Do hyphenated-Americans contribute to racism?

[Desperado]

What does that have to do with you making reference to me calling Rotatilla a silly white boy?

Just pointing out your racist's ways. So you calling anyone a racist is like "pardon the expression" "The pot calling the kettle black. You have lost all credibility

 

[House]

What does that have to do with you making reference to me calling Rotatilla a silly white boy?

Just pointing out your racist's ways. So you calling anyone a racist is like "pardon the expression" "The pot calling the kettle black. You have lost all credibility

There are kettles in many different colors, including white.

Why are you focused on black kettles? Hmmmm?

 

[Desperado]

What does that have to do with you making reference to me calling Rotatilla a silly white boy?

Just pointing out your racist's ways. So you calling anyone a racist is like "pardon the expression" "The pot calling the kettle black. You have lost all credibility

There are kettles in many different colors, including white.

Why are you focused on black kettles? Hmmmm?

Because that is what the expression is:
The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to claim that a person is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another..
The pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[House]

What does that have to do with you making reference to me calling Rotatilla a silly white boy?

Just pointing out your racist's ways. So you calling anyone a racist is like "pardon the expression" "The pot calling the kettle black. You have lost all credibility

There are kettles in many different colors, including white.

Why are you focused on black kettles? Hmmmm?

Because that is what the expression is:
The phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom used to claim that a person is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another..
The pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wow, you're so defensive. What is this deep-seeded hatred you have with white kettles?

Did a white kettle burn you as a child?

 

[Mathbud1]

It's painfully obvious that you cannot distinguish between two things without acknowledging that there are two things and not one. That by itself doesn't lead to any kind of value judgment. Such a value judgment has to be introduced. Obviously you can't introduce a superior/inferior relationship upon a single entity.



Now you're expanding your own definition radically, introducing elements of "prime importance" and even "hate". While those are essential building blocks of racism, they have no relationship to a simple acknowledgment that blue is a different color from green. Saying that does not imply either color is "superior" to the other, nor does it place "prime importance" or "hate" on either one. So when you say racism is based on differences, you're just wrong. It's based on value judgments attached later to those differences -- not the differences themselves.




How do you ever interact with a person of the opposite sex?
Or of a different age or social status or language?

Once again you're moving your own goalpost, stretching some difference noted into "the most important thing". Where is this coming from? How does referring to "that green car over there" make its color the "most important thing" about it? It isn't; it's simply a neutral identifier.

See what I'm saying? IOW "that black guy over there" is not a phrase that articulates racism; to get to that point you'd have to introduce a value judgment: "that guy is stupid because he's black".



That's three now; again noting a difference is not necessarily "emphasizing" it. Point overmade.

And I didn't ask about geographical considerations; I asked about governmental abstracts. When we say "I'm an American" we are declaring which governmental abstract entity we are a citizen of, not geography. That's simply a function of what structure we live under -- not who we are. That's why it strikes me as wrongheaded to prioritize an abstract governmental concept over what one is oneself actually made of.

I think that was somebody else's point anyway though.

You're missing the point entirely.

Acknowledging difference is not racism. Acknowledging difference does not inevitably lead to racism. Difference is however the most basic idea that racism is built on top of. Acknowledging difference is important and unavoidable if you want to stay connected to reality. Having acknowledged the difference, you will consciously or unconsciously assign an importance to that difference. The more importance you give to the differences between people, the more you promote division between people. The more you promote division, the more hate, like racism, will follow. If instead you choose to give more importance to those things that are similar, you bring people together instead of dividing them. The differences are still there. The differences are still acknowledged, but since they are given less importance they are not strong dividing lines.

You say I'm moving the goals, but I'm not. I have said all along that the IMPORTANCE you place on difference is what will lead to hate like racism. Difference is the foundation, but the level of importance that you give that difference is the catalyst. Again, every time you emphasize a difference (not acknowledge, emphasize) you give that difference more importance. When you give it more importance you promote division. The more division you have, the more likely you are to have misunderstanding and hate.

So again, we don't stick our head in the sand and pretend that differences don't exist. That is just ignorant and stupid. But we do CHOOSE how much importance and weight we are going to give that difference.

