>From: "Pedro R. Portes" <prport01@louisville.edu>
>To: emujobs@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: apartheid racial categorization/identity politics
>Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:42:52 -0500
>
>Rene, would you please forward this to xmca?
>
>I can't seem to reply to xmca because the gremlins want me silenced i
>guess...
>thanks, pedro
>
>
>Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:19:53 -0500
> >To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >From: "Pedro R. Portes" <prport01@athena.louisville.edu>
> >Subject: Re: apartheid racial categorization/identity politics
> >In-Reply-To: <20000111124159.59971.qmail@hotmail.com>
> >
> >Renee just brought back an issue which connects to an ealier attempt to
>respond to Rachel from her note 12/29/99. Unfortunately the gremlins got
>me, so I will test again. The issue relates to Means' arguement which
>resonates with my opposition to the new "color" discourse. Seems like we
>abandoned the "colored" jargon and now it has re-appeared. The main
>difference is that when I first heard about it, I was white and the colored
>were them. Now, the color is being involuntarily imposed, forcing a new
>identity on many groups. Never mind that the term is useless scientifically
>and that really we are referring to persons of culture, not color. yet
>differences in communication/language use is part of what one group
>regards as part of that color.
> >
> >But is this new category/discourse really useless? Perhaps not outside of
>"science", there is always political science afterall.
> >
> >In any case, below is my reply to rachel when the thread still had some
>of the A. J. Redux flavoring...
> >
> >pedro
> >
> >---------
> >Rachel,
> >I liked your tirade. One observation re. this and related threads...
> >
> >It seems that even being aware like "most of us are" , there is still
>this
>inherent tendency, or impotency to resist using and thus reifying the
>construct of race.
> >
> >We know when it is really a question of cultural, I should say rather,
>"intercultural" history and its location in time rather than race per se
>(which seems to be defined by some x proportion of observeable physical
>traits/latent,recessive ones). We know when it is class and not race. Yet,
>the majority, for some curious reason, remain uncultured and continue to
>engage in acting with this nominal fallacy (or defective tool).
> >Even the majority of anti-Jensen critics tend to inadvertently fall into
>this scientific malpractice as noted by UNESCO back in 1954 (ie. using race
>in science work). It seems inescapable, the whole discourse re. "people of
>color" e.g. is just the new-fangled substitution.
> >
> >
> >(Why? it tends to color the problem(s), to suggest it is a question of
>language/looks/community identity
> >The latter is gradually replacing the "race' discourse, on the surface
>and
>beneath it, it shows the same
> >ill-effect, insensitivity and carelessness.
> >
> >The MC movement is not helping either. It tends to extend the us/them
>categories and institutionalize them in a variety of practices.
> >These days, the idea that the Race or PofC terms are scientifically
>useless may not carry as much weight as it did in the heyday of logical
>positivism ... yet, in a cultural psychology sense, such practices must be
>noted in terms of the construction purpose, history, motives and actual
>effects such practices are associated with, over time..
> >
> >Bottom line: avoid dignifying ignorance
> > or
> >":the less debatable, accurate the language/tool, the more fruitful the
>science."
> >
> >
> >pedro
> >
> >
> >ps. This does not imply that threads like this one should be
>discouraged
>(w/ re. to mike's original query). Rather, given that such threads can be
>downloaded and used for class, and I mean "class" too (since class/power
>potential can be defined by structure as well as function [ ie. degree of
>culturing in the dominant cultures or spheres of activity]
> > we now have a very affordable pedagogical advance and a way to culture
>the webliterates which by definition, includes our students, particularly
>those college bound.
> >The college bound is a curious term, is'nt it? What about those not so
>bound.
> >And suddenly, the link to community college, bricks etc.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Rachel's note below
> >
> >Rachel,at 09:17 PM 12/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>He asserts that there is an I.Q. score gap of slightly over one
>standard
> >>deviation unit >between White and African-Americans....He admits that
> >>solid proof for the last >statement is lacking, but he claims that
> >>genetic causation should be the 'default >hypothesis' until it is
> >>disproved.
> >>
> >>This is a hoot. Anyone familiar with American social history knows that
> >>the admixture of "white" genes in the African-American gene pool is
> >>tremendous. (Read "The Peculiar Institution" for a thorough grounding.)
> >>The "one drop of (African) blood" mean that a person could have one (!)
> >>great-great-grandparent from Africa and *all* the rest from Europe, and
> >>that person still counts as an African-American. Furthermore, it is
> >>well-known that many very light-skinned individuals "passed" in the
>South
> >>and vanished into the White population (I know personally of one such
> >>case. The family moved north so their children could be free, and one
> >>was in my reputedly lily-white suburban high school. He also won a full
> >>scholarship to a top Ivy-league university.) And it helps not one bit
> >>that skin and eye color are not linked with any other "racially"
> >>significant characteristics, so you can't tell a person's percentage of
> >>"African" genes just by looking at him/her. If we could just get Jensen
> >>and company to take an elementary bio course and read a US History book
> >>or two....
> >>
> >>>Test items and tests that have the lowest apparent cultural loadings
> >>(e.g., the Raven >Matrix tests) show the greatest disparity between
> >>racial groups. This rules out the >hypothesis that the test gap is due
>to
> >>the test's content differentially favouring the white >over the
> >>African-American culture.
