I’ve read this a few times but I can’t understand what you’re getting at. Can you give me a bit more?

This post was about extent for novelty in interpretative structures and challenging alternative ideas about how they explain the existence of undesirable interpretations. Putting aside any biological impetus, there have been cultures/religions in the past that really emphasised particular ways of looking at the world and prioritising/thinking about the concepts they found relevant.

Spartan culture really promoted your ability as a warrior, in the past Christianity focused on piety, purity, responsibility to God and church and so on. So a person living in a culture in that time is likely to perceive the world through the lens of those interpretative structures.

If we look back to the 1960s, 70s, 80s - we saw culture changing (mostly due to technology and changing attitudes) by completely shifting what was important interpretatively. It seems that this is how change occurs.

All sorts of things wouldn't be relevant if society at large didn't care about it so much. I view race as such a thing, I was brought up to not factor someone's race into my decision making or understanding of a person. This would have continued but because of how society is, it's not entirely possible to not have an opinion on the issue of race.

It's not just racism, there are "ethnic communities", ethnic histories (as opposed to national), ethnicity matters for politics and so many things. The government and universities in the US offer special treatment to different ethnic groups. All of these things encourage people to think in racial terms, factor it into their understanding about whatever it touches.

Instead of talking about why your race doesn't matter, the opposite is mostly occurring. I feel this new focus for us to "solve" racism will lead to more racism, it seems inevitable to me. This could apply to anything though, making something more interpretatively relevant will make all interpretative uses more common and not just the desired one. This idea has changed how I think about a lot of things such as fairness and parenting.

If my culture didn't care about the things I care about - could I still care about them? To what extent am I focused on things for reasons that have nothing to do with causation or truth, but simply prevalence? Are the interpretations I have of things always based on what I want them to be or did I just have to have an opinion about something because everyone else does?

As someone who despises racism, would it better to advocate for shaming anyone who talks along racial lines, irrespective of their intent. Trying to make it so whether someone is different based solely on their race into an unasked question, irrelevant to everybody.

Share your thoughts — Judaka

It seems like maybe you want to do away with terms like 'black community' as they maybe set up a dichotomy that wouldn't be there otherwise?

This is similar to the ideas presented in George Orwell's book 1984, in that the authorities in that fictional world wanted to reduce the number of words that were in use and in the dictionary, in order to prevent the discussion and thinking about certain subjects.

I think that Orwell considered this approach a problem.

I would agree that it is a problem, in that reducing the ability for people to discuss things, in a dialectic way, reduces the ability to resolve problems.

Rather than do away with terms like 'black/white community' I think it would be better to discuss what those terms mean, and stuff that relates to those terms.

I realise it can be a problem if some terms go on being used without discussion, as it kind of risks normalising certain ways of looking at the world, but I think it is the lack of discussion which is the problem.

I think there are reasons at the root of things like racism. With racism I think that one of the reasons is due to our evolutionarily developed mind/brains..in the form of the Cross Race Effect.
Another reason is the tensions that are place upon communities by financial problems, and the narratives that are spun in the mainstream media.

Any discussions that go into any causes would be pretty much disabled if people weren't allowed to recognise things like race..and in disabling discussion, there would be less or no resolution to the problems...I don't think shaming as a general rule gets rid of problems but pushes them underground, where they may have an even more malign effect on society.

There's a difference between being allowed to talk about differences and highlighting them. I am not saying the word racism should be removed from the dictionary or that the term "black communities" should be banned. It is about navigating the appropriate actions as someone who wants to lessen the extent of racism.

If you can point to a cause that impacts people on a racial basis then shine a light on it and let's all condemn it and try to change it. It's just a matter of how the human mind works.

If you're told "black people are more likely to cause crime than white people" what does that even mean? It means nothing until someone starts talking about why that is. If you can tell me why that is then shine a light on a non-racial problem like "black people are generally less educated than white people and less educated people generally commit more crimes". Don't make it a racial issue, we can actually aim to do something about a lack of education but not just for black people but all Americans (or w/e nationality).

