Races and language

[RedWorker]

There are two definitions of the word 'European'. This is the same case as, for instance, 'Russian'.


Definition A: an European is defined as someone who is geographically, socially and/or culturally associated with Europe.
Definition B: an European is defined as a member of the social construct "European race", i.e. the "Caucasians".

However, with other words, such as "American" and "Soviet", definition A exists, whereas definition B does not exist.

When the topic is the social conception of "races", and thus regarding definition B, an individual says: "Black people are not considered to be Europeans". This does not mean advocacy of definition B - it means merely being aware of the social construct.

But the other individual in the conversation says: "To say that black people who are associated with Europe are not Europeans is racist. It is to negate the experiences of these people. You have to admit that these black people are Europeans."

Thus, the first individual says: "By the first mainstream definition, they are Europeans. By the second mainstream definition, they are not Europeans. By your personal definition, they are Europeans. I have no personal definition, because I personally do not care about who's European or not, but merely examine the social perspective on this topic."

But the other individual insists on his point, and considers the first individual to be engaging in intentional or unintentional apologism of racism. The second individual immediately wants the first individual to recognize black people as "European". But for the first individual to recognize this would imply that he is concerned with European-ness in the first place, when he is not, it would imply that "non-European" is a bad thing and it would create misconceptions about how language works.

The conversation pans out. It must be specified, however, that the first individual is not concerned by whether someone is European or not, but rather with how language is understood. To do otherwise would be to create misconceptions about linguistics, about how words are made legitimate.

The first individual is not artificially concerned with linguistics, as if covering-up racism by diverting the conversation. He merely recognizes that linguistic topics are important and have a social impact. This is because, for example, one could argue that the term "nigger" is not to be used because the definition is illegitimate. But whether the definition is legitimate or not is irrelevant: rather, it is important to not use the term "nigger" because that would mean to engage in racism. The first individual wants to emphasize that there must be a correct understanding of linguistics, because this is relevant for social topics. The first individual also wants to emphasize that an argument against racism should not be based on stating that there is no basis (for instance, a scientific one) for division into "races", however true it may be that there really is no such basis, but rather that it is that racism, by itself, is wrong.

Is the second individual's accusation righteous? Has the first individual partaken in intentional or unintentional racism? Should the first individual concede to the second individual's demand, even when the conversation has now turned into argumenting about linguistics rather than the social conception of "races"?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I had a little difficulty in following who was arguing what, but ultimately it sounds like a misunderstanding, like the two people were talking past one another without clarifying the context and then jumped to conclusions about each other. In the context of me sitting in a room filled with white people; I'm not European. If however you were to contrast my habits, daily activities and to some extent my interpretation of the world I live in with my relatives who have never left their home country, you might conclude that I am. Race is a social construct and as such it only has meaning in specific contexts, I don't think this is a linguistic issue. I imagine you just were not clear with what exactly you were trying to say.

[Rafiq]

Context is important. Whatever way in which one might justify oneself should be taken with a grain of salt - saying black people are not European in any political context would most certainly be racist, especially with the present circumstance of anti-immigrant fervor being placed along the false dichotomy of a European identity. It depends on how "European" is used. If it is used to describe real distinguishable physical features then no, obviously black people do not possess European physical features. Whether that qualifies them as not being European in general is something else all together.

Suppose you took a black person from the United States and a black person from Europe. Not knowing anything else about them, how would they be distinguished?

[Tim Cornelis]

European and African in the context of races are synonymous with white and black (respectively obviously). So I don't think it's racist to say that blacks are not white = that blacks are not European = that Africans are not European = that Africans are not white.

[RedWorker]

I'll explain further. Both individual A and B consider themselves leftists and anti-racists, but they were not talking about politics.

Individual B asks, "are you black?"
Individual A figures out that individual B, being from the U.S., where "black" is commonly used to mean a socially constructed "race" rather than just a skin color, is asking whether individual A belongs to that "race". Individual A considers "races" to be a social construct, but understands individual B as curiously asking which of these "races" individual A most fits.
Thus, individual A replies, "no, I'm [race]", where [race] is a word similar to "Russian", which is not only the name for a socially constructed race but also the name for a nationality.
Individual B replies, "Can't a [race] be black?", but he has the nationality in mind rather than the construct.
Individual A replies "no, they can't", believing that individual B is asking about this social construct.

So, individual B replies "that's kind of racist."

By now, individual A understands that there has been some kind of misunderstanding and attempts to solve the situation by explaining that a) he doesn't care what "race" he belongs to, nor does he self-identify with one other than in the context of naming it to people who are asking what he might look like, b) he believes that all human beings are equal, c) he is aware that the difference between individuals of different "races" is negligent, d) he does not engage in discrimination, nor has he ever, and e) he considers "races" to be social constructs.

So individual A explains that the word has two definitions, one refers to a nationality, the other refers to a socially constructed "race". As an example, he says, there is a socially constructed "European race", aka the "Caucasians". By definition a black person would not belong to this "race", yet a black person who lives in Europe WOULD belong to the European nationality. Individual A argues that just because he is aware of that social construct, does not mean that he advocates racism...

