tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post1724504534097353082..comments2023-07-04T21:12:47.972-05:00Comments on Why Am I Not Surprised?: The Fatal Invention of "Race"changeseekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-9787924186235111622012-01-03T11:28:40.436-06:002012-01-03T11:28:40.436-06:00Hey, Red 9, I apologize for not responding until y...Hey, Red 9, I apologize for not responding until you may never even know I have, but things have been hectic. Basically, I agree with your first point, but suggest that we should at least consider the original meaning and whether or not "changes" are primarily to keep power structures in tact.<br /><br />Of course, physical evolution of all animals (including humans) has occurred over millions of years, but the ideological conception of "race" only four or five hundred years back -- to my mind -- had little to do with that for exactly the reasons you outline.<br /><br />Stereotypes -- however nonsensical -- are not necessarily terribly problematic. When we start putting a third of red-headed men in prison, however, we will be attacking (with great effectiveness) red-heads <i><b>as a group</b></i> and that is quite a different issue. It's not the intent, says Jane Elliott. It's the impact.changeseekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350201531677548579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-86427080108729712422011-11-19T10:13:15.863-06:002011-11-19T10:13:15.863-06:00I was hoping you could clarify some points for me....I was hoping you could clarify some points for me.<br /><br />One: Is the argument here going that "because the term race was used a different way in the past, we are now using the term incorrectly?" I ask, not because I don't think that there are hugely problematic ways in which the term race is used today but because language itself changes constantly, and the argument that we should use language the way it was used in the past is, in my opinion, wrong.<br /><br />Two: You keep refering to the idea that "race is socially constructed". This in of itself I don't dispute (at least not absolutely) but I want to ask this: Are you argueing that race is entirely socially constucted, that there are no significant biological variations or are you saying that society takes relatively minor biological variations (such as skin color) and then imbues them with a whole bunch of pre-concieved prejudices and stereotypes designed to promote classism and discrimination for the benefit of those who hold power? BTW, we don't just do this for skin color but hair color also gets it's own set of prejudices associated with it (blondes are dumb, redheads are bad tempered, etc.).<br /><br />To me at least, over time, people in different parts of the world evolved minor variations to help us survive in whatever environment we happened to be living in. For example resistance to malaria where it was common or tolerance to alcohol where it was used to help sanitize water, darker skin around the equator to help with the high sun exposure, etc.<br /><br />Ultimately, these minor biological variations don't mean very much in terms of "we are superior, you are inferior" and to use them as such is just plain wrong, but they certainly do exist. That's why I'm asking about the "race is socially constructed" phrase you keep using.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />-JeremyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14470325503788056122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16645996.post-5345206151537446972011-11-14T14:36:51.592-06:002011-11-14T14:36:51.592-06:00Very interesting. I hope to get it someday, as wel...Very interesting. I hope to get it someday, as well as use her new word.Brotha Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11757828851843699053noreply@blogger.com