 

[Pogo]

It's painfully obvious that you cannot distinguish between two things without acknowledging that there are two things and not one. That by itself doesn't lead to any kind of value judgment. Such a value judgment has to be introduced. Obviously you can't introduce a superior/inferior relationship upon a single entity.



Now you're expanding your own definition radically, introducing elements of "prime importance" and even "hate". While those are essential building blocks of racism, they have no relationship to a simple acknowledgment that blue is a different color from green. Saying that does not imply either color is "superior" to the other, nor does it place "prime importance" or "hate" on either one. So when you say racism is based on differences, you're just wrong. It's based on value judgments attached later to those differences -- not the differences themselves.




How do you ever interact with a person of the opposite sex?
Or of a different age or social status or language?

Once again you're moving your own goalpost, stretching some difference noted into "the most important thing". Where is this coming from? How does referring to "that green car over there" make its color the "most important thing" about it? It isn't; it's simply a neutral identifier.

See what I'm saying? IOW "that black guy over there" is not a phrase that articulates racism; to get to that point you'd have to introduce a value judgment: "that guy is stupid because he's black".



That's three now; again noting a difference is not necessarily "emphasizing" it. Point overmade.

And I didn't ask about geographical considerations; I asked about governmental abstracts. When we say "I'm an American" we are declaring which governmental abstract entity we are a citizen of, not geography. That's simply a function of what structure we live under -- not who we are. That's why it strikes me as wrongheaded to prioritize an abstract governmental concept over what one is oneself actually made of.

I think that was somebody else's point anyway though.

You're missing the point entirely.

Acknowledging difference is not racism. Acknowledging difference does not inevitably lead to racism. Difference is however the most basic idea that racism is built on top of. Acknowledging difference is important and unavoidable if you want to stay connected to reality. Having acknowledged the difference, you will consciously or unconsciously assign an importance to that difference. The more importance you give to the differences between people, the more you promote division between people. The more you promote division, the more hate, like racism, will follow. If instead you choose to give more importance to those things that are similar, you bring people together instead of dividing them. The differences are still there. The differences are still acknowledged, but since they are given less importance they are not strong dividing lines.

You say I'm moving the goals, but I'm not. I have said all along that the IMPORTANCE you place on difference is what will lead to hate like racism. Difference is the foundation, but the level of importance that you give that difference is the catalyst. Again, every time you emphasize a difference (not acknowledge, emphasize) you give that difference more importance. When you give it more importance you promote division. The more division you have, the more likely you are to have misunderstanding and hate.

So again, we don't stick our head in the sand and pretend that differences don't exist. That is just ignorant and stupid. But we do CHOOSE how much importance and weight we are going to give that difference.

Here's where your train of thought keeps jumping the tracks:

Having acknowledged the difference, you will consciously or unconsciously assign an importance to that difference

False premise; does not follow This phrase is blue; this phrase is green. Neither is more or less "important"; they're simply different. That's it, the end. The number 8 has one function; the number 5 has another. Neither is more "important".

"Difference" is an entirely neutral concept. You keep expecting a hierarchy where none inherently exists. That has to be infused artificially after the fact. That infusion, in human terms, is where racism begins. But simply noting black, Irish, female, indigenous, etc doesn't carry any such hierarchy baggage.

 

[longknife]

To me, this entire thread is ignorant and 99% of the replies are beyond belief.

I am a citizen of the United States of America and that should be sufficient.

 

[Pogo]

To me, this entire thread is ignorant and 99% of the replies are beyond belief.

I am a citizen of the United States of America and that should be sufficient.

Fine, but the thread is not about politics. It's about socialization and personal identity.

 

[Rotagilla]

It's painfully obvious that you cannot distinguish between two things without acknowledging that there are two things and not one. That by itself doesn't lead to any kind of value judgment. Such a value judgment has to be introduced. Obviously you can't introduce a superior/inferior relationship upon a single entity.



Now you're expanding your own definition radically, introducing elements of "prime importance" and even "hate". While those are essential building blocks of racism, they have no relationship to a simple acknowledgment that blue is a different color from green. Saying that does not imply either color is "superior" to the other, nor does it place "prime importance" or "hate" on either one. So when you say racism is based on differences, you're just wrong. It's based on value judgments attached later to those differences -- not the differences themselves.




