I'm done with race - listen to this

[QuentinSummers]

Brilliant radio programme about identity politics. It is one of the most powerful things i have ever listened to and really resonated with me as a white woman too.
They talk about who benefits by arbitrarily categorizing people based on a descriptor (whether that's skin colour, biological sex or anything else).
Would love to hear more from these guys but in the meantime I'm identifying as human every time I get asked what I identify with.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09sn7ym

Gosh crit I'm not sure you've listened to the podcast or understood it if you did.
Personally I'm white and don't feel particularly privileged as pretty much any assertion of my identity as a white person is automatically equated with the nazis
I think the whole point is it's only the oppressed group that have an "identity" foisted on them. The oppressor group is seen as default so doesn't have to assert their identity.
Which is why you rarely hear people talking about "identifying as white" or "identifying as a man (for natal men)"

The idea that white/poc will become archaic is a bit motherhood and apple pie. In the same way as society will treat women equally. There is no sign of that happening despite all the equality laws being put in place.

Riverside2

Have you filled in any forms recently? The ones I have have asked me what "gender" I "identify" as.

Sorry, I didn’t realise you were taking specifically about forms and how annoying it is to be asked whether your woman-ness is something you identify into. (I thought you meant the disquieting feeling many of us have lately where saying you’re a woman seems to require further elaboration.)

And no, I haven’t filled in a form lately, but I wasn’t happy to discover that the HR system at work has my ‘female’ entry in a field labelled gender. They are misgendering me by making me have a gender when I don’t believe in it

In your other posts here, I think I understand some of what you’re saying. I’m also a born and raised Londoner and I think that gives us a particular perspective on identity.

I suppose it feels like we’ve learnt to rub along fairly happily with our various jumbled identities. Not to say that there aren’t inequalities that need working out - it’s not perfect - but on a personal level people tend to inhabit their identities and let others do likewise - it’s just how it is.

The radio programme made sense to me, partly because of what I’ve said above, but also because of my left-wing politics. I agree with the idea that we’re being encouraged to find divisions as we fight over the crumbs from the table.

Would it have been more helpful to have reported "Some human beings (who drive taxis in Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and other towns) systematically targeted some human beings and groomed them for sex" ?

My DH's family get mightily pissed off when those paedophiles are described as "Asian". Typical example from the Guardian...

www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

Asia goes from Istanbul in Turkey in the west to Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea in the east and Siberia in the north to Indonesia in the South. Given the total area of "Asia" is 17.3 milllion square miles - you may as say (as suggested in the BBC podcast) "The taxi drivers were human, from Earth, from the land."

Apologies Papua New Guinea is of course in Australasia

Asia :
Northernmost Point — Prince Rudolf Island Russia
Southernmost Point — Pamana Island, Indonesia
Westernmost Point — Cape Baba, Turkey
Easternmost Point — Big Diomede, Russia

My DH's family originates from somewhere in there. Why should they be lumped together (as the UK press invariably do) with the people who perpetrated the child grooming sex scandals?

Are there any anthropologists on MN?

Who could possibly explain 'race' better than I ever could.

Asia is probably the most racially diverse continent on Earth - so to describe someone as Asian becomes even more

Whether it's race, sex, age, skin tone, nationality, origin of parents. ethnic origin or religion (this list goes on and on), I think what we're talking about here is "categories" - when they are useful / when they are less useful.

I love the idea of appreciating and acknowledging the uniqueness of each one of us rather than a "label" that is given to us by someone else (as advocated by both speakers in the podcast).

However, categories are one way that we make sense of the world around us. Try describing yourself or any other person without using any kind of category at all.

Police officer: Now, can you describe the assailant?

Victim: It was a person, a human being, from Earth, from the land.

I actually think that giving more specificity and accuracy to the categories use (to describe ourselves and others) gets closer to acknowledging our individuality and, hopefully, reducing the risk of generalisation / stereotyping. Which is why my DH absolutely hates it when the Rochdale, Rotherham, Derby, Oxford paedophiles are described in the media as "Asian Men".

This led to one taxi firm offering its customers the right to request a non-Asian??? driver.

Its hard isn't it?
Is like it if we could just see all this stuff as pure descriptors of a person, without stereotypes attached. So black, female, wheelchair, Asian as non-emotional as tall, short, brown eyes, young.
It's an impossibly naive dream though.

