Africa in perspective

After our discussion on maps, I remembered a lesson I had on maps that discussed the politics and power of a map. While I was very unaware of maps used in these ways, I have become very aware of it now and often times skeptical of them.

The biggest thing I learned was that Africa is HUGE. I always knew it was large, but I never realized it was HUGE until it was put into perspective.

Maybe this is common fact for others, but once I saw this map I began to wonder why I never considered the real size of Africa. Is it actually represented to show its size on maps but I dismiss it or overlook it because its Africa? I don't think so, but its a possibility. Is the subjective part of maps in the actual map product or in our minds and the way we chose to interpret them and select what is important or not?

Dark side of not being racist?

I'm just wondering if anyone has been down rated for not be racist? Was there a specific time or event where the people around you were discriminating and because you weren't, you were the outcast?

Is the strive towards diversity any better than racism?

When choosing a modern icon to analyze in my essay, I had considered talking about the fact that many companies, colleges, and institutions make an over-the-top effort to portray diversity in their promotional material. Diversity is the new "green," the image that everyone wants to portray. I would like to hear your thoughts (did anyone happen to write on this) on if a somewhat artificial effort to state "hey, we have asians, latinos, and african-americans working here at our company..." is an offensive maneuver? As we have discussed in class, it is an example of treating skin color as an asset to sell a product.

monogensis v. polygenesis and fair treatment

Our discussion of monogenesis vs. polygenesis really got me thinking about how people could use these two different theories of human origin to justify different treatment of people.

In my mind, one can interpret monogenesis in two ways. If scientists suddenly proved monogenesis unequivocally true, some treat the discovery as proof of a true human essence, and consider it ground to relate to and be charitable towards all humans. In my opinion, others might treat it as some proof of "equality of opportunity" and say that because we descended from the same (wo)man, we all have had the same opportunity for advancement. They may then draw the conclusion that those races who dominate economics and politics were able to do so only through their sheer superiority of intellect and work ethic.

Conversely, If polygenesis were suddenly ratified by the sciences, I think people could interpret that in two diametrically opposed ways. I think some might use polygenesis to help explain and celebrate cultural differences. Others, however, might use it as further proof for white supremacy and the need for segregation (a sort of, if God/nature made us separately then we should remain separate).

What do you all think about these interpretations? Do you agree or think certain alternatives are more likely than others? Or do you think people would react totally differently?

Freaked Me Out Too

Here is the West Wing episode I watched in high school and never thought had much importance. Little did I know....watch the clip then read the rest of the blog, please and thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8zBC2dvERM
When they flipped the map upside down it really did freak me out and I still can't get a handle on it. In physics and reality, it really doesn't matter which way is up. Earth is round and thus top and bottom are arbitrary. So I suppose the fact that we believe the northern hemisphere is on top is a social construction of white, northern superiority.
Also, I found it very interesting that if you look at the first 1700's map we looked it, it looks most similar to the Peterson projection they are proposing in the episode. Whats with that? Can anyone explain that one to me? Did the northern hemisphere not feel as dominant back then?
I feel like the only real solution here is to look at the map upside down, inside out, and backwards. Try it. Let me know if you can wrap your head around that one.

Are we celebrating race or remembering that it is "real" or recognizing the past and celebrating how "progressive" we are?

Black History Month:

This month is black history month and just like every year there are celebrations, lectures, exhibitions, etc. all on "black history."

What is the real purpose of black history month? I have been wondering this for a while. Its a month to celebrate an often times (present day and historically) marginalized population and I recognize why it is important but as we discuss race and its role in society, I find myself challenging this idea.

What is BLACK history?-- is it just African American history? who should be participating in this historical celebration?

In one of my other classes a girl spoke of how the museum will be hosting a Black History Month exhibit for black artist-- except one white man, BUT HE WAS PART OF THE HARLEM RENISSANCE. --does that give him "honorary black" status? Should his participation require some sort of justification or explanation?


To play devil's advocate?
Would it be appropriate to have WHITE history month? I dont think so. Is this because a group earn their right to celebrate their identity and history through overcoming struggle?

