The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[The Brain]

Perhaps "minority" could work? I mean that's the crux of it isn't it? They got discriminated against because they were a well identifiable  "not us" group for the majority.

That is already a term but it lacks specificity (given you can be a minority even when a physical majority - see women or eventual racial make up of the US; or even a political minority). Also, there's a lot more dignity in being a person of color than a minority.

The phrase that has caught on here is "racialized".  I suppose it works pretty well from the perspective of recognizing the reality that people in that category should be the same as others (whites) but are not.  It also gives a certain bond of solidarity for everyone in that group.

I don't like that term, because it implies as inevitable the very thing we all wish to see disappear - that society treats you different because of this arbitrary category.

I know that the intent is to make it so that the category is something done to people, but it just sounds wrong, like being discriminated against is a done deal that can't ever be changed. Like referring to women as "sexualized".

Aren't you Pogromed? What's your experience from living under that term?

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps "minority" could work? I mean that's the crux of it isn't it? They got discriminated against because they were a well identifiable  "not us" group for the majority.

That is already a term but it lacks specificity (given you can be a minority even when a physical majority - see women or eventual racial make up of the US; or even a political minority). Also, there's a lot more dignity in being a person of color than a minority.

The phrase that has caught on here is "racialized".  I suppose it works pretty well from the perspective of recognizing the reality that people in that category should be the same as others (whites) but are not.  It also gives a certain bond of solidarity for everyone in that group.

I don't like that term, because it implies as inevitable the very thing we all wish to see disappear - that society treats you different because of this arbitrary category.

I know that the intent is to make it so that the category is something done to people, but it just sounds wrong, like being discriminated against is a done deal that can't ever be changed. Like referring to women as "sexualized".

I had the same initial reaction, but on reflection, when it stops being a done deal we can stop using the phrase.

[Valmy]

Many things are divided by blurry lines. Hardly means that they aren't real. There are no different genres of music? I would say yes there are. Are the lines sometimes blurry af? Hell yeah.

Well they are not physically real. It is just an arbitrary distinction which may or may not be useful depending on how you feel about music. Fortunately we are not basing an entire society around distinctions in music.

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps "minority" could work? I mean that's the crux of it isn't it? They got discriminated against because they were a well identifiable  "not us" group for the majority.

That is already a term but it lacks specificity (given you can be a minority even when a physical majority - see women or eventual racial make up of the US; or even a political minority). Also, there's a lot more dignity in being a person of color than a minority.

The phrase that has caught on here is "racialized".  I suppose it works pretty well from the perspective of recognizing the reality that people in that category should be the same as others (whites) but are not.  It also gives a certain bond of solidarity for everyone in that group.

If somebody called me racialised I'd never talk to them again.

Because they didn't spell it correctly?

[Valmy]

Nearly all of my friends use people of color, or POC. In encompasses hispanics, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, etc.

What if the Person of Color is super pale.  Like, even paler than I.

You mean, what if they can pass?

Are they still POC? My daughter has Latina heritage but is very pale.

I think so

I guess it depends.

[The Brain]

Many things are divided by blurry lines. Hardly means that they aren't real. There are no different genres of music? I would say yes there are. Are the lines sometimes blurry af? Hell yeah.

Well they are not physically real. It is just an arbitrary distinction which may or may not be useful depending on how you feel about music. Fortunately we are not basing an entire society around distinctions in music.

You honestly cannot hear a difference between different genres of music? If I arbitrarily divide people into those taller than 6' and those under or exactly 6', are there no physical differences between them? The division is arbitrary, and some people will be just on the limit beyond my measurement precision. Are they category tall or small? Oh noes, size was all in my head!

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but the idea that race doesn't exist is obviously wrong and also makes it very hard to explain some phenomena that are easily explained by race.

[Valmy]

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but the idea that race doesn't exist is obviously wrong and also makes it very hard to explain some phenomena that are easily explained by race.

Genetics obviously exists. Race does not.

What sorts of phenomenon are easily explained by race that cannot be explained by genetics? Zero. Skin color, for example, is directly connected to absolutely no other traits. So why explain genetic differences using skin color? Why not use something real instead of something fake?

[Valmy]

I guess let's go further. Let's look at every culture, country, and ethnicity that could be described as "white". What exactly about them is explained by race? What could even be universally said about all of them?

What would that list even be?

[The Brain]

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but the idea that race doesn't exist is obviously wrong and also makes it very hard to explain some phenomena that are easily explained by race.

Genetics obviously exists. Race does not.

What sorts of phenomenon are easily explained by race that cannot be explained by genetics? Zero. Skin color, for example, is directly connected to absolutely no other traits. So why explain genetic differences using skin color?

Without race it would be very hard to explain for instance several aspects of the experience of Africans brought to America as slaves, and their descendants. If there hadn't been a difference of appearance between that group and for instance European volunteer immigrants and their descendants, I think it would be hard to explain the difference in treatment by authorities and businesses even in situations when they have only briefly observed a person visually, even say a hundred years after the end of slavery in the US, or 160 years.

[The Brain]

I guess let's go further. Let's look at every culture, country, and ethnicity that could be described as "white". What exactly about them is explained by race? What could even be universally said about all of them?

What would that list even be?

You seem to view race like some late Victorian/Edwardian person would.

[Valmy]

Without race it would be very hard to explain for instance several aspects of the experience of Africans brought to America as slaves, and their descendants. If there hadn't been a difference of appearance between that group and for instance European volunteer immigrants and their descendants, I think it would be hard to explain the difference in treatment by authorities and businesses even in situations when they have only briefly observed a person visually, even say a hundred years after the end of slavery in the US, or 160 years.

Plenty of the descendents of slaves are considered "white" today and plenty of people who are "black" have no slave ancestors, or at least non enslaved here in the United States. This is one trait, very demonstrably genetic and not connected to other traits, that has been arbitrarily singled out as important.

You seem to view race like some late Victorian/Edwardian person would.

As an arbitrary creation of society with little real physical basis? I doubt they felt that way.

[The Brain]

Without race it would be very hard to explain for instance several aspects of the experience of Africans brought to America as slaves, and their descendants. If there hadn't been a difference of appearance between that group and for instance European volunteer immigrants and their descendants, I think it would be hard to explain the difference in treatment by authorities and businesses even in situations when they have only briefly observed a person visually, even say a hundred years after the end of slavery in the US, or 160 years.

Plenty of the descendents of slaves are considered "white" today and plenty of people who are "black" have no slave ancestors, or at least non enslaved here in the United States. This is one trait, very demonstrably genetic and not connected to other traits, that has been arbitrarily singled out as important.

So you agree with me? Or disagree?

[grumbler]

Valmy, you are wasting your time. Racism is a belief, it isn't the considered conclusion from examining the evidence.  You cannot convince a person to change their deeply-held beliefs with evidence.

[Oexmelin]

Can beliefs have real impact upon the world?

[grumbler]

Can beliefs have real impact upon the world?

I would argue that they obviously have a real impact on the world, but I take it from your question that you do not.