    For instance, if we think "Humans are more important than flies; flies are just nuisance pests," we'll feel less guilty, or not guilty at all, when flies are genetically altered by scientists, so that they grow limbs where their eyes normally grow.

    So there really is often some sense of thinking one group is "different" in some way, whenever ethnic inequality, conflict, or exploitation occurs. And that's often why you have people of one particular "persuasion" constantly struggling against another.

    And surely, not all conflict involves ethnic differences, but that's why I said "a large portion." The vast majority of disputes in the world seem to stem from some level of ethnic distinction.

    And with respect to your last paragraph: notions such as "color-blind" society clearly are ridiculous. But pointing out how illogical it is to hold unnecessary pride in one's heritage is not akin to claiming that society is color-blind. Certainly, very few societies - if any at all - are actually "color-blind." But despite this fact, holding pride in a heritage one (a) did not choose, and which (b) should not necessarily "identify" one beyond their own personal sense of identity, is not at all necessary or logical. The simple reason for this is that one can definitely "recognize" one's heritage in order to argue for social justice, sort of as an historical context used as a frame of reference. If one does this, there's really no need for "pride." Thus, pride in one's heritage is both illogical and unnecessary as a means of combating social injustices. Therefore, there's really no logical link between pointing out the illogicality of holding unnecessary/irrational pride in one's nationality or ethnicity and literally believing that society is "color-blind." Overall, both of these viewpoints are equally unfounded, and people should definitely refrain from thinking either is at all worth believing.

    The truth is that: (a) very few societies are color-blind, and (b) despite this, it makes no sense to hold pride in one's heritage. In fact, the more humans learn to avoid seeing each other in terms of ethnicity, the closer we'll come to a color-blind state of existence. So I really don't think ethnicity is a positive way of looking at the world, or a positive means of self-identity. All it does is create arbitrary social boundaries between humans who are virtually genetically identical. But regardless, given humans do tend to treat each other differently based on ethnic lines, we should definitely "recognize" ethnicity for functional purposes, at least where inequalities exist and are in need of correction.

    So overall, your argument does not hold water. There's really no need to hold pride in one's heritage, no matter how ethnic-based every society may be. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that holding pride in one's ethnicity is self-defeating, if indeed one wishes to overcome ethnic oppression, because it's pride in ethnicity - or at least a large awareness of ethnicity, in and of itself - which is often one of the most important causes of the subjugation of one group by another. Again, if all humans saw each other as equals (as scientists view humans as genetically equal), we probably wouldn't have such an extent of stratification (at least with regard to the fact that much stratification stems from ethnic differences).

    The best way to overcome ethnic stratification, inequality, and oppression is to see ourselves as mere "citizens of the world."

    [P.S., I'm an Hispanic INTP. So I definitely come from a minority perspective. Yet my reasoning and logic still tells me that holding heritage in some idiotic "Hispanic heritage" just makes me as stupid as the very people whose ethnic pride and rationalization led to the very conditions which create a disadvantage for me in American life. So let's just be logical here: pride in ethnicity is stupid. Period.]

  4. #54
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    I think it's "racist ideology" that tends to "rationalize" conflict/inequality.
    But such conflict/inequality is often caused by one ethnic group exploiting another.
    Moreover, there's often a general sense of "ethnocentrism" involved in these circumstances, so that one group will not "empathize" with the exploited group.

    For instance, if we think "Humans are more important than flies; flies are just nuisance pests," we'll feel less guilty, or not guilty at all, when flies are genetically altered by scientists, so that they grow limbs where their eyes normally grow.

    So there really is often some sense of thinking one group is "different" in some way, whenever ethnic inequality, conflict, or exploitation occurs. And that's often why you have people of one particular "persuasion" constantly struggling against another.