How do you ever interact with a person of the opposite sex?
Or of a different age or social status or language?

Once again you're moving your own goalpost, stretching some difference noted into "the most important thing". Where is this coming from? How does referring to "that green car over there" make its color the "most important thing" about it? It isn't; it's simply a neutral identifier.

See what I'm saying? IOW "that black guy over there" is not a phrase that articulates racism; to get to that point you'd have to introduce a value judgment: "that guy is stupid because he's black".



That's three now; again noting a difference is not necessarily "emphasizing" it. Point overmade.

And I didn't ask about geographical considerations; I asked about governmental abstracts. When we say "I'm an American" we are declaring which governmental abstract entity we are a citizen of, not geography. That's simply a function of what structure we live under -- not who we are. That's why it strikes me as wrongheaded to prioritize an abstract governmental concept over what one is oneself actually made of.

I think that was somebody else's point anyway though.

You're missing the point entirely.

Acknowledging difference is not racism. Acknowledging difference does not inevitably lead to racism. Difference is however the most basic idea that racism is built on top of. Acknowledging difference is important and unavoidable if you want to stay connected to reality. Having acknowledged the difference, you will consciously or unconsciously assign an importance to that difference. The more importance you give to the differences between people, the more you promote division between people. The more you promote division, the more hate, like racism, will follow. If instead you choose to give more importance to those things that are similar, you bring people together instead of dividing them. The differences are still there. The differences are still acknowledged, but since they are given less importance they are not strong dividing lines.

You say I'm moving the goals, but I'm not. I have said all along that the IMPORTANCE you place on difference is what will lead to hate like racism. Difference is the foundation, but the level of importance that you give that difference is the catalyst. Again, every time you emphasize a difference (not acknowledge, emphasize) you give that difference more importance. When you give it more importance you promote division. The more division you have, the more likely you are to have misunderstanding and hate.

So again, we don't stick our head in the sand and pretend that differences don't exist. That is just ignorant and stupid. But we do CHOOSE how much importance and weight we are going to give that difference.

Here's where your train of thought keeps jumping the tracks:

Having acknowledged the difference, you will consciously or unconsciously assign an importance to that difference

False premise; does not follow This phrase is blue; this phrase is green. Neither is more or less "important"; they're simply different. That's it, the end. The number 8 has one function; the number 5 has another. Neither is more "important".

"Difference" is an entirely neutral concept. You keep expecting a hierarchy where none inherently exists. That has to be infused artificially after the fact. That infusion, in human terms, is where racism begins. But simply noting black, Irish, female, indigenous, etc doesn't carry any such hierarchy baggage.

Great post...As usual.

 

[longknife]

One thing I learned from this thread is to quickly scroll past any ot the posts with lengthy quotes. If the responders can't cut them down to the latest item they're responding to, it's a total waste of time.

 

[rightwinger]

You can be an African American
Yet, the only "label" conservatives object to is .......African American

I will object to anyone who puts another country, race or religion before being an American,.
As the board's famous racist says
"I have more pride in being Black than being an American."

Good for you then. You should also object to anyone who has a t shirt. that says they are Texan and they are proud but doesn't mention they are also proud of being American
Same goes for announcing your religion without acknowledging you are a proud AMERICAN first

God, that is a stretch even for you.

Not at all

Because being an American does not require that you be nothing else.

You can still have other identifiers in addition to being American

Why are conservatives threatened by this?

 

[Mathbud1]

Here's where your train of thought keeps jumping the tracks:



False premise; does not follow This phrase is blue; this phrase is green. Neither is more or less "important"; they're simply different. That's it, the end. The number 8 has one function; the number 5 has another. Neither is more "important".

"Difference" is an entirely neutral concept. You keep expecting a hierarchy where none inherently exists. That has to be infused artificially after the fact. That infusion, in human terms, is where racism begins. But simply noting black, Irish, female, indigenous, etc doesn't carry any such hierarchy baggage.

You are misunderstanding.

I am not saying the the subjects of the difference will be seen as important or not important. Rather, it is the difference itself that will be given some level of importance.

