quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
Where our reasonning differs is in the solution, yours being to turn black into an institution and use it to raise up everything black, mine is to turn anti-racism into an institution and raise up everything that racism has put down. So naturally I oppose labelling someone as a black achiever or a black role model and just calling him an achiever or a role model. You don't see me saying that non-black this that and the other would be a good idea.

Anti-racism is a really good idea. But are we really at the point where we can claim colourblindness as an ally of anti-racism? We're much closer than we were. But there are disturbing signs that even now racial factors have certain social consequences, and that's only talking about Britain, let alone other countries.

The French, a people who fascinate me, claim to follow the model of colourblindness. Race is meant to be a thorougly irrelevant concept in a context where culture defines belonging, not race.

However, the reality is that in asserting colourblindness, they are also excused from having to deal with the blatant descrepancies in their society. To discuss the lack of non-white faces in positions of power and influence in French society is considered by some to be 'unrepublican' whilst at the same time avoiding the subject prevents them from having to deal with deep-seated, awkward feelings about whether people of a different phenotype can really represent Frenchness and French culture.

I agree with you that race is a construct and that 'blackness' doesn't have a 'logical basis'. But it still has quite a pertinent social and cultural basis. The question is how to move to a position where race is genuinely socially and culturally irrelevant, without ushering in a forced and dishonest 'colourblindness' that people of colour know to be nothing more than a sham, a pretence.

Discussing the lack of non-white faces in elite positions is necessary and granted many people will never be logical but the core reason for all this you said yourself is to outline the causes a major one of which is racism and thus no matter how poor the average person's ability to be logical if you don't shine light on the matter they will only be led further astray. I think my main problem with ethnicity as a whole is it's displacement of core principles, if black is to be used as an institution to restore damage done by racists it must be at least clear that this is a practicality and there is no black ideal, only values which encompass all sapient beings. Most institutions of this sort make some effort to do so but unless it is up front in their title and motto the average illogical person will only ever see it as an empty platitude and believe the german people are the most important thing in the world or whatever instead of ethics and values. Black history is an exception because the social distinction no matter how illogical is a historical fact, but when you are paving the future you need to be more responsible than those illogical people of the past!

I do not believe any of this is colour blindness, if someone is using logic in a way that does not combat racism then their logic is flawed. People who avoid discussion about the possibility of racism are ignoring facts when scientific method comprises 99.9% obtaining facts, 0.1% cool theories.

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
Discussing the lack of non-white faces in elite positions is necessary and granted many people will never be logical but the core reason for all this you said yourself is to outline the causes a major one of which is racism and thus no matter how poor the average person's ability to be logical if you don't shine light on the matter they will only be led further astray. I think my main problem with ethnicity as a whole is it's displacement of core principles, if black is to be used as an institution to restore damage done by racists it must be at least clear that this is a practicality and there is no black ideal, only values which encompass all sapient beings. Most institutions of this sort make some effort to do so but unless it is up front in their title and motto the average illogical person will only ever see it as an empty platitude and believe the german people are the most important thing in the world or whatever instead of ethics and values. Black history is an exception because the social distinction no matter how illogical is a historical fact, but when you are paving the future you need to be more responsible than those illogical people of the past!

I do not believe any of this is colour blindness, if someone is using logic in a way that does not combat racism then their logic is flawed. People who avoid discussion about the possibility of racism are ignoring facts when scientific method comprises 99.9% obtaining facts, 0.1% cool theories.

This post is a bit confusing.

The 'displacement of core principles', a 'black ideal' - what do these phrases imply?

Colour-blind is a discredited notion. I prefer colour 'open' - a more flexible term.

"displacement of core principles"
Replacement of principles which have a logical basis.

"black ideal"
Any ideal which considers black people a motive in itself.

I don't understand the question ... not all white people worldwide are a success

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
"displacement of core principles"
Replacement of principles which have a logical basis.

"black ideal"
Any ideal which considers black people a motive in itself.

Yes, but my problem was not with what these phrases mean, but how you think they apply to this topic.

If you feel that some people are seeking to replace 'princples which have a logical basis' with those that have an 'illogical basis' you need to spell out why you think that might be a relevant issue on this occasion.

The same with your next explanation. It's not clear to me exactly which ideals, you think are suspect here.