    And surely, not all conflict involves ethnic differences, but that's why I said "a large portion." The vast majority of disputes in the world seem to stem from some level of ethnic distinction.
    I'm saying that ethnicity is deployed as a rationalization for acts of brutality against a certain group, just as any social marker can be. People fight over power above and beyond anything else, and ethnic/racial prejudice, like any other prejudice, is built on top of this. That's why removing ethnic forms of identification will not solve the problems you're attributing to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    And with respect to your last paragraph: notions such as "color-blind" society clearly are ridiculous. But pointing out how illogical it is to hold unnecessary pride in one's heritage is not akin to claiming that society is color-blind. Certainly, very few societies - if any at all - are actually "color-blind." But despite this fact, holding pride in a heritage one (a) did not choose, and which (b) should not necessarily "identify" one beyond their own personal sense of identity, is not at all necessary or logical.
    What does the bolded mean? What kind of identification is there beyond one's own personal sense of identity?

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    The simple reason for this is that one can definitely "recognize" one's heritage in order to argue for social justice, sort of as an historical context used as a frame of reference. If one does this, there's really no need for "pride." Thus, pride in one's heritage is both illogical and unnecessary as a means of combating social injustices. Therefore, there's really no logical link between pointing out the illogicality of holding unnecessary/irrational pride in one's nationality or ethnicity and literally believing that society is "color-blind." Overall, both of these viewpoints are equally unfounded, and people should definitely refrain from thinking either is at all worth believing.
    I think you're confusing pride with prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    The truth is that: (a) very few societies are color-blind, and (b) despite this, it makes no sense to hold pride in one's heritage. In fact, the more humans learn to avoid seeing each other in terms of ethnicity, the closer we'll come to a color-blind state of existence. So I really don't think ethnicity is a positive way of looking at the world, or a positive means of self-identity. All it does is create arbitrary social boundaries between humans who are virtually genetically identical. But regardless, given humans do tend to treat each other differently based on ethnic lines, we should definitely "recognize" ethnicity for functional purposes, at least where inequalities exist and are in need of correction.
    This is where we differ. I don't think a "color-blind" existence is necessarily a desirable one, even in an ideal, non-prejudicial world; the term implies the blotting out of difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    So overall, your argument does not hold water. There's really no need to hold pride in one's heritage, no matter how ethnic-based every society may be. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that holding pride in one's ethnicity is self-defeating, if indeed one wishes to overcome ethnic oppression, because it's pride in ethnicity - or at least a large awareness of ethnicity, in and of itself - which is often one of the most important causes of the subjugation of one group by another. Again, if all humans saw each other as equals (as scientists view humans as genetically equal), we probably wouldn't have such an extent of stratification (at least with regard to the fact that much stratification stems from ethnic differences).
    Again, you're confusing pride with prejudice. One does not necessarily lead into the other (though sometimes it can), and if it did then we would be obliged not to be proud of any part of our identity, not simply ethnicity.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    [P.S., I'm an Hispanic INTP. So I definitely come from a minority perspective. Yet my reasoning and logic still tells me that holding heritage in some idiotic "Hispanic heritage" just makes me as stupid as the very people whose ethnic pride and rationalization led to the very conditions which create a disadvantage for me in American life. So let's just be logical here: pride in ethnicity is stupid. Period.]
    I am not seeing how it makes sense to say that if person A has pride in their, say, Jewish heritage, and person B happens to have prejudicial views against Jews because he thinks his Lebanese heritage, of which he is immensely proud, is better than person A's Jewish heritage, that person A is thinking the same way as person B. That's quite absurd to say, in fact.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #55
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    I'm just fascinated with how things came together in the course of personal history to put me where I am now. I could only try saying I'm "proud" in the sense that it's the story of my family, who I care about, and of myself, too.

    To think that, from totally separate lands, four families sailed in ships across the ocean, leaving the land they had always known and never looking back. And then that they had all settled in the same city, had children who eventually found each other and fell in love, and then these grew up and eventually found each other and they fell in love...resulting in my birth, and of my sisters.

    It connects it to history, which I've always liked: Why did they leave those countries? Poverty? Discrimination? War or political danger? Thus it makes history much more personal, showing it directly leading to your life.

    Firmly I agree that I can really only bring myself to be proud of something I have done. That's why I was never "proud" (although grateful) to live in the United States, which was not my decision of birth, though that's changing slightly as I'm aware of how I can affect the course of the United States as I grow up and take my place among its society. I do, to a small extent, have my personal hand in shaping that; all Americans do.