When I recognize that 8 is different from 5 I don't assign an importance level to either number or both numbers. I do attach an importance level to the fact that they are different. In this case not much importance at all.

When I recognize that someone has black skin and I have white skin, I can choose to view that difference as an important difference or I can choose to see it as unimportant. Consciously or subconsciously I will attach a level of importance to the fact that we are different. It will be very important to me, completely unimportant to me, or somewhere in between. At that point I have NOT yet made a judgement over whether one of us is better than the other. Even if I see the difference as being important and significant, I will not yet have made a judgement over the value of the subjects of the difference, only of the difference itself.

Do you understand?

 

[rightwinger]

Why would anyone be offended at someone claiming to be African-American or any other type of American?

Did you miss the American part?

 

[alan1]

The only group who aren't represented by hyphenated names are white-americans. We don't have a group like the naacp to agitate/intervene for us..We don't have a ADL to run to when our ethnicity is belittled or targeted for violence (like in negro "rap" "songs") or whatever they're called...
We don't have a "white' legislative caucus to warp and twist government to our advantage.
We don't have AA to award us jobs by govt mandate
Our govt has been infiltrated and turned fully against us.

A day of reckoning and backlash approaches, though. It's inevitable.

There are Italian, Irish, Greek, Ukranian, etc American groups and societies. Once again you make yourself look illiterate with your posts.

You had all those perks for 350 years. Stop whining about the attempt to make the playing field level. You sound like a little pansy.

Do you think Rotagilla is 350 years old?

 

[Rotagilla]

The only group who aren't represented by hyphenated names are white-americans. We don't have a group like the naacp to agitate/intervene for us..We don't have a ADL to run to when our ethnicity is belittled or targeted for violence (like in negro "rap" "songs") or whatever they're called...
We don't have a "white' legislative caucus to warp and twist government to our advantage.
We don't have AA to award us jobs by govt mandate
Our govt has been infiltrated and turned fully against us.

A day of reckoning and backlash approaches, though. It's inevitable.

There are Italian, Irish, Greek, Ukranian, etc American groups and societies. Once again you make yourself look illiterate with your posts.

You had all those perks for 350 years. Stop whining about the attempt to make the playing field level. You sound like a little pansy.

Do you think Rotagilla is 350 years old?

LMAO..

Consider the source and act accordingly is my motto.

EDIT..the other day daws was doing his usual act..insults and spite...and he said I wasn't "white" because my name sounded "italian".

I explained that italians are caucasian but as far as my name..it's "alligator" spelled backwards.

I haven't heard from him since...

They rent me space in their heads....and I wreck the place and let my dog piss on the floor..LMAO
clowns....

 

[Pogo]

Here's where your train of thought keeps jumping the tracks:



False premise; does not follow This phrase is blue; this phrase is green. Neither is more or less "important"; they're simply different. That's it, the end. The number 8 has one function; the number 5 has another. Neither is more "important".

"Difference" is an entirely neutral concept. You keep expecting a hierarchy where none inherently exists. That has to be infused artificially after the fact. That infusion, in human terms, is where racism begins. But simply noting black, Irish, female, indigenous, etc doesn't carry any such hierarchy baggage.

You are misunderstanding.

I am not saying the the subjects of the difference will be seen as important or not important. Rather, it is the difference itself that will be given some level of importance.

When I recognize that 8 is different from 5 I don't assign an importance level to either number or both numbers. I do attach an importance level to the fact that they are different. In this case not much importance at all.

When I recognize that someone has black skin and I have white skin, I can choose to view that difference as an important difference or I can choose to see it as unimportant. Consciously or subconsciously I will attach a level of importance to the fact that we are different. It will be very important to me, completely unimportant to me, or somewhere in between. At that point I have NOT yet made a judgement over whether one of us is better than the other. Even if I see the difference as being important and significant, I will not yet have made a judgement over the value of the subjects of the difference, only of the difference itself.

Do you understand?

No. You've been saying that the simple act of noting or acknowledging differences is where racism begins. And I disagree with that; it isn't. Where racism begins is where value judgment is introduced into those differences. But until that optional bridge is crossed, if it's crossed at all, the simple noting of differences is in itself innocuous.

It does look like you're trying to backtrack from where you were last night.