So, individual B claims that this is racist and asks individual A to declare exactly that "black people who are from Europe are Europeans".

This is when individual A says: "By the first mainstream definition [nationality], they are Europeans. By the second mainstream definition ['race'], they are not Europeans. By your personal definition, they are Europeans. I have no personal definition, because I personally do not care about who's European or not, but merely examine the social perspective on this topic."

Individual B keeps demanding that individual A says exactly that "Black people who are from Europe are black Europeans".

So the conversation keeps getting extended, and the topic shifts to language and how words are defined, and whether such definitions are legitimate. By now, individual B believes that individual A is just making up excuses for his "racism".

The conversation ends by individual B claiming that individual A is a racist who "is unable to see black Europeans as Europeans because they are different to him".

Individual B says something to the style of "well, this conversation is ended". Individual A, aware that the whole thing was merely a wild tangent from a misunderstanding, says to individual B that "I have to explain I'm not a racist". But to top it off, individual B says that "individual A cares not about the damage he may do to others, but about whether other people view him as a racist or not."

Individual A feels that this is unfair.

[Celtic_0ne]

I feel that in this situation I would be Individual A and would be calling out Individual B for defending the concept of "races" because that itself seems racist to me

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Defending the concept of race is not the same thing as acknowledging that race exists. Just because we know that race is a social construct does not mean we can go around acting as if everyone else is in on that information as well. I don't know that either or you were being racist in intent or otherwise. Still seems like a misunderstanding

[Rafiq]

What this ignores is that being black is never just having black skin. It possesses cultural (some would even argue national) connotations. To be ignorant of this in the name of some pseudo-political correctness would be ridiculous.

The error, first and foremost, stems from the notion that the distinguishing cultural characteristics of black people stem from a pre-conceived notion of race. In other words - that people socially constructed races and then fit black people in this social construct accordingly - and now all we have to do is overlook this pre-conceived notion of race and centuries of racism will disappear.

The fact of the matter is that race, while a social construct has its origins neither in innate physical (or genetic) traits or some kind of initial pre-conceived racism which derived solely from a 'misunderstanding' of whatever physical differences there might be. Rather racism, and the notion of race was consequential of the complexity of social antagonisms. Consciousness of the fact that race does not exist does not invalidate that the people whom allegedly belong to the "black race" in the US, for example, do not possess an identifiably similar history or experience living as black. The power of racism is not grounded in any misunderstanding, or an incessant refusal to recognize race as a social construct but in present conditions of production, power and life - through ideology. Different ethnic and racial groups can be identified not because of their physical differences, but because they represent an ideological-identity which forms a necessary part of our capitalist totality - the identity exists not only because it can exist, but because it must.

During times of class struggle, whereby the working class can act as a class in just a petty-conscious manner, the relevancy of race is drowned out all together in a higher, more powerful and overreaching dichotomy of struggle which concerns the very foundations of life and survival. Communism is universal not simply because it renders all national communities obsolete by merit of an ideal, but because consequential of its universal relevance regardless of national identity everywhere capitalist relations exist (in other words, a class struggle within nations), national communities become obsolete in subordination to a greater world struggle. From the very EXISTENCE of the nation, from the very essence of national communities themselves the dichotomy of class struggle is there. The problem, however, is that nations are a necessary pre-requisite to their own destruction. This is why Lenin was so keen on asserting the necessity of national determination even with the class enemy at helm: For Lenin, nations were real - and any attempt to impose the accumulated coordinates of a class struggle derived from another nation (without any similar experience or conflict) would be articulated as national chauvinism (Remember Robespierre: no one likes armed missionaries). Lenin's error resided in the idea that national development remained independent and isolated rather than composing a world totality - that a revolution from another country with even an iota of a possibility of relevance in another would not already create a dichotomy of struggle. And we can see otherwise - the Bolshevik revolution alone fostered a heightened sense of taking sides in virtually every worldly prominent country. One could argue that these countries were already ripe with struggle anyway - but the fact of the matter is that for no one did the Bolsheviks designate a higher exaltion of the Russian nation but a real force which could threaten their social existence. The fact that it was possible to articulate national development meant that we were already beyond its constrains.

So, getting back on topic - identifiable groups with a shared identity like black people shouldn't have to translate into recognizing this identity as being grounded in genetics. It's real, certainly, but that does not mean it is 'natural' or 'genetic'. Its perpetuated reality is inversely proportional to the power of class struggle.

[cyu]

Reminds me of http://boingboing.net/2011/08/12/how-language-affects-color-perception.html

language has an effect on how people see color.

In a test, Himba were able to very quickly point out the standout color below:

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ring1.jpg

It took me a long time to figure out which color was different.

The Himba had a much harder time pointing out the square that English speakers would categorize as a shade of blue:

http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ring2.jpg