4 ms·

>I think you're assuming the info-graphic is saying "non-white people can't share these values". I see it as saying "non-white people are punished if they don't

>I think you're assuming the info-graphic is saying "non-white people can't share these values". I see it as saying "non-white people are punished if they don't share these values" or "non-white people are punished by saying they don't share these values". Then why call them white at all? Is his a cultural, or a racial definition? Do you believe the two can be separated? >A longer bullet point to explain is the Scientific Method, but I'll take a shot at that one too. Science is a way to seek truth and reduce bias. However, the people who practice science are not fully objective actors free from bias. For example, evolution is absolutely true, but social darwinism is how many people understood evolution. A scientific truth was used to support a political position. People who would complain about inequalities could be said to be anti-scientific because they were arguing against the natural social order. Science itself isn't the issue, it's people using science to reject individual stories or support their priors. I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this. It sounds like you mean to say that science was sometimes used in a biased way. This may be true in some sense, but it's not clear that this has anything to do with the scientific method itself being a "white value."

rovolo 6y ago
> Then why call them white at all? Is his a cultural, or a racial definition? Do you believe the two can be separated? White is a cultural definition in the US which used to be legally defined and still carries cultural implications. It is intrinsically tied to race because race is also culturally defined. The US's "one drop" rule defined people's race as Black even if the vast majority of their ancestry was "White European". As an analogy, consider the names we give various colors. We can tell that light blue and dark blue are different colors, but in English we will default to calling them both 'Blue'. In Russian, you cannot call those two the same color. There is a continuous gradient of colors, and we divide those colors into different named categories due to culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms Culture determines racial boundaries as well, since there are no clear genetic/cultural dividing lines between the "races". Slavs used to be excluded from Whiteness in the US because they were considered "Asiatic", but now we consider Slavs "White". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th... So to answer your questions, "White" is a cultural concept which is used to define racial boundaries in the US. > it's not clear that this has anything to do with the scientific method itself being a "white value." The scientific method is not a "white value", but whiteness values scientific data over interpersonal opinions. One example would be: "IQ tests show that Black people are dumber than White people, and that explains why there is an income gap". You would be elevating scientific data over personal narratives of schooling and job discrimination. I'm not saying that science is bad, what I'm saying is that science is a combination of technical and cultural aspects. The bullet point is referencing the cultural motivations and impacts of science more than the technical aspects.
- throwaway309182 6y ago
  > White is a cultural definition in the US which used to be legally defined and still carries cultural implications. I guess where some non-Americans feel concerned about this, is the tendency to export US discourses about race to the rest of the English-speaking world (and even the world more broadly), despite the fact that other countries have different histories and cultures and understanding of what the words mean. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends analysing racial and cultural diversity in Australia in terms of four broad categories [1] – Indigenous, Anglo-Celtic, European, and non-European. ("European" is defined to exclude Anglo-Celtic people.) Slightly reminiscent of the American "one drop rule", people of mixed backgrounds are assigned to the more diverse background. By contrast, the US has an official classification of people into five different races [2]. Australia does have a rather horrible history of racial discrimination – for example, the "White Australia Policy" which for decades banned non-European immigration. However, I think the way Australian officialdom (governments, academics, etc) have tried to deal with that, is to avoid using racial categories like "white", and focus primarily on culture and multiculturalism. They are happy to talk about different ancestries/nationalities/cultures (Italian, Chinese, Indian, Lebanese, etc), but grouping them into racial categories is avoided in official contexts, although it still sometimes happens in less formal contexts. (Journalists sometimes talk about "Asian Australians" or "African Australians", but the government prefers to talk about Chinese and Filipinos and Sudanese and Eritreans.) When it is necessary, they'll split them into not explicitly racial groupings like Indigenous/Anglo-Celtic/European/non-European. That splits two groups of people both considered "white" in the US (Anglo-Celtic and European), while lumping together as non-European both some people officially considered "white" in the US (e.g. Lebanese people), and also multiple non-"white" races (Asian, African, Pacific Islander). I think Australia's ways of dealing with its history are at times quite different from those of Americans, precisely because their histories are in many ways quite different. But I think many Americans unconsciously assume that understandings of race and culture that make sense in a US context must make sense for the rest of the world as well. [1] https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/Leading%20for%20Change_Blueprint2018_FINAL_Web.pdf https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publ... [2] https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html (Throwaway because I'm scared of talking about race and culture using my real name.)