Or if the problem is that the police unfairly target black people then again, actively contest this idea so it no longer happens. The question is how to actively contest genuine racism and my view is that the best way is to show a new way of looking at the same thing. So if a percentage of the reason black people commit more crime is that they're unfairly convicted of more crimes due to a prejudicial justice system then how is that going to be changed?

I would assume that the involved people are looking at likelihood to commit crime racially because there's a focus on the racial factor. There are so many other factors we could be concentrating on rather than the likelihood of the ethnicity of perpetrators. There are so many ways to classify people but we choose to focus on race and for me, that's the main cause of racism. By talking about things in a racial framework all the time, it's inevitable that people think about things racially and form opinions about people and things in racial terms. It's shocking to me when people act like racism is surprising, given how prevalent race is - it makes no sense to expect something else.

There are so many ways to classify people but we choose to focus on race and for me, that's the main cause of racism. By talking about things in a racial framework all the time, it's inevitable that people think about things racially and form opinions about — Judaka

that is partly where the mainstream media come in. It is up to the media organisation what stories they focus on and how they set the framework to present any stories. In this way they spin narratives for whatever reason, that get taken up by people in society.

Well, that is certainly true but I do not feel that people who openly think and speak in racial terms receive the condemnation they should and treating problems racially and implementing racially sensitive solutions is publicly thought of as necessary. If black people have been set back by racial oppression then it's only fair to give black people advantages to catch back up, that's how people think.

Instead of just embracing black people as the same as any American which is what people like Martin Luther King jr wanted and seeing poor people as poor people rather than thinking "poor black people". I do hold the media accountable like you do but it is larger than them.

This sounds like a good idea, but in order to do that, we would have to eradicate everything that separated black people from white people. This would include culture, what kind of music they make/listen to, how they act and behave, et cetera. We would have to destroy the entirety of black culture in order to achieve something like this. I understand where you are coming from on this, but it really wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. It would decrease overall diversity. Black people are the same a white people biologically and those things, but culturally and socially they are different, in a general sense, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just think we would be worse off to decrease diversity.

There's all kinds of different "white" cultures which aren't racial, people who like country music for example. It would just mean that, for example, hip hop is no longer "black music" but just music that anyone can make and listen to and it's as relevant that mostly black people do as it is that mostly people with black hair do. The way "black" people speak just becomes a way of speaking for people from particular areas.

I'm not trying to destroy "black" culture but in my view, there's already no such thing as "white" culture and nothing was destroyed to achieve that.

It would just mean that, for example, hip hop is no longer "black music" but just music that anyone can make and listen to and it's as relevant that mostly black people do as it is that mostly people with blonde hair do. The way "black" people speak just becomes a way of speaking for people from particular areas. — Judaka

But not everyone might want to like same thing as everyone else. To achieve this, everyone would have to like the same thing, and if people didn't, there would just be separation again. Even if the separation wasn't by race, there would still be separation by groups of people over what they like. This might destroy racism, but it wouldn't stop prejudice, we just would be prejudice to people over what they like as opposed to their ethnicity. This happens on a smaller level already, such as in music communities, specifically metal. A lot of metal fans hate "metalcore", and don't even consider it metal, and have distaste for people who do. In the scenario you propose, it would basically be this on an exponential and broader scale.

just as an aside, I am not keen on the term 'white' people, mainly because 'white' people are not white generally; a piece of paper is white, most 'white' people are shades of pink, peach, etc....but partly because I am not always keen on the colour white. I'm not keen on white cars, white computers etc...white is ok in some contexts, like a chess piece, or a fridge..maybe.

If I was black I would be fine with that description of 'black' though, as I like the colour black, and shades of grey, brown etc...but I think some black people object to the description.

I don't know if this is a problem in the debate generally...but I sort of cringe at the description of 'white' if I have to fill in a form of some kind.

Ethnicity is different because it's not a choice and it doesn't even mean anything. I am not trying to remove all prejudice, I am just asking whether if you wanted to remove a prejudice, whether it would be best to try to make it irrelevant interpretively or not.

There will be separation by groups in many ways, different characteristics will be judged and so much more. I offer no solutions on how to entirely eliminate prejudice, nor do I think it is possible even for a single person to eliminate their own prejudice.