Sometimes I'm accused of jumping to the wrong conclusions, when responding to other people's messages. So, I'm not going to make any assumptions as to exactly what you're getting at! Could you then provide some examples of what you mean?
Examples, please!

Sorry. I have been using phrases which have 2 different meanings, classifications and ideals, and didn't say which context I was using them in. So black history and black people as classifications are logical because they have been grouped together for so long it's just easier to talk in terms of the black community, black diaspora etc... What I disagree with is turning these classifications into ideals as that have no logical basis.

So when I said...
"I think my main problem with ethnicity as a whole is it's displacement of core principles, if black is to be used as an institution to restore damage done by racists it must be at least clear that this is a practicality and there is no black ideal, only values which encompass all sapient beings."
I was criticising the use of arbitrary classifications like "black people" as ideals like liberty and equality.

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
Sorry. I have been using phrases which have 2 different meanings, classifications and ideals, and didn't say which context I was using them in. So black history and black people as classifications are logical because they have been grouped together for so long it's just easier to talk in terms of the black community, black diaspora etc... What I disagree with is turning these classifications into ideals as that have no logical basis.

So when I said...
"I think my main problem with ethnicity as a whole is it's displacement of core principles, if black is to be used as an institution to restore damage done by racists it must be at least clear that this is a practicality and there is no black ideal, only values which encompass all sapient beings."
I was criticising the use of arbitrary classifications like "black people" as ideals like liberty and equality.

I'm not clear who's using the concept of 'black people' as an ideal. Have you come across people who do this?

'People' are not an ideal - people exist! As for 'black people', well, for the purposes of communication we have to say they exist too, although some would say that the concept of blackness exists as a social/psychological category rather than existing in reality. In any case, where's the 'ideal'?

The 'ideal' is that the people who have come to be called black shake off the negativity that history has created especially for them. In fact, the ideal is indeed that 'black men' come to be considered just as 'men', as Frantz Fanon put it. The ideal is certainly not that black people remain eternally in a separate category, apart from the rest of the human race, a kind of subcategory apart from the mainstream.

Black History Month is meant to be a stage on that journey towards the ideal. It is a necessary stage of the journey, because without it, many of the experiences, triumphs, struggles, failures and glories of so-called 'black people' would be forgotten, ignored, or belittled by the so-called 'mainstream'. In fact, for a long time these experiences were ignored!

The time will come (we hope, idealistically!) when what is considered to be the mainstream encompasses all of humanity. Until that point, talk of not focusing on these specific experiences seems premature!

"'People' are not an ideal - people exist! As for 'black people', well, for the purposes of communication we have to say they exist too, although some would say that the concept of blackness exists as a social/psychological category rather than existing in reality. In any case, where's the 'ideal'?"

Well that's pretty much it, the thing is some people believe that a people are an ideal, this has been popular since the dawn of time and it only doesn't make sense when viewed from an emotionless objective perspective. People are willing to go to great lengths to protect people they have strong personal feelings towards and this can be a bad thing when it is corrupted to severe trust, ethics and compassion you have to people outside the group. This is called collectivism and it is not about mutual benefit as the purpose is to re-inforce the collective arrangement instead of helping the individuals in that collective. You can see this in many biscuits strewn across black history websites and posters.

Going back to black role models consider these 2 sentences...

"We need more black role models"
"Black boys need good role models"

The first sentence uses "black" in the context of the black collective or ideal and it's purpose is to get black boys to have specifically black role models. The second is based on helping disadvantaged individuals and uses black as a practical category.

The first statement is positive towards the black race and negative in terms of non-black races and negative in ethics. The second statement is neutral in terms of race and positive in ethics.

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
[T]he thing is some people believe that a people are an ideal, this has been popular since the dawn of time and it only doesn't make sense when viewed from an emotionless objective perspective. People are willing to go to great lengths to protect people they have strong personal feelings towards and this can be a bad thing when it is corrupted to severe trust, ethics and compassion you have to people outside the group. This is called collectivism and it is not about mutual benefit as the purpose is to re-inforce the collective arrangement instead of helping the individuals in that collective. You can see this in many biscuits strewn across black history websites and posters.

Going back to black role models consider these 2 sentences...

