Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 11:31 Post subject:
Spiral wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Spiral wrote:
So are you judging the amount of SSA that a black identified Caribbean Citizen has based on" what you know", please clarify .
Let me rephrase that - in accordance with Rule 2.6, if someone identifies as "black," then they're "black." Capisce?
Still Mr Miller, you have not answered my Question was : What evidence do you have that "black" Identified Caribbean Citizens have more SSA than you ?
Let me say this again - I never said that. I've made no such statement that needed to be backed with references - however, I'm specifically referring to those who, as far as they know and identify, have a preponderance of SSA ancestry, whether real or not - this is, of course, in accordance with Rule 2.6. Bottom line - I've stated nothing as fact as to the percentage of one's SSA ancestry, and therefore have nothing that requires backup, so get off of it.
As for you, Jaime - how are those references coming along?
I wouldn't be so sure about that, seeing as how for some strange reason, Latinos are seen as a "race" (eg, "You're Mexican? I thought you were white!"), so how do we know that a Carribbean category won't engender the same thing? Not that that in itself bothers me, I'm just addressing your point.
Seeing as how both Latinos and Carribean people are all over the map genetically speaking, my point is that a category is not going to make having SSA ancestry less problematic in a racialist sense. It will provide culture "cover" if you will, which undeniably ameliorates the negative impact of SSA ancestry and appearance for people who benefit from the respect that USAmericans seem to have for culture/ethnicity.
We'll have to see whther adding this Carribean category receives any opposition from AA and Latino identity politicos.
It's obvious that you are displeased and feel as though Americans who lack a distinct ethnic culture are being relegated to blackness. It seems to me that any group that uses race and not culture/ethnicity as a basis for categorization is going to have a difficult time wading through the quagmire of U.S. racial categorization. Why? Because a category like "Carribean" or "Arab" or even "Latino" describes people who inhabit or have cultural roots in a geographic area.
I'll continue this thought in the Biracial forum because it will likely veer into political advocacy.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 14:11 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
It's obvious that you are displeased and feel as though Americans who lack a distinct ethnic culture are being relegated to blackness. It seems to me that any group that uses race and not culture/ethnicity as a basis for categorization is going to have a difficult time wading through the quagmire of U.S. racial categorization. Why? Because a category like "Carribean" or "Arab" or even "Latino" describes people who inhabit or have cultural roots in a geographic area.
This is 100% false. Look at the current categories. For example, keeping in mind that there are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc - is there one monolithic "Asian culture"? No - that category is "race" based. Currently, "Hispanic/Latino" is the ONLY category we have - out of what, five or six, that is culture based.
To address the "geographical area," same deal - it's false. For example, there's no monolithic "white culture" either, but it still applies to people of predomint European ancestry (as long as there isn't "one drop of black blood"), whether they are from the US, Canada, Europe, or South Africa.
I have seen no valid justification yet as to why people who already have a race to check should get another, while I'm supposed to just shut up and accept ODR (i.e., that category comes at the expense of multiracial people of SSA decent).
It's obvious that you are displeased and feel as though Americans who lack a distinct ethnic culture are being relegated to blackness. It seems to me that any group that uses race and not culture/ethnicity as a basis for categorization is going to have a difficult time wading through the quagmire of U.S. racial categorization. Why? Because a category like "Carribean" or "Arab" or even "Latino" describes people who inhabit or have cultural roots in a geographic area.
This is 100% false. Look at the current categories. For example, keeping in mind that there are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc - is there one monolithic "Asian culture"? No - that category is "race" based. Currently, "Hispanic/Latino" is the ONLY category we have - out of what, five or six, that is culture based.
To address the "geographical area," same deal - it's false. For example, there's no monolithic "white culture" either, but it still applies to people of predomint European ancestry (as long as there isn't "one drop of black blood"), whether they are from the US, Canada, Europe, or South Africa.
I have seen no valid justification yet as to why people who already have a race to check should get another at the expense of of multiracial people of SSA decent.