Shouldn't we celebrate the progress we've made and the success of the black community throughout the year? Why have we chosen the month of February to take on this role?

Define Beauty

In Francois Bernier’s “A New Division of the Earth,” I found his perception of beauty very interesting. He managed to judge the beauty of various races by using a preconceived idea of what beauty is, but he fails to explain how he came to realize the definition of beauty. He explains all of the characteristics of the women, which make them beautiful or set them apart; however, he does not acknowledge his bias or the fact that beauty is a idea that is formulated and dependent on past experience and perspective. When he states, “I have also seen some very handsome ones among the blacks of Africa, who had not those thick lips and that squab nose,” Bernier is stating that these features are unattractive to him. He goes on to compare the most beautiful of these women to the Venus of the Farnese palace at Rome. This portrays his idea of beauty as having a certain set of desirable traits, “the aquiline nose, the little mouth, the coral lips, the ivory teeth, the large and ardent eyes, that softness of expression… etc.” It is clear that Bernier has been conditioned to view beauty in a certain way, and I think it would be interesting to hear an account of beauty from a different perspective or culture. Also, Bernier acknowledged that there are beautiful and ugly ones everywhere. I wonder if the people of the culture that he was judging had similar opinions to which women were beautiful verses ugly.

Uniformity of Nature? Nah.

In "Racial Formation in the United States," after describing an account of contemporary racial order, Omi and Winant say they will turn to examine "how it evolved...[to] better discern where it is heading." My reaction to this literary maneuver is critical, strictly philosophically speaking. That is, while their treatment of racial formation is persuading, I wanted to point out a fallacy in their extrapolation from/application of the past to the future. Seeing that this class is a philosophy class, I just thought I would make note of it. The point is that there is no basis to think that because we have witnessed an event sequence XYZ, n amount of times we can think that upon witnessing XY, Z will follow. That is, we have not shown that the universe operates uniformly and therefore reliance on the past to predict the future is irrational. While I must credit David Hume for this insight, it nevertheless applies to anytime we try to say something about the future from our knowledge of the past. If we take this seriously (which I am not suggestion we necessarily do, mainly because it is not very practical), we should object to Omi and Winant appealing to the history of racial formation to form their prediction of what it will be in the near future. Minor point, but I think important to notice.

Race is an interesting phenomenon in large part because the different levels of explanation for it are numerous. In my posts, I will try to explain and comment on race at the different relative levels in which it can be explained. In other words, I am going to try to explain its aspects as a psychological phenomenon, an economic phenomenon, and a sociological phenomenon. From there, I hope to propose an ethical opinion (as in what I believe should be done if anything) on race/ racial perspectives which takes into account these different levels of explanation. In order to do this, I will support my intuitions by referencing discussions that I have had as well as any study or professional opinion that I find interesting and relevant.

Today and with my next post I plan to start by examining race on a very small scale, at the psychological level. In order to do this two conversations that I have had one with a cab driver and one with my Father. Hope that you enjoy.

For geographic reference I grew up in Pelham, a town in New York that boarders the Bronx. While I am only limitedly interested in the broader phenomenon of racist cab drivers, it is a common and frequently truthful fact to most New Yorkers that cab drivers will often avoid picking up African Americans especially after nightfall. Now this belief (which I have just said is truthful to a degree) is in large part the result of racial oversensitivity. As in, the best explanation is often not that the cab driver is racist but that the cab driver did not see the person, had forgot to put his/her off duty sign up, or was simply not picking anyone up at the given street. After all, I have had a cab driver ignore me before, and I was, at least at the time, a well dressed, well shaved Caucasian male. Regardless, some cab drivers do pick their occupants with attention to race and I happened to meet one who was anxious to talk about it.