Yeah, well it got created as an opposite to black rather than trying to be an accurate description. I don't like it either but I guess I don't care that much.

Yeah, well it got created as an opposite to black rather than trying to be an accurate description. I don't like it either but I guess I don't care that much. — Judaka

the term 'white' sort of does what you were talking about in the OP..it kind of sets up a way of looking at race in a binary way; ie black and white...if you do or have to identify, and tick the 'white' box, then that disregards all the variations of how someone's genetics are formed..my ancestors must have come from all over the place, like Scandinavia to Italy etc...but forget all the nuance in all that 'you're wither black or white etc'...this might lead to a polarisation in how people see things, unnecessarily. I'd certainly rather tick another box, like 'mainly of European descent'..or something....how would I know exactly what section of the world all my ancestors came from historically?

the term 'white' sort of does what you were talking about in the OP..it kind of sets up a way of looking at race in a binary way; ie black and white...if you do or have to identify, and tick the 'white' box, then that disregards all the variations of how someone's genetics are formed..my ancestors must have come from all over the place, like Scandinavia to Italy etc...but forget all the nuance in all that 'you're wither black or white etc'...this might lead to a polarisation in how people see things, unnecessarily. I'd certainly rather tick another box, like 'mainly of European descent'..or something....how would I know exactly what section of the world all my ancestors came from historically? — wax

I took the National Geographic DNA test, and it showed how my ancestors migrated out of Africa and settled and intermingled around the globe over the millennia. Based on my haplogroups, I learned that I have Ashkenazi blood, something my family never knew before. I also share some genetic traits with northeastern Asian and southwestern Asian populations, 2% and 17% respectively. Historically, based on my mother’s genealogy work, my ancestors from the past few hundred years came from the Netherlands and Germany (Prussia), but that is not the whole story. According to the NG DNA test I also have a little Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA as do all non-Africans.

that also made me think about the genetic variation amongst the people who usually come under the group description 'black'....I saw on TV once that marathon runners who are black often come from one part of Africa historically, whereas 100,200 etc meter runners who are black come from another part of Africa. 100meter athletes are usually much stronger all round than marathon runners who are slimmer etc.....so there seems to be quite a variation in genetics amongst people whose ancestors came from the continent of Africa, and I wonder if black people consider that there are different races within Africa...?

A discussion on different races under the 'black' description umbrella might well be stifled by being all lumped into the same category....

Certainly there is much genetic variation among Africans, but my illustration was meant to point out how we’re all related, making the term “race” effectively meaningless.

Certainly there is much genetic variation among Africans, but my illustration was meant to point out how we’re all related, making the term “race” effectively meaningless. — Noah Te Stroete

yes, people do make that argument, but the same can be said of the whole animal kingdom, yet there are separate species.
Race has ended up being a controversial concept, but this is an outcome of the way the concept has been used, rather than intrinsic in the concept itself.
Race just means like different groups within a species...I always say if race definitions are meaningless then would that apply to physical conditions like sickle cell anaemia for instance which has a wide representation in black people, and I read that this biological feature evolved partly as a way to deal with malaria, which is more common in Africa.

Genetic groupings within a species is all race really means, in biology anyway.

Sure, I guess “race” has some useful meaning, but when it engenders identity politics it becomes a problem.

Lions and tigers are species that are closely related. They are close enough to be able to breed together and the offspring are either tions or ligers(I think) yet would most people think that those two species difference is meaningless?

Aren’t their offspring sterile?

Furthermore, you are now conflating “race” and “species”.

Sure, I guess “race” has some useful meaning, but when it engenders identity politics it becomes a problem. — Noah Te Stroete

well I don't think it would be a good idea to deny that race variations exist just because the idea is used in identity politics...it might seem like a good idea, but it just isn't true, in the same way that a blackberry is very different fruit than a raspberry, and yet they were interbred to make the loganberry variation..i think.

Furthermore, you are now conflating “race” and “species”. — Noah Te Stroete

yes, biology is kind of a fuzzy thing with fuzzy definitions. I don't know if tigons and ligers are sterile, but that an offspring can be produced shows they are closely related.
I do know that mules are usually sterile, and they are the offspring of horses and donkeys I think....the separation through evolution of one species into two often starts like that, in that as they begin to separate their offspring are sterile...this process does accelerates the separation process.