You're mistaken. "Asian" is a geographic region lacking any reference to culture. Depending on who you ask or which court case you reference, a person from the Indian subcontinent in Asia is either "Asian" or "White" (not European in the least).
"Carribean" and "Hispanic/Latino" ("Arab" too) are both geographical AND cultural. They are more complex constructs and actually make much more sense than racial categories as currently conceived.
Perhaps you are seeking validity in race. I am not. I see no validity in race, only culturally constructed meaning that changes over time. Checking two boxes, once "racial" and one "cultural" is what Latinos can do that no other group of people get to do.
I also do not believe in zero sum games so I'd rather not even discuss that philosophical disagreement.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 14:43 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
You're mistaken. "Asian" is a geographic region lacking any reference to culture. Depending on who you ask or which court case you reference, a person from the Indian subcontinent in Asia is either "Asian" or "White" (not European in the least).
I SAID it's not a culture, did you READ?
You also did not respond to what I said about the white category, which lacks neither a cultural nor a geographical basis.
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
You're mistaken. "Asian" is a geographic region lacking any reference to culture. Depending on who you ask or which court case you reference, a person from the Indian subcontinent in Asia is either "Asian" or "White" (not European in the least).
I SAID it's not a culture, did you READ?
You also did not respond to what I said about the white category, which lacks neither a cultural nor a geographical basis.
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
You need to calm down. You might have written it's not a culture but also referred to it as a racial category that is somehow clear cut. It isn't. None of them are. Not one.
The Latino category is NOT a race category on the Census. It is a separate category. I can (and have when the mood suits me) checked both on forms.
Of course there is no monolithic culture in a geographical region. There are always differences. But it is also true that geography plays a huge role in shaping cultural groups (so does migration). There are less significant differences between Spanish-speaking countries in Central and Latin America than there are between those countries and any one country on another continent except for Spain (for obvious reasons).
The White category makes about as much sense as the Black category, which is to say it makes no sense except sociopolitically. There are huge cultural differences between Nigerians and African Americans or Lebanese and Swedes. Just because they check one box doesn't mean that these boxes denotes anything other than which side they would likely fall on the B-W line in the U.S.
To answer your question, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't advise anyone to accept an identity or a label that they do not wish to accept (and I do mean anyone - no phenotype correctness). I would advise you to suck up the fact that other political blocs are trying to employ methods that work and put down the Haterade, as it were. Why not learn from what they are doing instead?
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
_________________
You only seem to approach your particular situation with your racial blinders strapped firmly on , there are other ways.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 15:19 Post subject:
Spiral wrote:
Quote:
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
_________________
You only seem to approach your particular situation with your racial blinders strapped firmly on , there are other ways.
What you just said makes absolutely no sense, in relation to what you quoted me on.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 15:40 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
To answer your question, no I wouldn't. I wouldn't advise anyone to accept an identity or a label that they do not wish to accept (and I do mean anyone - no phenotype correctness). I would advise you to suck up the fact that other political blocs are trying to employ methods that work and put down the Haterade, as it were. Why not learn from what they are doing instead?
There's a big difference between our situations - multiracial people of SSA decent actually face opposition to a category from people and organizations in high places, namely the NAACP and National Council of La Raza - this was the case in 2000, and is likely to be again in 2010. And if you battle against such groups, you end up looking like the bad guy, since such groups can do no wrong. Are Carribbeans facing such challenges right now? Would the methods that multiracial people of SSA decent have to employ be anywhere near as simple as those of Carribbeans? Hell no!
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
_________________
You only seem to approach your particular situation with your racial blinders strapped firmly on , there are other ways.
What you just said makes absolutely no sense, in relation to what you quoted me on.
I will quote the Moderator here :
Quote:
I would advise you to suck up the fact that other political blocs are trying to employ methods that work and put down the Haterade, as it were. Why not learn from what they are doing instead?
Your constant seeking of Validity through race have blinded you to other options.