> >>
> >>This is another hoot. I've sampled the Raven Matrix test and it
>compares
> >>very well with the puzzle- and workbook/coloring books that American
> >>middle class children get all the time. In fact, my cousin's little boy
> >>was just last week showing off to me the mazes and picture-comparison
> >>games in the one he was working with, just as I used to show mine off to
> >>my older sister. I doubt if Jensen hangs out much with seven-year olds
> >>(even his own when he presumably had one or two) but in order to talk
> >>about culture and learning you have to get very involved in the details
> >>of everyday life, something which is easy to do in an open, tropical
> >>village but not in a modern "each family walled off in its own domicile"
> >>community. Maybe someone could drag him down to the local shopping mall
> >>and give him a tour of the local Toys'r'Us. Also, in all the tests that
> >>I know of, there is also a crucial time element - the faster you work
>the
> >>more points you get. Not everybody thinks that way. I've tried giving
> >>multiple choice entrance exams to Soviet immigrants, and they absolutely
> >>do not understand the concept of "guess and go on." Giving an answer
> >>they don't for sure know to be correct appalls them. They simply run
>out
> >>of time because they're trying to get it right, not just get points.
> >>
> >>Why is this tripe still around? Why are people still trying to deny
>that
> >>in this country "race" is a stand-in for "social class" and that even
> >>with upward mobility it takes a couple of generations for child-rearing
> >>habits to catch up. I'm in racially mixed classes in my public health
> >>program (mostly Caribbean), and the major difference between the races
>is
> >>not in quality of work (I have this from the professors), it's in the
> >>willingness of students to be assertive in class, challenge the prof,
>and
> >>generally be individualistic. These are cultural, not racial, but are
> >>the sort of thing which impresses culturally unsophisticated people,
>even
> >>college professors.
> >>
> >>If Jensen wants to be taken seriously, let him first do research on
> >>groups of people with known genetic backgrounds, i.e. Frenchmen and
> >>Nigerians with comparable cultural backgrounds (if that can be done).
> >>Otherwise, let him shut up. It's like arguing if the moon is made of
> >>Muenster or Swiss cheese. It may make great journal articles, but it's
> >>not science because he's ignoring the observable, factual background,
> >>because he's too dumb - yes dumb - to get off the campus and look at
>what
> >>he's supposedly investigating in situ. Perhaps he's double-dealing for
> >>political reasons, but I doubt it. I've seen too many other, though
> >>lesser-known, people doing the same thing.
> >>
> >>End of tirade. :-)
> >>
> >>Rachel
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >At 04:41 AM 1/11/00 PST, you wrote:
> >>
> >>Folks,
> >>
> >>I rarely post, and I am trying to do so more often. I would love to
>enter
> >>the discussion about Leigh´s paper, but I have to admit first that I
>need
> >>some further information, so if somebody could help out...
> >>
> >>I had no idea of aristotelian categories, although Paul wrote something
> >>briefly about them (sorry I already deleted quote...too hasty!) and
> >>contrasted them, I think, with dialogical categories. If someone would
> >>explain a little what these are, I´d be thrilled, edified.
> >>
> >>Well, speaking about individual appropriation of categories for identity
> >>purposes, I remember a few years ago I heard American Indian activist
>Bill
> >>Means speak (he is, at least was, a leader of the political group
> >>AIM...American Indian Movement). He said he felt strongly opposed to
>using
> >>the term "Native American" to identify himself, the word which has
>gotten I
> >>think some preferential use in the US recently. He said he preferred
> >>"Indian" for I think kind of an interesting reason...because it is the
>name
> >>under which his people have been persecuted, and for this reason it is
>the
> >>name under which members of his organization prefer to fight for their
> >>rights. That´s the ideological, emotional reason he gave, and he also
>said
> >>there was a legal reason, because all of the (subsequently
>broken)treaties
> >>between the US government and Indian tribes in the US were written using
>the
> >>term "indian" and legally, this would be the best strategy. He added
>that
>he
> >>preferred not to be lumped into the category of Indian at all, but by
>the
> >>indigenous name for his tribe (I think Oglala, but this detail is
>fuzzy).
> >>
> >>Well, anyway, I think Leigh´s paper is a good vehicle to stimulate
>thinking
> >>and discussion about this issue of identity by racial category, which
>can
>be
> >>extended as people have done already to other realms, like gender and
> >>ethnicity. I am interested in the complications and contradictions of
>this,
> >>the personal and social dimensions, the political and legal motivations
> >>people may have to define or be defined according to categories.
> >>
> >>Renee Hayes
> >>University of Delaware (academically)
> >>Vigo, Spain (geographically)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________
> >>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >>
> >>
>Pedro R. Portes, Ph.D
>Professor of Educational
> & Counseling Psychology
>(502 852-0630/ fax 0629)
>
>"Psychosocial strength, ...depends on a total process
>which regulates individual life cycles, the sequence of generations,
>and the structure of society simultaneously: for all three have
>evolved together" p.141 Erik Erikson (1968)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:02:00 PST