I think his name was Eric and he gave me a ten minute drive from the Pelham train station to my house. After introducing himself, complaining about his long work day hours, and then the crabby weather, he told me that he was happy that I had arrived at the station. I asked why and he explained without flinching that he was worried that a black man waiting at the station was going to ask for a ride. After I questioned him on the subject he revealed to me that he did not pick up young African American men because, as he put it, “they don't tip, hardly ever pay, and they will rob you.” He then explained to me that this was not racism. After all, he had been robbed before by two young African American men. He wanted me to justify his position with agreement, and I wanted to get home, so for the majority of the ride, I mumbled and nodded avoiding any potential argument.

Before I analyze this in any detail, I want to make a couple comments about how we, human beings, think and organize information. We are predictors. Our minds are made to seek out answers and understandings so that when confronted with a familiar situation we can more appropriately deal with it. We do this unconsciously with almost everything we encounter. Take for example the fact that when you are reading what someone has written or talking with someone you are always predicting what he or she is going to. At the end of the last sentence, you probably filled in the missing segment with the word “say” or maybe “say next.” You were predicting, and in order to predict individuals look for anything that will tell them about what will happen next (in this case the context and commonplace of the sentence informed you that “say” belonged at the end of the sentence). Usually, however, the explanation for an event is complex or not observable in the given situation, and, as a result, we anchor ourselves to false explanations or even superstitions. Especially in regards to human behavior we frequently make these mistakes, called cognitive biases.

In this light, I want to argue that the Cab driver's understanding is the result of a fundamental attribution error. A fundamental attribution error is a common cognitive mistake in which an individual falsely attributes another individuals behavior to physical characteristics or personality traits when context would better suffice. In this case, the cab driver is falsely explaining behavior in terms of the physical characteristics (skin color) of his occupants. But this is not the entirety of the point that I am making; this irrational characterization is a mistake that we are all susceptible to and probably one that we each make often.

While I think that this certainly helps to explain the source of racial profiling and many racial characterizations, it is also insufficient in many ways. If for example I were to rob the cab driver it is unlikely that he would stop picking up young Caucasian men, and, in this way, it is insufficient to suggest that this cognitive mistake is the soul source of his racial understanding. Next post I will examine the social psychological basis and internal justifications that may validate this cognitive explanation; therefor, more adequately explaining why racial explanation is such a common phenomenon.

Psychology and Racism

As a psychology major, I know of a lot of studies where people judge black, white, and Asian men on factors such as aggression and how agreeable people think they are based solely on first impressions. There have been limited studies about ethnicity and racism differences. It would be interesting to have open-ended response questions about ethnicity and racism to a large population of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and social classes. How do you think people's responses would differ?

Hmmm?

When talking about race and racial tension in the United States, we are usually talking about a black/white conflict. Derogatory terms have deep roots in our culture and what once was a way of dehumanizing blacks, has become a way that African Americans address each other. That's right I am talking about that word. So is this wrong or right? I personally think it is ok because by using it African Americans are empowering themselves as a community by basically saying this word was used to take away our rights as humans so you can't use it anymore, and you are forced to address us as equals. It is something that whites abused, and now can no longer use. It is a way of acknowledging the common struggles that everyone in the black community experiences at some point in their life. Obviously not everyone will agree with me, some of you may have heard of a boy by the name of Jonathan McCoy. If this name is unfamiliar to you, or even if you think you may know who I am talking about I suggest you look at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM

He does make a lot of sense but this is just something that I a can not be swayed on. What do you all think? What are your reactions after seeing this video?

After class I have found myself often thinking about the difference between ethnicity and race—is there one?—and why we in our American society feel so much safer using the word ethnicity/ethnic rather than race. I definitely agree with a point that was brought up in class on Monday about how though ethnicity and race are not necessarily the same thing, ethnicity is very often a code word for race. I personally have been in conversations where in order to remain “politically correct” people ask about someone’s ethnicity instead of their race even though everyone knows what they are really asking.