There's a big difference between our situations - multiracial people of SSA decent actually face opposition to a category from people and organizations in high places, namely the NAACP and National Council of La Raza - this was the case in 2000, and is likely to be again in 2010. And if you battle against such groups, you end up looking like the bad guy, since such groups can do no wrong. Are Carribbeans facing such challenges right now? Would the methods that multiracial people of SSA decent have to employ be anywhere near as simple as those of Carribbeans? Hell no!
You're making a lot of assumptions, unfounded. For one, who knows what opposition to the Carribean label has or will be mounted? Unless you have evidence to the contrary it seems to me this is a movement at the early stages, and would not be on the radar yet. Secondly, simplicitly how? People in the Carribean are also multiracial and likely much more ethnically complex than homegrown US Americans.
The difference is that their organizing principle is culture. That principle resonates with the powers that be in the U.S. I'd bet money that Louisiana Creoles would get a category using a similar approach.
You're in a situation similar to Black Americans, like it or not. There is no unifying culture so the unifier is race, or rather, a racialized subgroup of Americans. In this case, mulatto. It will either take such a group longer to forge the culture, and thereby longer to make the case, or you will have to find another way to articulate your need for a category.
Going back to something else you said earlier, about using the proportion of SSA ancestry as an indicator of need for/right to a category, are you saying that categorization should rightly proceed according to blood quantum? So that genetically European person with a small fraction of SSA ancestry gets in line ahead of someone who has more SSA genes? What about ancestry or appearance? I know I am asking you the question, but please still keep in mind while answering that political advocacy isn't allowed here. I'm really just interested to know your thoughts. If people want to continue a conversation about the response, please do so where political advocacy is allowed.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 16:06 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Bottom line - if you have more SSA ancestry than I do, then I deserve a separate category before you do - I don't give a damn what your "culture" is. It makes no sense whatsoever to give someone with preponderance of SSA ancestry an "escape hatch" while still f*cking me, and everyone else, who has 1/2 or less SSA ancestry.
So basically, if someone is a Syrian-Caribbean then it's find for that person to have a Caribbean category. But if someone are African-Caribbean then you don't want them to have a category. The point is for all of us to identify together. "Mulattos" are not an culture/ethnicity in the way Caribbean people are. Why you are trying to compare your situation to ours is beyond me. It's not the same. Further, we still have to mark so-called race boxes. Your attitude is similar to certain African-Americans who get upset when AfroCaribbean or AfroLatino people identify as such.
Further, if you "don't give a damn what our culture is" then there is no point in you being in this discussion. This is about our culture, so it's really nothing for you to be concerned with - according to you anyway.
Last edited by divana on Thu 10 Jul 2008 16:17; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 16:10 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
Spiral wrote:
So are you judging the amount of SSA that a black identified Caribbean Citizen has based on" what you know", please clarify .
Let me rephrase that - in accordance with Rule 2.6, if someone identifies as "black," then they're "black." Capisce?
With Caribbean people, "black" is not necessary exclusive. "Black" does not mean that a person is not "multiracial." Sorry but Rule 2.6 does not apply.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 16:14 Post subject:
Spiral wrote:
Richard Miller wrote:
Spiral wrote:
Quote:
So, let me ask you a question - by suggesting that one should not seek validity in race, are you saying I should just suck it up, accept ODR, and check black?
_________________
You only seem to approach your particular situation with your racial blinders strapped firmly on , there are other ways.
What you just said makes absolutely no sense, in relation to what you quoted me on.
I will quote the Moderator here :
Quote:
I would advise you to suck up the fact that other political blocs are trying to employ methods that work and put down the Haterade, as it were. Why not learn from what they are doing instead?
Your constant seeking of Validity through race have blinded you to other options.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 {Posts: 110 } Location: Somewhere...
Posted: Thu 10 Jul 2008 16:15 Post subject:
Richard Miller wrote:
dahlin wrote:
LOL...are you concerned about Indo-Caribbeans not checking the Asian box and being able to mark Caribbean? What about those of predominant European heritage? Are all these people getting "let off the hook" too?
Does "one drop" of any of these make you that only? Therein lies the difference.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