    So, overall, I would not say I'm "proud." Don't feel strongly enough about it to call it that. But the line is kind of fuzzy anyway, in my opinion.
    Last edited by Cimarron; 12-18-2011 at 05:27 AM. Reason: summary answer to OP
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaid View Post
    I find myself extremely proud to be a off the boat Arabian Iraqi. I'm not even first gen, I don't know, it is an odd point of pride, but I enjoy that I still have my culture, language and appearance intact to some degree.
    Again, this sounds like gratitude or appreciation to me. I think the English use of the word pride is more at fault than anything for being applied so liberally because it can be a little ambiguous and it is succinct.


    An "I'm not ashamed for being gay and also am appreciative to have this queer perspective" doesn't fit on a banner half so easy as "Gay Pride."
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  7. #57
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    For society I seek amalgamation. I want new information taken into society all the time, and I want it to be synthesized with the native information and some rational process to extract the elements of greatest utility from both pools and combine them. I'd rather have a society where A, B, and C mix into some kind of superior D.

    Enforcing that is slippery. I don't know if you can. On one hand, cultural pride almost certainly keeps that from happening because so-and-so won't let A be melted down into D, but on the other hand if you try to divorce people from their cultural heritage altogether you won't get this process either, because you'll instead get a situation where A turns B and C into A and A (where A is dominant and B and C are foreign minorities).

    EDIT: It just occurred to me that my signature kind of stands out in this thread.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #58
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I'm saying that ethnicity is deployed as a rationalization for acts of brutality against a certain group, just as any social marker can be. People fight over power above and beyond anything else, and ethnic/racial prejudice, like any other prejudice, is built on top of this. That's why removing ethnic forms of identification will not solve the problems you're attributing to it.
    You have to understand that there are certain "factors" that often lead to the exploitation or subjugation of one group by another. These would be (1) ethnocentrism, (2) an opportunity for exploitation, and (3) unequal power. Thus, one group literally does often see another group as "different/inferior." These distinctions are made on the basis of a host of ethnic differences (e.g., different religious views, language usage, cultures views, habits, practices, ect.). Second, one group must have a means of exploiting the other group in some way which will benefit them. (This is largely where your notions of "power-struggle" come into play, as if people want something, they will usually find any means to acquire it.) Third, one group must be in a superior position, so that another group can be easily dominated (usually with superior firearms).

    Thus, you can see that one of the very "factors" that often leads to intergroup conflict and ethnic stratification involves how one particular group sees another (usually negatively). So it seems that while ethnicity can often be used as a rationalization, that ethnicity is also frequently a serious contributory factory which allows conflict to occur in the first place, much of the time. But really, as I said, ethnicity is often used as a rationalization (in the form of some particular racist ideology) after the fact that one group has already exploited another group on the basis of ethnicity in the very first place. Again, you really must understand that without ethnic differences, one group would likely not hold such extreme ethnocentrism views towards others. Without this ethnocentrism, it's unlikely that one group would exploit another (regardless of power differences) to such an extent that gross conflict/ethnic stratification actually occurs. So ethnic distinctions really are often, despite attempts at rationalization, a major factor behind much intergroup conflict. And again, as I already acknowledged, this isn't always the case. Sometimes, groups of people sharing the same ethnicity may suffer inner group conflict on some level. It just seems to be the case that intergroup conflict largely occurs on the basis of ethnic differences.

    What does the bolded mean? What kind of identification is there beyond one's own personal sense of identity?
    What I meant was to distinguish one's "social identity" from one's "personal identity." We may largely form our own sense of personal identity throughout our lives, but despite this, we're often always seen ,from a social perspective, according to whatever particular racial or ethnic group we belong. This is essentially my way of agreeing with the OP's statement that ethnicity does not really dictate a thing about who someone really is. In the end, we are all individuals who happen to come from different groups. And that's what people need to understand.

    I think you're confusing pride with prejudice.
    In the specific segment you quoted, I was pointing out how pride in ethnicity/heritage is not necessarily needed in order to combat the dominant group's attempts to control subordinate groups. To do this, I pointed out how unnecessary and illogical it is entirely. But at no point did I at all speak of "prejudice." So I don't really see how talking about the irrelevance/illogicality of pride in heritage at all has to do with prejudice. It seems you pulled this out of thin air. Please elaborate.