What I hate about the grooming rings is white men were involved too but this is never mentioned. Far easier to other the offenders and pretend they were paedophiles due to "culture" than name the actual issue- male violence. Same thing with cologne.
It really bothers me actually, that as a society we can only manage the appropriate level of outrage by distancing ourselves from the perpetrators.

I'd be fine with the attackers described as men.

Quentin I must admit I didn't know what white men were involved in the grooming scandals.

as for anthropologists, I went to an academic event about this years ago and all I got from it - I admit I didn't understand it all - was "race is a social construct".

Yes there were some white men involved. However one thing that has been (and continues to be) completely brushed under the carpet is that had those girls been from that [same] community (I won't name it for fear of being unnecessarily inflammatory), I would bet that the [same] community itself would have been up in arms and possibly even taken direct criminal vigilante action against the perpetrators. This is a regular occurrence against paedophiles in their (their parents') country of origin (before they're brought to trial).

I think really "race" is archaic. Historically scientists believed there were physical differences between "races" but this has been proved to be mainly bollocks. (Apart from things like fast twitch muscle fibre I guess).
Now I think race is a shorthand for a conflation of skin colour with perceived culture.
I am saying all this from an outsider perspective so I could be wrong, but this is how it appears to me.

Riverside2
I'd be fine with the attackers described as men

Why not
Humans
Men of Colour?
Coloured Men?

The mugshots and names (published after conviction) made it clear that they were men, predominantly from one religious and national background (albeit sometimes first, second or later generation immigrants)

Lumping them together as "Asian Men" (way too broad) or simply as "Men" makes us less able to examine some of the root cause misguided attitudes and beliefs that unfortunately exist in minority sections of that particular community - namely that women and girls who are not "beleivers" / "one of us" are somehow less.

Not believers / disbelievers

Kafir (Arabic: كافر‎ kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār; feminine كافرة kāfirah) is an Arabic term (from the root K-F-R "to cover") meaning "one who covers the truth". The term alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God according to the teachings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and denies the dominion and authority of God, thus often translated with "infidels".

QuentinSummers
Historically scientists believed there were physical differences between "races" but this has been proved to be mainly bollocks

Skin tone?
Hair texture?
Hair colour?
Eye shape?

There is no "physical difference" at all?

Francine "makes us less able to examine some of the root cause misguided attitudes and beliefs that unfortunately exist in minority sections of that particular community"

well in that case you'd need to get to extreme specifics

which seems unfair on men who might belong to that deeply categorised group and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing

anyway, did they all belong to one sect/religion/country/part of said country?

this is why I think this is all such a load of bull.

In the organised rings, they were predominantly

1. Men (although there was at least one woman convicted for associated crimes - aiding and abetting)
2. From one national origin (although some were 2nd and later generation immigrants)
3. Purporting to be followers of one religion (although many would beg to differ )

Francine "From one national origin (although some were 2nd and later generation immigrants"

and here is where I get really pissed off. This is exactly the type of description that makes me not-English in some people's eyes.

In this particular case - I do think it relevant. This particular community has a number of issues which are not as common to people originating from other countries in the same continent (e.g. marriage between first cousins and the higher incidence of resulting birth defects). It is pretty meaningless to describe them as "Asian" when this could mean Chinese, Vietnamese, Sri Lankan, Nepalese or 43 other countries.

Francine "This particular community has a number of issues which are not as common to people originating from other countries in the same continent (e.g. marriage between first cousins and the higher incidence of resulting birth defects)"

what's that got to do with the grooming stuff?

also "this particular community" is such a horrible term - it's how I get lumped in with groups of people about whom I know nothing and have no connection. It's so depressing.

And Quentin is saying some white men were involved anyway?

what's that got to do with the grooming stuff?
People get lumped together - when the categories are too broad.

Francine
so rather than saying "men" you would have been happier if the press reported "men, some of whom were born in xx, others of whom had ancestors in xx, some of whom claim to be of yy religion, a subset of whom follow a particular sect of yy religion & and some are agnostic"....

rather than "men"?

Rather than "Asian Men"? Yes.

Francine, I asked if you'd prefer that information to "men" not "Asian men".

So just, "30 men were arrested in connection with" blah.

30 people.