Individuals shouldn’t identify too strongly with race, in my opinion. It causes social problems (to put it mildly). If everyone had their own genomes sequenced, then medicine wouldn’t have to rely on race factors in diagnoses, for example, and it would show how we are all unique and yet still related.

Individuals shouldn’t identify too strongly with race, in my opinion. It causes social problems (to put it mildly). If everyone had their own genomes sequenced, then medicine wouldn’t have to rely on race factors in diagnoses, for example, and it would show how we are all unique and yet still related. — Noah Te Stroete

I read that in India doctors often ask which cast a patient has come from, because the different casts have historically been so separate that they have ended up with different genetic sets. And the difference is important I think due to the different reactions to certain drugs.

Even knowing that people don't think very well (including me) you'd still need to prove your point that such and such views are meaningless. I prefer a pluralistic outlook. There are differences AND similarities. Celebrate both diversity AND unity.

The problem arises when we try to construct a hierarchy structure. Who's going to be on top and who's going to be at the bottom? I guess you'll have to demonstrate that a power structure is nonsense. That leads us to the idea of equality. Please share your views on equality.

I read that in India doctors often ask which cast a patient has come from, because the different casts have historically been so separate that they have ended up with different genetic sets. And the difference is important I think due to the different reactions to certain drugs. — wax

Genome sequencing would do away with these diagnostic tactics and would result in much more accurate diagnoses and treatments. Not everyone in even isolated populations will be homogeneous.

My general feeling is that attempts to deny things like race, might be a temporary band aid for the problem of racism and racial politics, but in the long run it would be part of a general dumbing down of society, and dumbing down of society is partly what has lead to racism.

eg representing racial groups in a stereotypical manner is also part of a dumbing down of how some people see society..

We need to get people in society into the habit of thinking about things, and doing their own research into things rather than accepting the spoon feeding of narratives by the mainstream medias etc..

I’m not saying that the term “race” has no use. I think I’ve granted that. I just think that identifying with a particular race in politics causes problems. I grant that dissolving all racial talk causes problems of its own. I agree that people should read more. But, they also have to be careful what they read and what they believe. I guess there are no easy solutions. A knowledge of history from various perspectives is necessary but not sufficient. Science, philosophy, math, the humanities and the social sciences are all necessary for a healthy education, but the world also needs welders.

I am not trying to remove all prejudice, I am just asking whether if you wanted to remove a prejudice, whether it would be best to try to make it irrelevant interpretively or not. — Judaka

It occurred to me today that when I make my posts, in response to other posts, I have no idea if the poster is female or male. It was an odd sensation, because I wouldn’t even be able to identify them by subject, writing or argument.

Even in this conversation someone mentioned a particular music in relation to blacks.

So focusing on race, even in an effort to reduce or eradicate racism, creates or emphasises the differences. But how do we ignore what we see and all the cultural baggage that goes with it. Why do we say black? Why take pride in being black? Why think we are white? The effort to eradicate it creates the difference.

but the world also needs welders. — Noah Te Stroete

what do you mean by 'welders'?

I read the idea that a lot of people simply do not have the time to invest in much reading, and research etc...so they end up getting their world view from the media they do have the time for, like news programs, newspapers, the entertainment industry...this is the danger, that people end up taking on narratives that are presented to them by other people...and narratives that end up not being challenged enough....a narrative might be seen to be challenged at some point, but not enough to overturn the world view it is related to, and indeed the 'challenge' itself can be turned into something that can reinforce the original narrative....as in 'look, they don't want you to believe this that or the other..they have an agenda(we don't of course; we are fair an impartial)'...

I sometimes watched the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News back in the 00s and at the end of the program, as I recall, he said 'the spin stops here'...and at some point I realised that is he subconsciously saying that his show was all spin, and it stopped at the end of his programs...? :D

yea 'fair and impartial' or whatever FoxNew's motto is...everything is subjective, so you can interpret evidence anyhow you want and claim to be impartial.