Does formal education upon the subject of race, embody, preserve and foster the sublimated form of the 'ism'? — Marcus de Brun

No of course not, any more than educating people about war fosters violence, or educating them about drugs fosters drug addiction, or educating them about corruption fosters corruption, or educating them about colonialism fosters colonialism, and on and on. And considering more and more people have received a formal education over the past couple of hundred years and less and less people are racist as is evidenced by the fact that we almost exclusively no longer have slavery, apartheid or other overt forms of extreme discrimination in advanced democracies, that should be obvious. Or from the fact that in a given society more racism tends to come from the less educated, or from the fact that ignorance does not in general tend to fuel virtue, etc. So, there is really no content to what you've written, certainly no empirical or philosophical content, simply baseless speculation that something that is obviously not true might be true. If you do have an actual argument why this should be so or some evidence to show how increased education causes increased racism in terms of statistics, data etc, please present it now or this will go the same way as internetstranger's OP.

In other words this:

I think it does, and it is perhaps the single greatest reason that Race (if it exists) cannot escape the ism. — Marcus de Brun

being something so contrary to all the available evidence, your OP should contain some justification for your position otherwise we are likely to consider it mere ideological maneuvering, and/or provocation.

I think it does, and it is perhaps the single greatest reason that Race (if it exists) — Marcus de Brun

Essentially race doesn't effectively exist. It is ideologies.

"Race" is used ideologically.

Does the traditional academic approach to 'race': race-history, the history of 'African Americans', 'Irish Americans', the sociological 'needs' of a particular 'race' etc, contain a powerful sublimated racism, that makes it impossible for the victims of formal education to escape ownership of 'racism'. — Marcus de Brun

Usually, it is said to be down to a person's up bringing and parental influence which allows them to think that it is acceptable to be racist, some people don't even know that they are being racist just because their norm is to use these phrases just like it is normal to say 'Hello' and 'How are you?'.

In terms of academics, learning about racism can be a large help in making the younger generations understand racism - what it is and, most importantly, why it is wrong. However, even 'academically correct' names, such as African American and Jew; could be construed as racist just because of the social connotations and historical value that these names hold. The formal representation of learning how racism came to be can sometimes loose the message of why the children are being taught this information.

However, even 'academically correct' names, such as African American — GreyScorpio

Yeah, I wonder how many of our darker pigmented American brothers and sisters from the Caribbean feel about being seen as African American.

Yeah, I wonder how many of our darker pigmented American brothers and sisters from the Caribbean feel about being seen as African American. — raza

Of course, they immediately disregard the fact that the Caribbean is actually in America. They should be classed as American. However, the slaves that were taken from Africa to America have the same pigmented skin - darker skin - hence they contextualized this name to correspond with this particular group of people with this colour of skin. African or not.

However, the slaves that were taken from Africa to America have the same pigmented skin - darker skin - hence they contextualized this name to correspond with this particular group of people with this colour of skin. African or not. — GreyScorpio

So the label "African American" appears to correlate directly with slavery of the past.

I think the label "American" for a darker pigmented American brother and sister should do, for the sake of inclusiveness.

I would never use the Af-Am term. If I was asked to describe the look of a darker pigmented American chap I would just say "A black guy".

Does the formal notion 'Irish American' and all of its particular 'history' contain a codified racism of sorts. — Marcus de Brun

Sort of, yes. In order to understand the history of Irish Americans you have to put on history goggles that will allow you to see the hatred that was directed toward them.

For the innocent, this is a dark initiation. It will make the St Patty's Day parade appear in relief against bloodshed and sorrow.

Sometimes the oldies think they're helping the young by passing on their wounds. That will continue on until the wounds have truly faded away.

I would never use the Af-Am term. If I was asked to describe the look of a darker pigmented American chap I would just say "A black guy". — raza

Indeed, but some people think they are being racist by saying 'black guy'. Its just like I explained before ...

Usually, it is said to be down to a person's up bringing and parental influence which allows them to think that it is acceptable to be racist, some people don't even know that they are being racist just because their norm is to use these phrases just like it is normal to say 'Hello' and 'How are you?'. — GreyScorpio

Indeed, but some people think they are being racist by saying 'black guy'. — GreyScorpio

As long as I know why I use the term I don't care what another tells me why I use it.