"We need more black role models"
"Black boys need good role models"

The first sentence uses "black" in the context of the black collective or ideal and it's purpose is to get black boys to have specifically black role models. The second is based on helping disadvantaged individuals and uses black as a practical category.

The first statement is positive towards the black race and negative in terms of non-black races and negative in ethics. The second statement is neutral in terms of race and positive in ethics.

I'm glad you recognise that 'collectivism' has a long history. But what some people would say is that, whilst you are targeting 'black collectivism' for disapproval, 'white collectivism' goes largely unnoticed. You haven't mentioned it here.

Whiteness tends not to recognise itself, but sees itself as neutral, transparent and objective. It is blackness that stands out awkwardly, apparently demanding special treatment and consideration. And yet, it has been argued that white collectivism, whiteness itself, is a powerful force, more so for seeing itself as universal.

You may bemoan statements like "Black boys need black role models", yet you ignore the fact that "White boys have white role models". They don't just have 'role models', they have white role models. You will say that the whiteness of these role models is irrelevant, but what if that is an assumption based on the fact that white boys - and you yourself - see white role models as natural and normal, and don't notice their colour for this very reason?

Perhaps it ill behoves us to complain about 'black this' and 'black that' when we just take for granted the normality and ubiquity of 'white this' and 'white that'. We take it so for granted that when we say 'role models' the image that actually comes into our head is of 'white role models', and that when we hear the word 'history' we in fact think of white Europeans as the instigators, the key players of that 'history'. We don't think of 'colour', yet funnily enough, the colour of the major players that come to mind is almost always the same...

There is a growing perception of the 'collectivity' of whiteness.

We're discussing why I find black history month a "little bit silly" so I could just as easily have been applying my universal values to this situation. In fact I don't target black collectivism in everyday life with anal retentive vigour so there. That said I have written a lot about my opinion here already, but my intentions are more to prove to myself I can respond to criticism, obligation and interest in the subject than some ideology. In fact you've just written something interesting so I will respond to that.

"You will say that the whiteness of these role models is irrelevant, but what if that is an assumption based on the fact that white boys - and you yourself - see white role models as natural and normal, and don't notice their colour for this very reason?"
One of the effects of bullying is lack of trust for other people, the reason why racists bully is because they know it will ferment paranoia in the victim's mind and make them isolate themselves from whites. When a black victim of racism thinks "I admire this person, but the racists will use that to prove they are superior so I won't" they are not defending their dignity they are allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Of course that looks pretty simple on paper, I might aswell write "Ignore all your emotions and use logic to solve all your problems.". Unfortunately it takes great personal strength to achieve this and no one can entirely ignore such strong feelings so it is a step by step process. I can see the reasonning behind wanting more black role models and being concerned by most major figures in history being white males aged over 35, in light of the effects of racism, but unless you push for further objectivity the dehumanisation-isolation cycle caused by racism will remain.

As for white collectivism of course it exists and the people who take it seriously are pretty dull and childish so it's not really mainstream.

quote:

Originally posted by roastbull:
Given the recent storm over the calls for the UK govt to "apologise" for Britain's role in the slave trade, the neverending crises in Africa (Darfur, Zimbabwe, poverty etc), the advancement in "western" business & enterprise and the general fact that despite people of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry constituting 8% of the world’s population, they've constituted on average, only 0-1% of the world’s millionaires and billionaires since 1999, the question needs to be asked: can the world's Black population ever become as economically successful as whites?

Considering that Africa is the most mineral rich continent on the earth one should rather ask the question why they have never in all these millenia got their act together?
It is time to start saying no to all the begging bowls and slavery guilt trips!

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
I can see the reasonning behind wanting more black role models and being concerned by most major figures in history being white males aged over 35, in light of the effects of racism, but unless you push for further objectivity the dehumanisation-isolation cycle caused by racism will remain.

I'm glad this thread has been kicked off again, because I realise I didn't come back to you here!

I still feel that 'objectivity' will not be achieved by ignoring the experiences of one group of people in society. I agree that there is a danger of aggravating feelings of separateness by treating certain histories and experiences as different, but the answer to that is to integrate all of these histories and experiences. Until that happens any talk of objectivity is merely a futuristic fantasy.

quote:

As for white collectivism of course it exists and the people who take it seriously are pretty dull and childish so it's not really mainstream.