I also definitely agree with Zack’s assessment that in the United States, people are gradually assimilated into an ethnic-neutral society. In the US we say we value diversity, but in reality it is safer to wear what everyone else wears, eat what everyone else eats, etc etc, and therefore assimilation into an ethnic-neutral state, at least in a formal setting, is inevitable. I’m not sure what we can do to reverse this, and I’m also not sure that eliminating race in favor of ethnicity would be helpful or plausible. The majority in society is always going to attempt to define “other,” or the minority, and giving the concept of “otherness” a different name doesn’t help to overcome it. So I think defining ethnicity versus race is important but we shouldn’t concentrate on deciding on the importance/validity of one over the other.

who decides race/ethinicity?

After every class, I find myself really struggling to understand the real purpose of race and/or ethnicity. I am fascinated by how ever present the terms have become in society and their ability to change an individuals identity and interaction with the world. The conversations are everywhere and as I go through each day, I am more aware then ever about the fact that race/ethnicity is on everyone's mind-- even if its not always talked about.

Another student in one of my anthropology classes mentioned that his dream anthropological study would be on children adopted into a different race/ethnic family. This study has been in the back of my mind the past couple of classes and really gets at who chooses ethnicity especially.

Although its not biologically confirmed, people associate race with physical characteristics and something you're born into. But if ethnicity is a socially constructed thing and reflective of the way a particular group carries out their life, could a person's ethnicity change? I don't think anyone has ever considered it as a flexible and transferable thing. If a child is born to one family but adopted to another, he will begin to reflect the social identity of the family raising him-- not the biological one. So if ethnicity is reflective of social habits, how would he identify himself?

I recognize that this is a unique example and not reflective of the general use of ethnicity but it really highlights a flaw if society is going to divide people in this "socially based" idea. This idea that one's ethnicity must be a certain way just kind of points back to the idea that ethnicity is just as unreal as race.

Have we created the idea of ethnicity in an effort to be more "politically correct?" Is it just a new and more specific way of identifying people while avoiding the dangers of directly addressing race?

Open Racism

After our discussion in yesterday's class about comedy and racism I thought about some of the stand up comedy surrounding racial issues that I have seen. It is interesting how sometimes comedy is the best way to address racial issues without infuriating too many people. Comedians like Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy, who really began discussing race through comedy, were kind of pioneers that allowed people to feel more comfortable talking about such a sensitive issue. One comedian's act in particular that I thought about was Dave Chappelle's bid about "Open Racism". I thought about posting it, but I figured if people wanted to see it they could search for it on Youtube. Personally, I find it very funny, but I am sure that there are also many people who are offended by it. Chappelle impersonates a white guy, black guy and an asian guy and holds nothing back, throwing out charged stereotypes at every race. I guess my question is that even though Chappelle jokes about race only to get laughs from the audience does it make him (and other comedians like him) racist? Just to clarify I am not against Chappelle's comedy, I am a fan of it, I am just curious what other people who may or may not be offended by it think about comedians who use racially motivated jokes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/us/15homer.html

A white officer shot an old black man that was mute due to throat cancer in his front yard. The officer said the victim was holding a pistol, despite contrary statements from witnesses. Instances like this continue to happen. Even though we have elected a black president, instances like this continue to happen. How are we suppose to move beyond inter racial problems? Have there been issues, maybe not this extreme, in your community of racial problems? Segregation? Not many minorities in your classes from high school? Etc?

Children absorb their surroundings in order to understand and interact with society; therefore, children emulate those who are close to them. Zack asserts, “Children of the poor are therefore likely to grow up with different values, different ideas of what is important in life, from the middle-class children.” For example, if a child has parents with less education, then that child will not have the same educational priorities or experiences as a child with highly educated parents. Going off of that...

Oni and Winant acknowledge that since 1965 and the civil rights legislation the black community has been stratified into a small privileged class and a massive black under-class, which is regulated to permanent marginality. Groups that have a history of a lower class often remain in lower classes because of their ‘life chances’ and the fact that it is difficult to pull oneself up by ones bootstraps. Instead, citizens are partially dependent on our governmental system for support. However, our governmental system and political figures are reliant on re-election. Polls show, educated older citizens are more likely to vote in elections; therefore, politicians support legislation like the continuation of an unsustainable social security system because it is important to their voter base. This becomes problematic when attempting to combat class hierarchy and racial issues because politicians are constantly worried about being re-elected, so they tend not to take risks or upset their voter base; therefore, the pertinent issues our nation faces concerning race and class are often set aside.