rovolo 6y ago

> Then why call them white at all? Is his a cultural, or a racial definition? Do you believe the two can be separated? White is a cultural definition in the US which used to be legally defined and still carries cultural implications. It is intrinsically tied to race because race is also culturally defined. The US's "one drop" rule defined people's race as Black even if the vast majority of their ancestry was "White European". As an analogy, consider the names we give various colors. We can tell that light blue and dark blue are different colors, but in English we will default to calling them both 'Blue'. In Russian, you cannot call those two the same color. There is a continuous gradient of colors, and we divide those colors into different named categories due to culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Basic_color_terms Culture determines racial boundaries as well, since there are no clear genetic/cultural dividing lines between the "races". Slavs used to be excluded from Whiteness in the US because they were considered "Asiatic", but now we consider Slavs "White". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th... So to answer your questions, "White" is a cultural concept which is used to define racial boundaries in the US. > it's not clear that this has anything to do with the scientific method itself being a "white value." The scientific method is not a "white value", but whiteness values scientific data over interpersonal opinions. One example would be: "IQ tests show that Black people are dumber than White people, and that explains why there is an income gap". You would be elevating scientific data over personal narratives of schooling and job discrimination. I'm not saying that science is bad, what I'm saying is that science is a combination of technical and cultural aspects. The bullet point is referencing the cultural motivations and impacts of science more than the technical aspects.

throwaway309182 6y ago
> White is a cultural definition in the US which used to be legally defined and still carries cultural implications. I guess where some non-Americans feel concerned about this, is the tendency to export US discourses about race to the rest of the English-speaking world (and even the world more broadly), despite the fact that other countries have different histories and cultures and understanding of what the words mean. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends analysing racial and cultural diversity in Australia in terms of four broad categories [1] – Indigenous, Anglo-Celtic, European, and non-European. ("European" is defined to exclude Anglo-Celtic people.) Slightly reminiscent of the American "one drop rule", people of mixed backgrounds are assigned to the more diverse background. By contrast, the US has an official classification of people into five different races [2]. Australia does have a rather horrible history of racial discrimination – for example, the "White Australia Policy" which for decades banned non-European immigration. However, I think the way Australian officialdom (governments, academics, etc) have tried to deal with that, is to avoid using racial categories like "white", and focus primarily on culture and multiculturalism. They are happy to talk about different ancestries/nationalities/cultures (Italian, Chinese, Indian, Lebanese, etc), but grouping them into racial categories is avoided in official contexts, although it still sometimes happens in less formal contexts. (Journalists sometimes talk about "Asian Australians" or "African Australians", but the government prefers to talk about Chinese and Filipinos and Sudanese and Eritreans.) When it is necessary, they'll split them into not explicitly racial groupings like Indigenous/Anglo-Celtic/European/non-European. That splits two groups of people both considered "white" in the US (Anglo-Celtic and European), while lumping together as non-European both some people officially considered "white" in the US (e.g. Lebanese people), and also multiple non-"white" races (Asian, African, Pacific Islander). I think Australia's ways of dealing with its history are at times quite different from those of Americans, precisely because their histories are in many ways quite different. But I think many Americans unconsciously assume that understandings of race and culture that make sense in a US context must make sense for the rest of the world as well. [1] https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/Leading%20for%20Change_Blueprint2018_FINAL_Web.pdf https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publ... [2] https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html (Throwaway because I'm scared of talking about race and culture using my real name.)