    This is where we differ. I don't think a "color-blind" existence is necessarily a desirable one, even in an ideal, non-prejudicial world; the term implies the blotting out of difference.
    The term color-blind does not necessarily imply the removal of difference; it merely implies that difference not be taken into serious consideration when important decisions are made between perceived different groups of people, or that everyone be treated fairly and impartially, despite such perceived differences. Again, people can definitely acknowledge some level of perceived social diversity. The more we acknowledge that not everyone is socially identical, the better we all are. But at the same time, we must understand that these social distinctions run skin deep, so that people should be judged and treated according to their personal character. Sadly, very few societies, if any (as I said), actually treat people on an individual basis, with no hint of ethnic stratification, and no concern for their "social background." And lastly, I don't see how anyone could not prefer a color-blind society, as the alternative is definitely a society in which one's ethnic background (or various cultural differences) is used (and often against their favor). Thus, any society in which ethnicity is used, even inadvertently, to distinguish one person from another in some institutional manner, really isn't what we should strive toward. A society where people are seen as individuals who merely happen to come from a particular social context is what we should strive toward. So that means (a) we don't suggest that a black man be a janitor, while we suggest a white man be a supervisor at some lucrative company (just as a quick example), and (b) we merely utilize one's social background as social context, in order to understand the individual from a more holistic perspective. Yet, even if we utilize one's ethnic background in order to understand the conditions in which the person was raised, we should definitely not use this information to hold them back in any fashion, or to treat them in any partial fashion which would be against their interests (as I showed in point A).

    So basically, a color-blind society is definitely something we should progress towards. And here's an exact definition of "color-blind," just to further cement my point:

    Color blindness (sometimes spelled colour-blindness; also called race blindness) is a sociological term referring to the disregard of racial characteristics when selecting which individuals will participate in some activity or receive some service.
    Notice that - at no point - does color-blindness, as I said, indicate "the removal of difference." In fact, most people who favor color-blindness also favor diversity, as color-blindness is a means of removing exclusion on the basis of prejudice, while diversity is a means of fostering inclusion for more people from all walks of life. Either way, they both go hand-in-hand. Members of the dominant group merely seem to have turned "color-blindness" into a cheap fantastical excuse to oppose Affirmative Action. That's all.

    Again, you're confusing pride with prejudice. One does not necessarily lead into the other (though sometimes it can), and if it did then we would be obliged not to be proud of any part of our identity, not simply ethnicity.
    Pride does not necessarily lead to prejudice, but it definitely does seem to go hand-in-hand with ethnocentrism. Although, we should explain that there are potentially two different understandings of the word "pride" here that may be throwing people off. The first understanding of the word pride is the notion that someone is incredibly fond of something, such that there is some sort of emotional bond. This usually leads to sensitivity (making one easily offended) and/or such an extreme love of something such that one is inclined to make comparisons and see other things as inferior. For instance, if you have pride in how high you can jump, you may begin to look down on those who cannot jump as high (although, again, this isn't always the case). But regardless of the fact that there is only a correlation here, I must say that very few people seem to be capable of holding pride in anything without eventually engaging in some level of ethnocentrism or conflict on some level as a result. Moreover, the very fact that people "can" potentially become prejudiced/ethnocentric/xenophobic as a result of pride (e.g., patriotism) makes it inherently less prudent a form of behavior.

    The second understanding of the word "pride" is merely something like "Not ashamed." Hence, some people may say, "Don't feel bad about who you are, how your breasts look, or that you may not be the ideal weight -- be proud of who you are. Love yourself." This sense of pride seems to have more to do with "self-esteem" than "patriotism." Thus, if by "pride" we mean to say that someone is incredibly fervent about their heritage/ethnicity, then I say it's illogical. But if, on the other hand, we're speaking merely about "self-esteem" and a personal sense of honor and fondness, then I would say pride in ethnicity/heritage, according to this interpretation of the word, is almost utterly harmless. Prideful self-esteem is a very positive emotion/perception/state of mind that helps many people keep an optimistic outlook (though it's just optional). Not everyone needs any pride in anything. So I think it's the fervent, highly emotional and irrational pride that really tends to turn nasty. And that's the kind of pride that makes one soccer or football team hate another soccer or football team. That's the kind of crazy emotion that makes one national group utterly despite another, and so and so forth.