 

[Mathbud1]

No. You've been saying that the simple act of noting or acknowledging differences is where racism begins. And I disagree with that; it isn't. Where racism begins is where value judgment is introduced into those differences. But until that optional bridge is crossed, if it's crossed at all, the simple noting of differences is in itself innocuous.

It does look like you're trying to backtrack from where you were last night.

I'm not backtracking at all. I'm saying exactly the same thing I have been the entire time. Perhaps you are simply getting closer to understanding it.

 

[Pogo]

No. You've been saying that the simple act of noting or acknowledging differences is where racism begins. And I disagree with that; it isn't. Where racism begins is where value judgment is introduced into those differences. But until that optional bridge is crossed, if it's crossed at all, the simple noting of differences is in itself innocuous.

It does look like you're trying to backtrack from where you were last night.

I'm not backtracking at all. I'm saying exactly the same thing I have been the entire time. Perhaps you are simply getting closer to understanding it.

No, it looks to me like you're trying to massage. Here's what I started with:

The fundamental idea behind the hyphenation is the same as the fundamental idea behind racism: we are different, you and I.

"You are inferior" is built on "you are different."

-- And I disagree with both of those.

Do not Italians, women, Asians and lefthanded people, as groups, all have differences from the greater whole? Of course they do. Saying so does not in any way imply that any one of them is inferior.

Now we can attach our own prejudices to any one of those, or any combination. But that is in no way derived from a simple acknowledgment that "Italian" is different from "Irish". To go around pretending we have no differences to me is just not honest.

 

[Desperado]

Do you not know what the term Afro means?

A hair style made popular by American Blacks but what has that got to do with this conversation?

You silly white boy. White Africans would be called by the country they come from Americans if they so desired. For example if they come from Tanzania the would be called Tanzanian Americans. They could never be African Americans until there is a country called Africa in Africa.

If you want to get technical, since there are no countries named America or Africa, we are talking continents not countries with African-American.

 

[Rikurzhen]

No. You've been saying that the simple act of noting or acknowledging differences is where racism begins. And I disagree with that; it isn't. Where racism begins is where value judgment is introduced into those differences. But until that optional bridge is crossed, if it's crossed at all, the simple noting of differences is in itself innocuous.

It does look like you're trying to backtrack from where you were last night.

I'm not backtracking at all. I'm saying exactly the same thing I have been the entire time. Perhaps you are simply getting closer to understanding it.

No, it looks to me like you're trying to massage. Here's what I started with:

The fundamental idea behind the hyphenation is the same as the fundamental idea behind racism: we are different, you and I.

"You are inferior" is built on "you are different."

-- And I disagree with both of those.

Do not Italians, women, Asians and lefthanded people, as groups, all have differences from the greater whole? Of course they do. Saying so does not in any way imply that any one of them is inferior.

Now we can attach our own prejudices to any one of those, or any combination. But that is in no way derived from a simple acknowledgment that "Italian" is different from "Irish". To go around pretending we have no differences to me is just not honest.

Pogo, you have the structural advantage in the debate with Mathbud because you can apply precision to the language he used when he first laid down his thought. Look at what he wrote after the first sentence.

"You are inferior" is built on "you are different." You can't think someone is inferior to you without first thinking they are different from you. The more importance you place on that difference that you have recognized, the more misunderstanding, intolerance, and hate you invite.
​

That "more importance" is the value judgment you're focusing on. I agree with you that this is the stage where the action originates but I also see his point - if you knock out the foundation of difference, then you make it impossible to attach a value judgment to something that doesn't exist. I understand his point, I just think it's operational only in the realm of the abstract.

I think you guys are talking past each other. You can hold him to account for his thoughts when they were off-the-cuff or you can ask him what his position is now that he knows exactly what you're focused on. I'm not really seeing what the fundamental difference in play is here.

In the first quote, I assumed that there were unstated conditions which applied, specifically that difference has social meaning. That's how I read it. I didn't take him at his word that racism arises only from difference.

Anyways, enough of being peacemaker. To your comment - you call the value judgments prejudices, so are you implying that prejudices are bad, that they don't reflect reality, that they're irrational. Can a value judgment be negative and also correct?