Childhood

On page 109 of Zack's TAR she says, "Parents who do not have college educations or the financial and social resources -- that is, the leisure -- to teach their children how to behave like middle-class children are unlikely to reproduce middle-class values in the course of child rearing. Children of the poor are therefore likely to grow up with different values, different ideas of what is important in life, from middle-class children." I have a few problems with this passage. Obviously, the economically deprived class in America, spread all over the country, from cities to rural areas, do not have the same values as those in the middle-class. But that is not to say they cannot learn to treat everyone with respect.
Zack is trying to say class-status is one reason for the propagation of racism, but I see it more as an excuse. No matter what your socioeconomic status is or where you're from or what your favorite flavor of ice cream is you should be able to treat another person the way you'd like to be treated. It is such an old and over-used proverb, but its so true.
Another idea this passage made me think of is how racism isn't just a white problem. I don't believe that racism would be solved if tomorrow every white person in America said I am going to accept all people as my brother and sister, and treat them like family. I think there are preconceived notions that all races use, that is to say a black person already believes that a white person they've never met is a racist and is going to treat them in a certain way because of it. I don't know where or even if there's an answer to that particular problem, just putting it out there.

All whites are racist?

In the 1960's, Martin Luther King said that most whites in America were either consciously or subconsciously racist.  Though racial issues are not as present now as they were then, has America proven with its many unbiased votes for Obama that if a person is educated and honorable that they will be accepted by the majority no matter what skin color/ethnic background? 

I believe that racism is still a problem in America, but evidence such as the Presidential election proves that the problem is getting better.  Sometimes I think that we should be focusing on more important issues in the world like hunger and poverty versus racism.  This is similar to another post about why we are talking about the issue in the first place.  You decide.

Just wondering

Do not mean to ignore other posts, will soon comment on them. This is a personal thought, so ...I have just been wanting to say/ask. So in class when we were talking about what racial classifications are doing for us, I got that in general and kind of as a rule we (humans) will always be looking for something to classify/differentiate between ourselves to serve the purpose of excluding/including a particular division/class in the pursuit/acquisition of power. So that the power struggle is something that will always be starring us in the face in terms of something that will always be a problem if ever we want to talk about or examine differences among people. If this is the case, (do not mean to sound pessimistic) then what is the purpose of even talking about this? I have been wondering about this a long time now, so I am very interested to know what people think and this will kind of help me know what to expect as far as the course goes.

I really wasn't sure if it would happen, but I finally warmed up to Naomi Zack during this reading. However, one of the passages assigned didn't seem quite right to me.

On page 40 of Thinking About Race, Zack writes, "Why should the values and styles of the social, economic, political, and educational elites be definitive of ethnicity in America? Perhaps the ethnicity of those on the bottoms and margins of society-- those who are poor and undereducated; those whose lives take alternative forms due to disabilities, special talents, nontraditional family structures; those who are not heterosexual, who are in prison, are illiterate, are here illegally, have AIDs, or are homeless-- perhaps they and their ethnic groups deserve to be as definitive of a distinct American ethnicity as members of the privileged American elite."

Parts of this passage resound profoundly with the way I would reform/create an American ethnicity. For example, in reworking the current American ethnicity I would call for the celebration of the lifestyles, differences, and traditions of non-heterosexuals, those with nontraditional family structures, those with disabilities, and those with special talents (to name a few). Embracing these groups of people could serve to eliminate prejudice and social discomfort due to unfamiliarity.

However, the fact that Zack tries to associate those things with ethnicity ("perhaps the ethnicities of those on the bottoms and margins of society...") troubles me. Of course, some ethnic groups may have a higher instance of people who fit any one of the above descriptions. However, I feel that its also fair to say that there are substantial numbers of almost every ethnic group that are non-heterosexual, have disabilities, are homeless, etc. etc. To try to definitively link these things to any specific ethnicity seems to undermine the point of the book.