    So this is what I'm really referring to: fervent passion and zeal towards some aspect of your social/ethnic identity/heritage. If people realized that we are -- scientifically speaking -- almost genetically identical, humans likely wouldn't make such incredible distinctions between one another on this basis. Zealous "pride" would definitely not be an issue.

    I am not seeing how it makes sense to say that if person A has pride in their, say, Jewish heritage, and person B happens to have prejudicial views against Jews because he thinks his Lebanese heritage, of which he is immensely proud, is better than person A's Jewish heritage, that person A is thinking the same way as person B. That's quite absurd to say, in fact.
    I think there is a very positive correlation between "zealous pride" and prejudice/ethnocentrism/xenophobia/patriotism. Surely it's not a perfect "causal" relationship; but it does seem very correlated. Hence, I see such "zealous pride" as part of the problem that perhaps leads to these very negative conditions, which then lead to ethnic stratification and various forms of intergroup conflict. Again, if people were not immensely proud of their social identity, and did not see it in everything around them, they probably not be as ethnocentrism, prejudiced, xenophobic, or nationalistic (just to name a few). And given such zealous pride and social distinction may be the very cause of many forms of ethnic stratification, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, prejudice, xenophobia, and nationalism, it really makes no sense for minority (or subordinate) groups to all buy into this ridiculous fervent pride of one's ethnicity/heritage/nationality/social identity.

    =]

  9. #59
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cimarron View Post

    Firmly I agree that I can really only bring myself to be proud of something I have done. That's why I was never "proud" (although grateful) to live in the United States, which was not my decision of birth, though that's changing slightly as I'm aware of how I can affect the course of the United States as I grow up and take my place among its society. I do, to a small extent, have my personal hand in shaping that; all Americans do.
    Very well-said.

  10. #60
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    You have to understand that there are certain "factors" that often lead to the exploitation or subjugation of one group by another. These would be (1) ethnocentrism, (2) an opportunity for exploitation, and (3) unequal power. Thus, one group literally does often see another group as "different/inferior." These distinctions are made on the basis of a host of ethnic differences (e.g., different religious views, language usage, cultures views, habits, practices, ect.). Second, one group must have a means of exploiting the other group in some way which will benefit them. (This is largely where your notions of "power-struggle" come into play, as if people want something, they will usually find any means to acquire it.) Third, one group must be in a superior position, so that another group can be easily dominated (usually with superior firearms).

    Thus, you can see that one of the very "factors" that often leads to intergroup conflict and ethnic stratification involves how one particular group sees another (usually negatively). So it seems that while ethnicity can often be used as a rationalization, that ethnicity is also frequently a serious contributory factory which allows conflict to occur in the first place, much of the time. But really, as I said, ethnicity is often used as a rationalization (in the form of some particular racist ideology) after the fact that one group has already exploited another group on the basis of ethnicity in the very first place. Again, you really must understand that without ethnic differences, one group would likely not hold such extreme ethnocentrism views towards others. Without this ethnocentrism, it's unlikely that one group would exploit another (regardless of power differences) to such an extent that gross conflict/ethnic stratification actually occurs. So ethnic distinctions really are often, despite attempts at rationalization, a major factor behind much intergroup conflict. And again, as I already acknowledged, this isn't always the case. Sometimes, groups of people sharing the same ethnicity may suffer inner group conflict on some level. It just seems to be the case that intergroup conflict largely occurs on the basis of ethnic differences.
    This is a matter of interpretation and semantics. If group A is fighting with group B, and there is a lot of prejudicial rhetoric being thrown around as the reason for the conflict, how do we interpret what is the true basis of the conflict? I never argued that ethnicity is not a contributing factor to escalating group conflict; it's just this "basis" business that is the heart of the matter. I assume that when we say the word "basis" we mean something like ultimate underlying cause, and determining that is certainly not the matter of obvious fact that you're making it out to be. There are many theories about prejudice formation and what causes it, and it's not enough to simply assert that "intergroup conflict largely occurs on the basis of ethnic differences."

