=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
opinions on last night's question time
Log In to post a reply
77 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
ratcni01
ratcni01
916 posts

Edited Oct 24, 2009, 16:31
Re: opinions on last night's question time
Oct 24, 2009, 15:58
Race itself wasn't perhaps a western originated idea and there are obvious differences between people. But the language of race, for instance the division of humanity into caucasian, dravidian, negroid etc was most definitely, and was based on anthropological studies born of a certain period with a certain perspective and underlying values and philosophy and we now inherit some of that language to describe the situation we are now in.

Sure I'd agree diversity is brilliant and to be embraced and interesting too as each of us has a unique history, based on a number of concepts all of which seem to get mixed up when trying to define race. Being Jewish, is that a race? The research I've done is totally inconclusive, yet that's part of my heritage, and in turn my kids, as is their Mum's african-caribbean family history. Black is certainly not a term to define race surely? That's about skin colour, and indeed you or I may share more genetic coding with someone who is black or asian than two people born in africa. I guess that's what am trying to say, the language of race seems to me to perpetuate a myth that there are still races, sure there are differences, and populations that share characteristics, its seems somehow as fallacious to define race on that basis as it does to define British as being those people who moved to the UK after the last ice age. The language of race isn't necessarily hateful, but lets be aware it was created in a certain context to describe things that were at the time poorly understood, and as I'm sure you'd agree can carry with it all sorts of stuff, based on politics, power

An interesting throwaway comment on QT the other night was that in the UK "1 in 2 of black children have a white parent". My kids from a political perspective, might describe themselves as black, yet they are light/mid-brown in colour, they in fact are clear they not white thought they have a white looking parent. I've no idea if I would be white enough though to join the BNP under their current rules as I not clear on what their definition of "race" actually is, yes my family on both sides are british going back several generations, but only one generation ago the family name on one leg of the family tree was Myerson, so would naming convention come into a definition of race, or religious practice, or ethinicity (is ethnicity defined as equivalent to race?) I think we're using a blunt instrument to describe something far more complex, interesting and at times wonderful. My kids would definitely not be white enough to join the BNP under their current rules. Somehow seems to me that theres something missing in al of this, including my own comments to do with the human race's ongoing evolution, the continuous process we are all part of. Dunno quite what tho right now.

I like the "human race" model because that is a philosphical model where people are equalised, but perhaps attendant language hasn't eveolved to accompany that model, its a different way of looking at things, not better or worse just different, and brings it own benefits and is not per se complete in itself. In the same way that modernist philosophically based research brings one type of useful result, and socially constructed research brings another very different and equally valid result (assuming either research method is undertaken well!). The messiness of the debate seems to me to illustrate the validity of this post-modern situation we find ourselves in. You are right and your point has value, and so I think does mine yet neither are complete or neat in themselves, and fall down in certain aspects, as you have pointed out of my points (points, points points - bleh ;-) )

I also like one race the model because it means the BNP aren't "them" they're part of us, and indeed why all the therapists I have talked to about racism, and my own view as a therapist, is that those who view the world through a racist set of lenses, demonstrate to us how their internal world (intrapersonal relationships) must be as well, they are indeed telling us what it is like to be them. If the BNP are part of "us" then it also makes "us" responsible somehow rather than being able to demonise them, they are human, fucked up yes, but human all the same, still have families, feel love/affection as real as you or I (of course excluding some people in this on an irrational basis) do, feel grief or anxiety when a family member falls ill. God I dunno where this is going enough for now ...
In reply to:
Re: opinions on last night's question time (handofdave)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index