Obama has a big problem

[Ravi]

Nice!

 

[manifold]

Are you ashamed of your ethnic heritage? I kind of doubt it. IMO, pretending someone isn't what they are is making that part of them shameful.

Who is pretending someone isn't what they are?

 

[Ravi]

Larkin, for one.

 

[manifold]

Larkin, for one.

I'm not seeing it.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry but in our society being half black counts as being black, not as being bi-racial.

Its fucked up and racist, but then again so is our society.

Maybe he just has a different definition of racism than I do.

 

[manifold]

Sorry but in our society being half black counts as being black, not as being bi-racial.

First, no reason to be sorry. Second, only the first part of your statement is true. Yes, by and large being black is viewed as a yes/no thing. However, it's not mutually exclusive with being multi-racial, it's mutually exclusive with being not black.

Is Obama black? Yes.

Is Obama multi-racial? Yes


I don't see what you're so conflicted about.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, I wasn't saying "sorry" to you.

I read this sentence several times and don't understand it. Could you clarify before I comment on your post?

However, it's not mutually exclusive with being multi-racial, it's mutually exclusive with being not black.

 

[manifold]

It means you can answer yes to both questions without being contradictory.

Obama is both black and multi-racial.

 

[Ravi]

I don't disagree with that. Seems that Larkin does.

Though if you want to get technical, he's biracial, not multiracial.

And if you want to get really technical, he's the same race as the rest of us are--human.

 

[manifold]

I don't disagree with that. Seems that Larkin does.

Though if you want to get technical, he's biracial, not multiracial.

And if you want to get really technical, he's the same race as the rest of us are--human.

Wrong. But mostly in a nitpicky way. "Technically," if he is biracial, he is also multiracial. Biracial is merely more specific, it doesn't mean, as you state, that he is not multiracial.

As for your last statement, I guess it depends on how you define "race." If you consider it analogous to species, then yes, we are all the same race. If you consider it more analogous to breed, then we are certainly not all the same race. As you ponder this, consider that a saint bernard and a yorkshire terrier are the same species too...

 

[Ravi]

You're nitpicky? Imagine that.

 

[manifold]

Ravir,

According to this definition, your statement that we are all the same race is "technically" a steaming pile of feces. No offense.


3 race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1: a breeding stock of animals
2 a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics
3 a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b: breed c: a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits

 

[Ravi]

This means we aren't the same race by almost every one of your definitions.

I'm not going to say I'm surprised.

 

[manifold]

This means we aren't the same race by almost every one of your definitions.

I'm not going to say I'm surprised.

Who said they were my definitions?

I merely pasted them from Merriam Websters.


If there is anything decidedly un-surprising about any of this, it's your refusal to answer the question.

 

[Ravi]

What question?

 

[manifold]

What question?

In your understanding, is the concept of "race" more analogous to "species" or "breed?"

I'm taking it on faith that we at least share a common understanding of species and breed.

 

[Ravi]

I missed that question.

My answer is species. I think of breed as a term for dogs, like in your musing above, with the dogs. It seems logical that we all came from one tribe, spread out, and developed different traits based on climate, etc, (geograhy???). Dogs have been selectively bred for certain characteristics.

What do you think?

 

[manifold]

I missed that question.

My answer is species. I think of breed as a term for dogs, like in your musing above, with the dogs. It seems logical that we all came from one tribe, spread out, and developed different traits based on climate, etc, (geograhy???). Dogs have been selectively bred for certain characteristics.

What do you think?

I disagree. It's not analogous to species at all. Not even a tiny bit.

 

[manifold]

btw: Various breeds of dog also came from a single, common, ancestral stock. What makes them all members of the same species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. Breed, like race, has nothing to do with this. It is merely a layer of segmentation within a particular species based on any number of traits.

 

[Ravi]

You want to explain that in greater detail or shall I attempt to read your mind?