Secondly, I take issue with some of the groups that Zack asserts that American ethnicity should recognize and revere. Zack asks why shouldn't the imprisoned be included in the American ethnicity. Well, Naomi, I feel that I can answer that question for you. It's because they've been convicted of crimes. And obviously, if an individual is in jail for any length of time the crime was generally serious. Not only that, but those in jail burden our society by sitting in a jail and using up tax dollars. I do not think we should offer those in prison recognition in our crowning national identity until they have paid their debt to society.

Also, those who are homeless are more often than not mentally ill and refusing treatment. Our reformed society should work to eradicate homelessness through the offering of psychiatric help, shelter, and care. However, it should not make any steps to make homelessness a main-stay in our culture.

Illiteracy also poses a problem for me in terms of its place in American society. According to the CIA World Fact B0ok (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), 99 percent of the total population over the age of 15 can read and write. Clearly, effective institutions for literacy exist. Those who remain illiterate deserve respect and a real education. However, they should not be exalted in American for their choice to stay illiterate.

I wish I were more concisely and more eloquently verbalize my issues with her argument. However, I think that most of you will get the gist of what I'm saying. I'm interested to see how everyone else reacted to this passage.

Question: Is Zack relying on ignorance?

When reading through chapter 1 of Naomi Zack's book "Thinking About Race," I was confused about how she was trying to refute 19th century biological theory of racial essences. On page 12, she states that "Many people continue to believe that there is a scientific basis for racial divisions, and the lack of this basis in itself makes their ideas about race false." Maybe I am reading out of context, or simple am not picking up on sarcasm, but it is fallacious to arrive at a conclusion from the lack of that conclusions counter evidence. That is, because there is a lack of evidence proving A, that does not make not A a true statement. In context, because there is a lack of scientific basis for racial divisions, that does not mean that no biological racial divisions exist, and one can not conclude that those believing in such are false. At one point there was no evidence that the earth orbited the sun, but that ignorance does not justify affirming the position that the earth then must not orbit the sun.

Is Zack committing a similar fallacy or am I missing something?

A Complex Question

Naomi Zack leaves the reader with the following question in conclusion to chapter 1: "The important question to consider and reconsider is this: do differences among human groups require a taxonomy or classification scheme that creates the kind of strong divisions associated with the idea of race in the false biological sense." The ambiguity and implicit implications of this question requires a closer look at what is being said.

To me is seems there are two questions being mashed together into one. There are the following:

1) Do differences among human groups require a taxonomy.

2) Does racial classification schemes necessarily create undesirable strong divisions that are associated with the idea of race in the false biological sense?

These are two very difference questions that require to be asked and answered separately. Answering the former questions is a matter of practicality. Zack already noted the inherent irrationality in such a taxonomy, due to having negations embedded in the conclusion (proving one not to have black ancestors per say). One is left discussing racial classification therefore in a purely pragmatic manner. Does it require a taxonomy? Not if the use of the word "require" is to mean that a taxonomy is a "necessary condition" for differences in human groups. Yet if require simply holds pragmatic connotation, then I would argue yes, appealing to the fact that categorizing groups is fundamentally efficient, as history has demonstrated.

The second question is more contingent on what subject the "classification scheme" is modifying. Some classification schemes do seem to create undesirable divisions while others do not. If Zack is asking whether it is possible to classify different human groups without creating undesirable differences, then answering such requires investigating the specific nature of human grouping. Why are some unique characterizations of human classification that create problems?

The point is that Zack's complex question is unclear in distinguishing between whether we want to classify human differences at all, or simple whether this can be done in a way that does not create undesirable divisions. I think we naturally and pragmatically want to classify any differences that appear nature, yet the way we classify, viz. the meaning we put behind the visible differences, is of importance to carefully consider.

Is this enlightenment?

For your critical viewing pleasure:
(the link takes a moment to load; be patient)

Nissan - Chow Mein / Eddie Wise - (2009) :30 (USA)

What's going on here?