I'm not talking about BNP-type racism. By no means. In fact, sometimes it feels as though people like the BNP are the fall guys for the rest of society, because if we see them as the 'real' racists that gives everyone else the freedom to hold questionable opinions without feeling like racists themselves or being treated as such by other people. I don't think our society gets off so lightly! The fact remains that universalism, normality and neutrality are still, in normal, neutral contexts, reflected by images of whiteness. And that situation is considered by many of us to be perfectly... normal and neutral.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

I'm not talking about BNP-type racism. By no means. In fact, sometimes it feels as though people like the BNP are the fall guys for the rest of society, because if we see them as the 'real' racists that gives everyone else the freedom to hold questionable opinions without feeling like racists themselves or being treated as such by other people. I don't think our society gets off so lightly! The fact remains that universalism, normality and neutrality are still, in normal, neutral contexts, reflected by images of whiteness. And that situation is considered by many of us to be perfectly... normal and neutral.

Thing is, if someone ain't shouting the N-word at you, putting an axe in my head or some other johnny foreigner's head, or if the instigators of racism ain't a fully paid up member of Nick Griffin crowd, people often turn a blind eye to their ingraine racism.

Now, due to equality laws, the RACISTS had to find new ways and means to continue the legacy, in comes the ''New racism''. This is often done subtlely, covertly, Patronisingly and sneaky kind of operation. Now, if you ain't a victim of racism or facing it everyday of your life like most Blacks do, all this will be invisible too you.

What I speak of above, is easily higligted on C4 news regarding the Obama presidency debate, many (given, the usual right-wing bigots) on there are in total denial of the racist structure in America and also, the ills of racism that still plaguq our society.

Their answer to anyone's position of pointing these things out too them, is to say, you got chips on your shoulder (the usual cop out), then when some decent White person step in and say the very same thing(Blacks often point out regarding racism), bingo, they quickly move on.

Sadly, middle-class racism is more benign and sugar coated, than the stereotypical BNP voter. The type of person who throws an 'ethnic' job application in the bin on one hand, whilst playing badminton with his 'cool' black friend on the other.
I read in the Telegraph this week that Barack Obama is the imaginary 'cool' black friend for much of white America. Spot on, in my humble opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby S.:
I read in the Telegraph this week that Barack Obama is the imaginary 'cool' black friend for much of white America. Spot on, in my humble opinion.

Well, his success rests upon his being able to get over the 'issue's of being the 'black' candidate. He knows that, and so do we all. He needs absolutely NOT to be like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, while also aiming not to alienate them completely. It's a tricky thing to pull off, if he manages it.

I am still puzzled as to why these millions of capable black people have not managed over the millenia to exploit the natural resources of their own continent?
Can someone please enlighten me as to the possible reasons because I am baffled by this?

quote:

Originally posted by Tarnhari:
I am still puzzled as to why these millions of capable black people have not managed over the millenia to exploit the natural resources of their own continent?
Can someone please enlighten me as to the possible reasons because I am baffled by this?

When you say 'their own continent' you mean Africa, do you? It just sounds as though you think black people shouldn't be anywhere else!

I'm not sure how black people haven't been 'exploiting the natural resources' of the continent of Africa. How else do people live and create communities and cultures if they don't make use of what's around them?

If you're really asking why Africa isn't just like Europe, that's another matter entirely.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Dee:

quote:

Originally posted by Tarnhari:
I am still puzzled as to why these millions of capable black people have not managed over the millenia to exploit the natural resources of their own continent?
Can someone please enlighten me as to the possible reasons because I am baffled by this?

When you say 'their own continent' you mean Africa, do you? It just sounds as though you think black people shouldn't be anywhere else!

I'm not sure how black people haven't been 'exploiting the natural resources' of the continent of Africa. How else do people live and create communities and cultures if they don't make use of what's around them?

If you're really asking why Africa isn't just like Europe, that's another matter entirely.

Well obviously Europe is not the Urheimat of the black race is it? So yes I am talking about Africa!
Why is it that Africans are unable to organise themselves to ensure that their peoples make proper use of the land to feed, clothe, shelter and water themselves? Why this continual offering of the begging bowl to Europe?
Why did it take the coming of the British Empire to provide order and wellbeing in that continent?