Related to the OP, or possibly buried within it, are certain persistent questions. (A persistent question being somewhere on the spectrum between simple questions of fact and the eternal and perhaps unsolvable questions of life). One might be summarized by a post by @wellwisher in the “Our bodies house Two Minds” thread. This concerns the difference and sameness factors that can applied in many comparisons. And which is reflected in basic math, by subtraction (difference) and finding the GCD (greatest common denominator) between two numbers. Many other mathematical examples exist, most of which quickly go beyond my comprehension. But they are generally rooted in the basic principles.

Even more basic perhaps in human recognition is the apparently binary distinction between self and other. Is it “me” or “not me”. Then as mentioned above is the same/difference distinction. In a comparison by one person about another, the questions would be “are they similar?” and “are they different?”. And then “how much difference exists?”

One thing about that has interested me lately is the notion of “problem”. Problem solving of course is a significant topic. But also problem recognition and labeling. Such as when one is walking down the street, there are constant potential “problems” of various degrees. Watching for things one might step on or trip over is a big one. (Don’t step on a crack! :gasp: ) Traffic, other people, animals, all present themselves as various problems or issues. Running into a person is the problem, not necessarily the person themself. Unless one sees them as a physical threat, such as a robber or mugger. In the news of late there are countless examples of people making threat assessments that turned out to be very mistaken. And led to injury, death, or an unwarranted call for police assistance. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. We seek a clear vision in the ever-present moment which includes both the details and the big picture. This is probably a whole other topic, another persistent question. But it does tie in.

So in relation to OP and notions of racial differences, there are several possible responses. In the example of a black child happily playing with a white child, one could conclude several things. Possibly the two children aren’t aware of any differences between themselves. Perhaps they are aware of differences, but don’t think that they are very big. Perhaps the similarities between themselves as children overrides the differences. For example, either child might be more afraid of an adult of their own race due to their sheer size. Maybe the two children in this example realize there is a difference between them, but it is not a “problem”. Similar to the way a person will love a dog, despite (or perhaps because of) being extremely different from a human.

Also, this brings to mind one’s reactions to a stimulus which seems problematic. One person may go into a near panic. Another might treat the same situation as a fun puzzle to solve. There seems to be a portion of reality that is malleable, that is raw potential. I would NOT go so far to absolutely say that “reality is what we make it”. But there seems to be a core of truth there, regarding our perceptions and consequent choices.

I think there are few ideas more pernicious and ignorant than that which says that being educated about the reality of racial politics and racial history is itself a contributor to racism. Not only does it obscure the quite basic point that racism is perpetuated primarily by racists, who, regardless of what you think will treat you like shit anyway, but it also then aims to turn the problem around and pin the responsibility for racism upon those who would try and articulate the experience of race by drawing upon the powerful and indispensable resources of history and sociology (to mention the two disciplines invoked in the OP). It is a silencing manoeuvre that effectively deprives one of the language of history and the language of society as means to address and make sense of what happens to those subjected to racism.

Only someone who doesn't have to deal with the reality of racism can be so oblivious as to say that, if only we just pretended it didn't exist, it would just go away. Most of the racially vilified simply don't have that luxury, reserved only for those who are imbecilic enough to intellectualize racism as a matter of thought. Racism is being denied a job and being spat on because of the colour of your skin; it sure as hell isn't being educated about racial history, and the latter sure as hell isn't a cause of the former.

No of course not, any more than educating people about war fosters violence, or educating them about drugs fosters drug addiction, or educating them about corruption fosters corruption, or educating them about colonialism fosters colonialism, and on and on. — Baden

You have missed the point here, in that the racism that is fostered by formal processes is a sublimated racism. IE it is not overtly obvious and as such it must be identified by the philosopher before it can be examined by the technologist.

Education for the most part must be 'entertaining' if it is to engage. History is precisely his- story as it is taught in schools. Simple chronologies of dates and occurrences will not educate students, stories educate and race is not a story, but is treated as such.

Incidentally the primary author of this question has been banned. Is this a temporary or permanent thing? The subject suffers much by his/her absence?

Might it be possible to make an appeal upon his behalf?

M

You give the impression you haven't read what I've said either about this discussion or the poster who got banned. So, you've had your chance to bring up something of substance and all you can come up with is "sublimated" racism, and no evidence for it. So, there's no reason to keep this discussion open.