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    What I meant was to distinguish one's "social identity" from one's "personal identity." We may largely form our own sense of personal identity throughout our lives, but despite this, we're often always seen ,from a social perspective, according to whatever particular racial or ethnic group we belong. This is essentially my way of agreeing with the OP's statement that ethnicity does not really dictate a thing about who someone really is. In the end, we are all individuals who happen to come from different groups. And that's what people need to understand.
    The OP asked a question about whether and how people on this forum integrate their heritage, which I assume is part of their "social identity," into their personal identity. Social identity and self-identity are only separated for the academic purposes of, respectively, macro-level sociological analysis and micro-level psychological analysis. It makes no sense to argue from the macro-level that social identity should be taken out of the formation of self-identity on the micro level.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    In the specific segment you quoted, I was pointing out how pride in ethnicity/heritage is not necessarily needed in order to combat the dominant group's attempts to control subordinate groups. To do this, I pointed out how unnecessary and illogical it is entirely. But at no point did I at all speak of "prejudice." So I don't really see how talking about the irrelevance/illogicality of pride in heritage at all has to do with prejudice. It seems you pulled this out of thin air. Please elaborate.
    Your argument was based on distinguishing between "recognition" of one's heritage and pride in one's heritage. The former, you asserted, was sufficient to "combat the dominant group's attempts to control subordinate groups." Pride in one's heritage, therefore, is illogical and unnecessary. Ignoring for a moment the non sequitor inherent in deducing that since recognition of heritage is the minimal one needs to combat race/ethnic-based social injustices, that feeling pride in heritage necessarily does nothing to augment this process, there is also the matter that, even if pride were useless towards that purpose, the only way you could make the argument that its "illogicality" means "you should not do it" is if you assume that pride is equivalent to (or necessarily leads to) prejudice. After all, pointing out that X is illogical is not enough to make the argument that one should not do X, especially when X is a feeling and inherently (i.e., trivially) illogical. You'd have to point out how it's bad, and since you "at no point at all used the word prejudice," I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you must have meant to mention it but forgot.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    The term color-blind does not necessarily imply the removal of difference; it merely implies that difference not be taken into serious consideration when important decisions are made between perceived different groups of people, or that everyone be treated fairly and impartially, despite such perceived differences. Again, people can definitely acknowledge some level of perceived social diversity. The more we acknowledge that not everyone is socially identical, the better we all are. But at the same time, we must understand that these social distinctions run skin deep, so that people should be judged and treated according to their personal character. Sadly, very few societies, if any (as I said), actually treat people on an individual basis, with no hint of ethnic stratification, and no concern for their "social background." And lastly, I don't see how anyone could not prefer a color-blind society, as the alternative is definitely a society in which one's ethnic background (or various cultural differences) is used (and often against their favor). Thus, any society in which ethnicity is used, even inadvertently, to distinguish one person from another in some institutional manner, really isn't what we should strive toward. A society where people are seen as individuals who merely happen to come from a particular social context is what we should strive toward. So that means (a) we don't suggest that a black man be a janitor, while we suggest a white man be a supervisor at some lucrative company (just as a quick example), and (b) we merely utilize one's social background as social context, in order to understand the individual from a more holistic perspective. Yet, even if we utilize one's ethnic background in order to understand the conditions in which the person was raised, we should definitely not use this information to hold them back in any fashion, or to treat them in any partial fashion which would be against their interests (as I showed in point A).

    So basically, a color-blind society is definitely something we should progress towards. And here's an exact definition of "color-blind," just to further cement my point:

    Notice that - at no point - does color-blindness, as I said, indicate "the removal of difference." In fact, most people who favor color-blindness also favor diversity, as color-blindness is a means of removing exclusion on the basis of prejudice, while diversity is a means of fostering inclusion for more people from all walks of life. Either way, they both go hand-in-hand. Members of the dominant group merely seem to have turned "color-blindness" into a cheap fantastical excuse to oppose Affirmative Action. That's all.
    Let's just say that I'll get behind color-blindness just as soon as structures of power and privilege cease to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    Pride does not necessarily lead to prejudice, but it definitely does seem to go hand-in-hand with ethnocentrism. Although, we should explain that there are potentially two different understandings of the word "pride" here that may be throwing people off. The first understanding of the word pride is the notion that someone is incredibly fond of something, such that there is some sort of emotional bond. This usually leads to sensitivity (making one easily offended) and/or such an extreme love of something such that one is inclined to make comparisons and see other things as inferior. For instance, if you have pride in how high you can jump, you may begin to look down on those who cannot jump as high (although, again, this isn't always the case). But regardless of the fact that there is only a correlation here, I must say that very few people seem to be capable of holding pride in anything without eventually engaging in some level of ethnocentrism or conflict on some level as a result. Moreover, the very fact that people "can" potentially become prejudiced/ethnocentric/xenophobic as a result of pride (e.g., patriotism) makes it inherently less prudent a form of behavior.

    The second understanding of the word "pride" is merely something like "Not ashamed." Hence, some people may say, "Don't feel bad about who you are, how your breasts look, or that you may not be the ideal weight -- be proud of who you are. Love yourself." This sense of pride seems to have more to do with "self-esteem" than "patriotism." Thus, if by "pride" we mean to say that someone is incredibly fervent about their heritage/ethnicity, then I say it's illogical. But if, on the other hand, we're speaking merely about "self-esteem" and a personal sense of honor and fondness, then I would say pride in ethnicity/heritage, according to this interpretation of the word, is almost utterly harmless. Prideful self-esteem is a very positive emotion/perception/state of mind that helps many people keep an optimistic outlook (though it's just optional). Not everyone needs any pride in anything. So I think it's the fervent, highly emotional and irrational pride that really tends to turn nasty. And that's the kind of pride that makes one soccer or football team hate another soccer or football team. That's the kind of crazy emotion that makes one national group utterly despite another, and so and so forth.

    So this is what I'm really referring to: fervent passion and zeal towards some aspect of your social/ethnic identity/heritage. If people realized that we are -- scientifically speaking -- almost genetically identical, humans likely wouldn't make such incredible distinctions between one another on this basis. Zealous "pride" would definitely not be an issue.
    Sure, if by "pride" you mean:

    a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
    I would agree, it's best not to feel that way about anything. As you acknolwedged, though, there is also this type of pride, which I see nothing wrong with:

    pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself: civic pride.
    I would disagree, however, that simply having people acknowledge the fact that there is little genetic difference between any of us would lead to decreased in-group, out-group type prejudicial behavior, even those based on race or ethnicity.

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    I think there is a very positive correlation between "zealous pride" and prejudice/ethnocentrism/xenophobia/patriotism. Surely it's not a perfect "causal" relationship; but it does seem very correlated. Hence, I see such "zealous pride" as part of the problem that perhaps leads to these very negative conditions, which then lead to ethnic stratification and various forms of intergroup conflict. Again, if people were not immensely proud of their social identity, and did not see it in everything around them, they probably not be as ethnocentrism, prejudiced, xenophobic, or nationalistic (just to name a few). And given such zealous pride and social distinction may be the very cause of many forms of ethnic stratification, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, prejudice, xenophobia, and nationalism, it really makes no sense for minority (or subordinate) groups to all buy into this ridiculous fervent pride of one's ethnicity/heritage/nationality/social identity.

    =]
    Again, if we're talking about zealous and delusional feelings of "pride," then yes, I would of course agree that it is not a good behavior. But again, I would take issue with your attribution of such feelings as the primary cause of "ethnic stratification, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, prejudice, xenophobia, and nationalism." Something has to cause such feelings in the first place, and that's a question that has yet to be resolved even in the academic circles to which it is relevant.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] Don't Be Ashamed of Your Face
    By Mal12345 in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-18-2016, 06:40 AM
  2. If you are a teacher, are you sometimes proud of your students?
    By Blackmail! in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-21-2013, 01:51 PM
  3. What Would the Title of Your Autobiography Be?
    By SecondBest in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-15-2010, 10:41 AM
  4. [MBTItm] There's a whole world of experience to be seen and felt outside of your head!!!
    By SillySapienne in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 12:46 AM
  5. Posts of yours that you are particularly proud of...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 06:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO