User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 73

  1. #61
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    So all of this to ask why people stereotype?
    You're insisting on balling up all of these concerns into a single statement, but it's not so simple, would that it was.

    My simply stereotyping one group assumes that that 'group' exists in the first place.

    1) existence of group established or accepted

    2) group is stereotyped as having certain characteristics

    IMO, most people who talk about inequality of races and concomitant racism, or world issues between and amongst various cultural groups, are stuck on number 2. I'm more concerned with number 1.

    What are the criteria and motivations behind accepting the ontological status of a cultural group in the first place?

    e.g. is "West" (and "East") a coherent and valuable concept? Is "Asia"? Is "Europe"? Is "Africa"? Are "Black" and "White" and "Latino"?

    If they are valuable, maybe they're only valuable for discussion under certain limited circumstances and in others are potentially damaging to understanding of the world and people as they are.

    I hope that makes my approach clearer.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  2. #62
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eileen View Post
    Well, that's the thing about hegemony; it exists in the fiber of the environment. It is expressed in tiny details... like what is taught in schools and what is left out, how language patterns are judged as correct/proper or incorrect/improper, how schools receive some funds through property taxes, etc.

    It exists because of historical assumptions about what is valuable and not valuable, and it's so woven in that it's sometimes kind of invisible. There are the people who work against it, the people who default to it, and the people who actively deny that there is a problem.

    An example of the hegemony in action: History Education. For a long time, what American children learned in school was white American history. Beyond a mention of slavery, African American history was simply not covered. This is a problem for lots of reasons (it presents to children an imbalanced and dishonest-by-omission history, it affects the self-concept of kids, especially African American ones, etc). Somewhere along the line, someone called bullshit on this practice and started to change this. One way they tried to raise awareness of this deficit in education was by implementing "Black History Month."

    So those are the folks working against it. The people who default to it don't really think about it or consider the problem of not teaching this history. They just shrug and do their homework. And every once in awhile, there will be a denier--frequently a member of the "ruling class" (ie, very likely a white male individual) who complains about Black History Month (or Women's History Month, or whatever) because they see it as "reverse discrimination." These are the people who see the system as totally fine the way it is and who regard these efforts as unnecessary and even offensive.

    I do think that things are changing (because of the efforts of people working against the system). The system IS better than it was, and more African American history is taught than before outside of BHM. More African American authors are a part of the American Lit curriculum. But if everybody just complied with the system, we'd still be learning only the history and literature of white male Americans and drinking from separate water fountains.



    The system is less racist than it was, sure. That's because there have been individuals working against it for over a century now.

    I don't mean to excuse individual racists; they're definitely a problem. But what still exists in the system is still more harmful to the group than what individuals can inflict. Individuals act upon individuals; the system acts upon the whole.


    EDIT: Also, individual racism, while awful, is more VISIBLE than that which is ingrained in institutions. You can vanquish an enemy that you can see much more easily than one that is camouflaged.
    Another word on Lateralus's last post...

    This quotation, taken from one of Eileen's posts in the Racism thread, is an excellent description, with a focus on subtle racism in education, that addresses some of the general issues I'm talking about. Particularly Eileen's very nicely worded part here:

    "hegemony; it exists in the fiber of the environment. It is expressed in tiny details... like what is taught in schools and what is left out, how language patterns are judged as correct/proper or incorrect/improper, how schools receive some funds through property taxes, etc.

    It exists because of historical assumptions about what is valuable and not valuable, and it's so woven in that it's sometimes kind of invisible. There are the people who work against it, the people who default to it, and the people who actively deny that there is a problem.
    "

    I'm simply working against what I see as a hegemonic structure vis-a-vis classifications of cultural and geopolitical groups.

    Also, this is very important:

    " Also, individual racism, while awful, is more VISIBLE than that which is ingrained in institutions. You can vanquish an enemy that you can see much more easily than one that is camouflaged.

    Replace "individual racism" with "assumptions about cultural and geopolitical entities" and you get what I'm talking about in this thread, not just with "Asia", but with a lot of categories.
    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  3. #63
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    east asia = Korea, Japan, Mongolia, maybe China

    SE Asia = vietnam, cambodia, thailand, phillipines

    South Asia = India, Pakistan

    Central Asia = Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan.

    The history of Kazahkstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, etc... nomadic Central Asian history in general is pretty fascinating. Many similiarities with early Native American cultures, shamanism, history etc...

  4. #64
    Resident Snot-Nose GZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    When I think of "asian people", I think of what CC said; Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Taiwan, ect... East Asia. I think of middle eastern people as middle eastern or Arab, and I think of Indian people as Indian. These include people of those ethnicity who may have been born elsewhere. I don't know any Russians from the asian part of Russia, so that hasn't crossed my mind.

    Here's a question; are native people "asian"? Apparently some anthropologists consider them asian when using such huge blanket terms as "asian", "white", "black", "indian", ect.

  5. #65
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    'potential'
    How come it's in 'these' dillies?
    we fukin won boys

  6. #66
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Yeah, you're really splitting hairs, here. But it's understandable considering the animosity you have toward me.

    How far back can you trace your ancestry? There's my answer to your question.

    It's not like we're originally from Africa, either. If you trace evolution back to the start, we come from the ocean. This is all just meaningless labeling, a way for other people to categorize you.
    First of all, despite what you may think I don't have any "animosity" against you. Sure I disagree with you about nearly everything to do with economics, but I don't exactly skip all of your posts or anything. Secondly, yes I was half messing about. I don't take myself too serious but everyone should know that by now.

    As for your answer, I still find it problematic. One has to realise that India has only been independent for a little over 60 years, and before then British people were sent there to become the upper-middle-class and upper-class, just in the same way Indians were encouraged to go to places like Tanzania and other parts of Africa to become the upper class. So it would not exactly be hard to find people in my family connected to India in the last few hundred years by residence and birth.

    As for your last point about 'meaningless labelling', I tend to agree with you. All I am really saying is 'defining ones nationality' is not as simple as you originally made out. To be honest, I don't use or like terms like "Asian" as the way most people seem to use the word in a borderline racist way, and also its association with things I disagree with like 'affirmative action' and 'multiculturalism'. But, if someone wants to be defined by their own 'nationality' or 'race' as something who am I to argue?
    Last edited by Falcarius; 08-02-2008 at 04:27 AM. Reason: Clarity...
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  7. #67

    Default

    My brain is positively spinning... (more than usual)

    Interestingly enough, I pondered a similar question this morning.

    I was grocery shopping, and needed to buy 30 pairs of chopsticks (for a school project). For some reason, I couldn't locate them, and asked for help. The answer? "On the Asian Aisle". Hmmm, I wondered. Why is it called the "Asian Aisle"? I noticed all kinds of foods, which would typically not be labeled as "American". Hispanic, Jewish, Japanese, Chinese "specialty" foods displayed in tidy little sections. Yet the sign hanging above me simply said "Asian Foods". I guess labeling it "other" was out of the question.

    For so many reasons, food must be labeled, but why is it WE, as humans seem to possess the need to be labeled? By race, by culture, by religion, by sexual orientation, by personality trait (hehe). Possibly if we judged a bit less, there would be less need for labels.

    Did I stray too far off the subject? (wouldn't be the first time)
    "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." ~Soren Kierkegaard

  8. #68
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    "Asia" is a region. And it denotes a very ethnically and culturally diverse area.

    Quote Originally Posted by GZA View Post
    Here's a question; are native people "asian"? Apparently some anthropologists consider them asian when using such huge blanket terms as "asian", "white", "black", "indian", ect.
    Yes, native americans originally came from "Asia"

    Their genetic roots are closely linked with modern day Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, etc... i.e. south american tribes seem to be more connected with SE Asian roots, while NA tribes seem more connected with E Asian roots in a general sense. Some more than others, such as the Alaskan Inuits.

    Also other Native tribes are connected with modern day Samoans, Polynesians, and even some tribes of Australian aborigines. Yeah its pretty crazy when you think about how connected the world is.

  9. #69
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntermitntTranquiliT View Post
    For so many reasons, food must be labeled, but why is it WE, as humans seem to possess the need to be labeled? By race, by culture, by religion, by sexual orientation, by personality trait (hehe). Possibly if we judged a bit less, there would be less need for labels.

    Did I stray too far off the subject? (wouldn't be the first time)
    I think its horrible if "labeling" is done in an offensive manner. Bad intentioned people always ruin it for everyone.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    I think its horrible if "labeling" is done in an offensive manner. Bad intentioned people always ruin it for everyone.
    Yep. That's true. Furthermore, they (bad intentioned people) usually lack education.
    "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." ~Soren Kierkegaard

Similar Threads

  1. The New Seven Deadly Sins- Courtesy of the Pope - do you agree and what is your list?
    By Geoff in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-16-2008, 03:47 PM
  2. Evaluating sources of science facts and what is the current scientific viewpoint
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 08:00 PM
  3. [SP] What is an SP?
    By Parabola in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-25-2008, 06:27 AM

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