4 ms·

And I don't understand why, with such alarming, metronomic regularity, is there always someone who pops up and says that race is a non-issue and that we shouldn

And I don't understand why, with such alarming, metronomic regularity, is there always someone who pops up and says that race is a non-issue and that we shouldn't mention it. Or even in this case, that we shouldn't recognize his blackness. I mean really - would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough? The guy's race matters because it's important that people from minorities see that people that look like them and sound like them can succeed. The guy's race matters because in the past history has been rewritten to give prominence to white faces even when black faces have carried out exactly the same roles [1]. It matters because they've had to overcome, in many instances, a system that is structurally biased against their success. And it matters because middle aged, white, heterosexual men, who completely coincidentally stand to gain the most from things staying as they are, are the ones who argue the loudest that we shouldn't recognize these structural biases. It matters because in order to succeed they have had to overcome obstacles that you haven't. If you think that we are somehow overcompensating by even recognizing the color of someone's skin, perhaps you can also tell me why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford. One of whom went to Eton. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Seacole https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Seacole

08-15 10y ago
> Or even in this case, that we shouldn't recognize his blackness. What?! He isn't black!! Dammit, look at him, he isn't even brown, never mind black! There is no blackness to acknowledge. > would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough? Yes, for fuck's sake, because that is what black means: very dark skin. Not having black ancestors, not being a citizen of a black country, not having a black passport, but HAVING (almost) BLACK SKIN. He isn't black. Just to drive the point home in case you're a bit slow: black is a color. It is not a race. It is, has always been, and will always be a color. A color this guys skin doesn't have, not even approximately. > people that look like them Black people don't look like him. That's the whole point. He doesn't look black. > two BAME people I have no idea what that means, and I don't think it should mean anything. Seriously, get a life.
- wolfspider 10y ago
  Hopefully, your career doesn't include the use of any form of logic because by using your line of thinking many Asians and Inuits would be considered white? I think your probably the only person you really know.
  - 08-15 10y ago
    Yes. Because white is a color, an caucasian is a race.
tomp 10y ago
> would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough? Well, I wouldn't tell him, but I would definitely ask him if he claimed he was black. Then he would probably explain that he doesn't mean "black" as color but "black" as culture (same as "Jewish" religion vs. "Jewish" ethnicity) and that's fine. > people that look like them and sound like them can succeed. After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?! > why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white? In general, I oppose such categorisations, because (1) they're racist, and in emphasizing race, they encourage other people to do so as well, and (2) race is far less relevant than other characteristics, in particular class (wealth), and by focusing on race, you're playing a divide-and-conquer game, making groups of people hate each other, while ignoring the most important inequality in existance. (Which, coincidentially, was the most likely cause of the discrepancy you saw at Oxford.)
- kristianc 10y ago
  > After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?! When the current President has committed to rolling back much of what said President achieved socially, economically and culturally, it's fair to say that Obama being elected wasn't the panacea people thought it would be. > Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white? The number is off then by two orders of magnitude - and there are specific patterns of underachievement amongst black youth in England which exist when you control for other factors such as class and wealth. Black youngsters in the U.K. are twice as likely to be unemployed as white ones. Focusing resources on the specific problems these communities face is not playing 'divide and conquer' any more than is providing specific support to LGBT communities who have a higher prevalence of mental health issues. http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-overcoming-the-label-of-educations-failure-to-achieve-success http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-o...
  - tomp 10y ago
    Interesting article. However, I wonder what's really causing the difference in achievement - at first, it would seem that just skin color doesn't explain it, as Indians (also darker-skinned) outperform even whites (according to the article). In theory it's possible that they're being discriminated against (in a racist way) but they outperform despite that, though I've never seen any study that would suggest such genetic superiority (in terms of IQ). Could it be culture (Asians/Chinese are well known for their "Tiger moms", maybe Indians have a similar achievement-oriented culture), or possibly family wealth (Asians coming to study to the UK are more likely to be from wealthy families)? I'm really curious.

08-15 10y ago

> Or even in this case, that we shouldn't recognize his blackness. What?! He isn't black!! Dammit, look at him, he isn't even brown, never mind black! There is no blackness to acknowledge. > would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough? Yes, for fuck's sake, because that is what black means: very dark skin. Not having black ancestors, not being a citizen of a black country, not having a black passport, but HAVING (almost) BLACK SKIN. He isn't black. Just to drive the point home in case you're a bit slow: black is a color. It is not a race. It is, has always been, and will always be a color. A color this guys skin doesn't have, not even approximately. > people that look like them Black people don't look like him. That's the whole point. He doesn't look black. > two BAME people I have no idea what that means, and I don't think it should mean anything. Seriously, get a life.

wolfspider 10y ago
Hopefully, your career doesn't include the use of any form of logic because by using your line of thinking many Asians and Inuits would be considered white? I think your probably the only person you really know.
- 08-15 10y ago
  Yes. Because white is a color, an caucasian is a race.

tomp 10y ago

> would you go and tell him he wasn't black to his face because his skin wasn't dark enough? Well, I wouldn't tell him, but I would definitely ask him if he claimed he was black. Then he would probably explain that he doesn't mean "black" as color but "black" as culture (same as "Jewish" religion vs. "Jewish" ethnicity) and that's fine. > people that look like them and sound like them can succeed. After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?! > why there were two BAME people in my year of four thousand people at Oxford Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white? In general, I oppose such categorisations, because (1) they're racist, and in emphasizing race, they encourage other people to do so as well, and (2) race is far less relevant than other characteristics, in particular class (wealth), and by focusing on race, you're playing a divide-and-conquer game, making groups of people hate each other, while ignoring the most important inequality in existance. (Which, coincidentially, was the most likely cause of the discrepancy you saw at Oxford.)

kristianc 10y ago
> After a (semi-)black president, is this really still relevant?! When the current President has committed to rolling back much of what said President achieved socially, economically and culturally, it's fair to say that Obama being elected wasn't the panacea people thought it would be. > Maybe because Oxford is in England and England is predominantly white? The number is off then by two orders of magnitude - and there are specific patterns of underachievement amongst black youth in England which exist when you control for other factors such as class and wealth. Black youngsters in the U.K. are twice as likely to be unemployed as white ones. Focusing resources on the specific problems these communities face is not playing 'divide and conquer' any more than is providing specific support to LGBT communities who have a higher prevalence of mental health issues. http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-overcoming-the-label-of-educations-failure-to-achieve-success http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-black-young-men-are-o...
- tomp 10y ago
  Interesting article. However, I wonder what's really causing the difference in achievement - at first, it would seem that just skin color doesn't explain it, as Indians (also darker-skinned) outperform even whites (according to the article). In theory it's possible that they're being discriminated against (in a racist way) but they outperform despite that, though I've never seen any study that would suggest such genetic superiority (in terms of IQ). Could it be culture (Asians/Chinese are well known for their "Tiger moms", maybe Indians have a similar achievement-oriented culture), or possibly family wealth (Asians coming to study to the UK are more likely to be from wealthy families)? I'm really curious.