Interracial Doesn't Have to be Reductive

[M_K_Babalon]

I mean, “bird” isn’t a species

Close enough. Both are birds is the point.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I'm afraid you are wrong. Not my opinion either BTW. There has been a lot of research carried out on the human beings that inhabit our wonderful planet.
I could attach a myriad of papers generated by this research, but in all honesty. I can't be bothered.
It's enough for me that experts in the field of Genome research have established that
We, the human beings are one race...

We are also a species of a much broader group... “Human being” is a biological designation for those of the species Homo sapiens...

Humans are classified as mammals because humans have the same distinctive features found in all members of this large group. Humans are also classified within: the subgroup of mammals called primates....

So human beings are a race... Separate from other members of the Primate family.
Of course you can choose to believe the studies, as I do. Or you can follow your own logic.... I made my decision. You can make yours...

Human beings are all members of the human race. In my humble opinion.

Cagivagurl

I ain't about to nitpick semantics here. Human race=Species=Homo Sapien. Racial characteristics is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ethnicities and you damn well know it, that's what every regular person means when they say "different races", or like my bird analogy; different breeds.

 

[TheLobster]

Contains British English,

Yeah, okay, that definitely goes into Fetish.

 

[nice90sguy]

Where I live, "interracial" is no longer a thing. And it's why I love where I live.

 

[djrip]

Where I live, "interracial" is no longer a thing. And it's why I love where I live.

It's still legal where I am.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Where I live, "interracial" is no longer a thing. And it's why I love where I live.

The English language is great in the sense that two different guys could take your statement in two diametrically opposite ways and both be justified in their interpretation.

 

[Cagivagurl]

I ain't about to nitpick semantics here. Human race=Species=Homo Sapien. Racial characteristics is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ethnicities and you damn well know it, that's what every regular person means when they say "different races", or like my bird analogy; different breeds.

We only have one racial characteristic. We are human beings....
Any differences aside from that are cultural... Religions, beliefs, poor or wealthy...
Calling a physical difference racial is demeaning. and makes it impossible to wash away prejudices...
One race, one people...

Cagivagurl

 

[M_K_Babalon]

We only have one racial characteristic. We are human beings....
Any differences aside from that are cultural... Religions, beliefs, poor or wealthy...
Calling a physical difference racial is demeaning. and makes it impossible to wash away prejudices...
One race, one people...

Cagivagurl

So the fact that I and a japanese man look nothing alike is cultural? Races are based off ethnic makeup. Religion and wealth have nothing to do with the conversation, you're just moving the goalpost. You can keep saying one race one people all day, but me and that japanese man are ethnically two different people. Genetically we are all the same, no shit. Beyond that we are not. Again... like the Crow and Shoebill are clearly both birds, fly, have beaks, lay eggs, but they are completely different beyond their genetics. Are you getting it now?

 

[KeithD]

Where in Europe? France gave all of its overseas dependencies standing as home French, and I didn't see much interracial discrimination there. Great Britain didn't do that with its colonies, and I've seen more interracial discrimination there (and among British expats elsewhere). Norway had very little contact with other ethnic groups until South Asian refugees started appearing there and the discrimination I saw there in the 80s was even worse than I've seen in the States. (Maybe it's changed since then.) So, it's not the same across Europe.

 

[Cagivagurl]

So the fact that I and a japanese man look nothing alike is cultural? Races are based off ethnic makeup. Religion and wealth have nothing to do with the conversation, you're just moving the goalpost. You can keep saying one race one people all day, but me and that japanese man are ethnically two different people. Genetically we are all the same, no shit. Beyond that we are not. Again... like the Crow and Shoebill are clearly both birds, fly, have beaks, lay eggs, but they are completely different beyond their genetics. Are you getting it now?

Sir....
I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't get it....
I don't care that you appear different on the outside....
Maybe we should ask the Japanese man what he thinks???
You are both human beings.... Both breathe oxygen. Everything else is unimportant... Just people from different cultures.... The woman sitting beside me, is blonde, I am not. I wear glasses, she does not. We are completely different to look at, yet exactly the same....
I don't care that she's not identical to me. We are both human beings who reside on the same planet....
It's only prejudice... Let it go....
We are allowed to have different opinions... Because that's all they are. Opinions....
I don't claim to speak on behalf of the world. These are only my opinions...

Cagivagurl

 

[pink_silk_glove]

We are completely different to look at, yet exactly the same

Not true. We are not the same, we are each unique, equal but unique. And thank god because variety is essential to life.

I do believe that you are trying waaayyy too hard to prove to the world and to yourself that you don't have a shallow bone in your body. If you actually believed that you indeed don't have that single shallow bone you would not feel the need to prove it.

 

[XerXesXu]

Where in Europe? France gave all of its overseas dependencies standing as home French, and I didn't see much interracial discrimination there. Great Britain didn't do that with its colonies, and I've seen more interracial discrimination there (and among British expats elsewhere). Norway had very little contact with other ethnic groups until South Asian refugees started appearing there and the discrimination I saw there in the 80s was even worse than I've seen in the States. (Maybe it's changed since then.) So, it's not the same across Europe.

You're confusing 'dependencies' with membership of the Commonwealth. Members of the Commonwealth were independent countries whose right to immigrate into the UK wasn't curtailed until 1962. French 'dependencies' were not independent and were given rights of representation in the French parliament.

Each country has its own history of discrimination and the reasons for it. We now live in a global era of mass immigration and every moderately wealthy country has a big problem with immigration, legal and illegal, from the Global Majority of underdeveloped and desperately poor, corrupt and badly manged counties. There's no longer a concept of 'mother country'. Any democratic and reasonably wealthy country is a magnet for the global majority and the global minority seek to limit it, from the EU through the Uk, Ireland and across to the USA. Discrimination has ceased to be 'racial' in many of these countries and has become 'economic'.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Not true. We are not the same, we are each unique, equal but unique. And thank god because variety is essential to life.

I do believe that you are trying waaayyy too hard to prove to the world and to yourself that you don't have a shallow bone in your body. If you actually believed that you indeed don't have that single shallow bone you would not feel the need to prove it.

What I am saying, is simply that we are one race... Not separate races. We are one. Like it or lump it.
I'm a scientist (Environmental) I believe that we are one race of very different people.
I may live in an unrealistic idealistical world. That is my choice.
I will continue to stand up for the truth. We are one race.
Yes, each of us is different in one way or other. I don't care about things like hair colour, skin colour. Whether you have a big nose, or pointy ears. You can choose to believe me or not. I don't really care.
Those differences are nothing more than physical differences.
We are separated by ethnicity, religion, culture, wealth.
Am I trying to prove something? No. Merely stating my opinion, which in this instance is supported by science. "One race, one people."
You cannot have an interracial experience unless you get to meet an alien.... We know that bestiality isn't happening... Right?

Cagivagurl

 

[XerXesXu]

So the fact that I and a japanese man look nothing alike is cultural? Races are based off ethnic makeup. Religion and wealth have nothing to do with the conversation, you're just moving the goalpost. You can keep saying one race one people all day, but me and that japanese man are ethnically two different people. Genetically we are all the same, no shit. Beyond that we are not. Again... like the Crow and Shoebill are clearly both birds, fly, have beaks, lay eggs, but they are completely different beyond their genetics. Are you getting it now?

Anthropologists have great difficulty in agreeing terminology and sticking to it. The only human beings who have the same genotype are identical twins, and even they have phenotypes that differ sufficiently to distinguish between one and the other. As for the rest, were all genetically diverse, but very slightly different to one another. We only differ from chimps by 5%. Were Neanderthals human beings? Yes. Were Denisovans human beings? Yes. Do we all have genetic inheritance from both? No. Do chimpanzees have white skin? Yes, except on their faces which get sun-tanned. Did our non-human ancestors have white skin? Yes. Why did we lose much of our hair and turn black? Geography. Why did some of us then turn white? Geography. This is a feature of genetic variability within a species. Some group genotypes differ systematically for geographical reasons and this corresponds to the phenotypes characteristic of that reason. Some people use different terms for these characteristic phenotypes – race, ethnicity, variety – but humans construct their reality from a small amount of external referents in the real world and a huge carapace of psychological and behavioural cognitive constructs, both cultural (widely adopted by a group) and personal. Those belong in the world of unreality. The cultural wars – who should use what words and what they should mean – belong in the realm of unreality. Just get used to the fact that people will, for cultural and personal reasons, use words in a different way to you.

 

[KeithD]

You're confusing 'dependencies' with membership of the Commonwealth. Members of the Commonwealth were independent countries whose right to immigrate into the UK wasn't curtailed until 1962. French 'dependencies' were not independent and were given rights of representation in the French parliament.

Each country has its own history of discrimination and the reasons for it. We now live in a global era of mass immigration and every moderately wealthy country has a big problem with immigration, legal and illegal, from the Global Majority of underdeveloped and desperately poor, corrupt and badly manged counties. There's no longer a concept of 'mother country'. Any democratic and reasonably wealthy country is a magnet for the global majority and the global minority seek to limit it, from the EU through the Uk, Ireland and across to the USA. Discrimination has ceased to be 'racial' in many of these countries and has become 'economic'.

No, I'm not. People in French overseas possessions were given French citizenship, which broadened the ethnic composition of France. People in British colonies were not. Beyond that, whatever you wrote in your post didn't have anything to do with my point. This predates the EU by centuries.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Sir....
I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't get it....
I don't care that you appear different on the outside....
Maybe we should ask the Japanese man what he thinks???
You are both human beings.... Both breathe oxygen. Everything else is unimportant... Just people from different cultures.... The woman sitting beside me, is blonde, I am not. I wear glasses, she does not. We are completely different to look at, yet exactly the same....
I don't care that she's not identical to me. We are both human beings who reside on the same planet....
It's only prejudice... Let it go....
We are allowed to have different opinions... Because that's all they are. Opinions....
I don't claim to speak on behalf of the world. These are only my opinions...

Cagivagurl

I am not prejudice and you are missing my whole point, intentionally. I'm done with this daft bullshit. It's not cultures, it's ethnics I'm talking about. Culture ain't got shit to do with how people evolved to be different. Maybe if you understand that the way normal folk use the term "race" is analagous to the word breed, and not as an equivilant to genus--because it's fucking not, you would understand. I understand what you're saying, and repeating over and over, I'm not contesting that we are all one species, as I said that we are all genetically the same species, only an idiot would think we aren't. Racially... which is tantamount to ethnically we are not. Ethnic makeup is not culture, it is where natural enviroments helped us evolve to survive our regions. That's why I can deal with the sun, and some white folks burst into flame like vampires. That's why there is several different hair types. Done with this foolishness. Just because genetically we are all the same--which is what you're talking about doesn't mean we aren't different beyond that.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I am not prejudice and you are missing my whole point, intentionally. I'm done with this daft bullshit. It's not cultures, it's ethnics I'm talking about. Culture ain't got shit to do with how people evolved to be different. Maybe if you understand that the way normal folk use the term "race" is analagous to the word breed, and not as an equivilant to genus--because it's fucking not, you would understand. I understand what you're saying, and repeating over and over, I'm not contesting that we are all one species, as I said that we are all genetically the same species, only an idiot would think we aren't. Racially... which is tantamount to ethnically we are not. Ethnic makeup is not culture, it is where natural enviroments helped us evolve to survive our regions. That's why I can deal with the sun, and some white folks burst into flame like vampires. That's why there is several different hair types. Done with this foolishness. Just because genetically we are all the same--which is what you're talking about doesn't mean we aren't different beyond that.

I know this will never happen, but I would love for this dialog to take place in the context of an IR story, where the characters suddenly start debating what qualifies as race, ethnicity, culture, etc. Like, it starts out as a very "by the numbers" IR story. Just as it gets to the action, all the characters start deconstructing the genre and talking about fuzzy limits of race, ethnicity, biases, the unfairness of those biases, the natural and socially constructed limits of those definitions.

I'm sure it'd be get a low rating, but I think it'd be so, so great.

 

[TheLobster]

Maybe if you understand that the way normal folk use the term "race" is analagous to the word breed

As someone for whom this is a second language, I find this quibbling over words amusing and a little endearing.

Outside of English, "race" and "breed" are indeed often covered by the same term. In turn, "human race" may be a completely nonsensical expression, since humans (Homo sapiens) are obviously an entire species. The term "race" is not particularly precise and carries some historical baggage with it, but it refers to real and easily perceived differences between groups of people.
Yes, the boundaries are fuzzy, but doesn't negate the concept's existence. No one (I hope) questions the applicability of "blondes" as a classifier just because it's not clear how dark a blonde can get before her hair is better described as "strawberry" or "walnut" or just "brown."

 

[MorlockIam]

Cuckolding is an interest of mine and the classic combo is Black Man x White Wife.

I would like to see other variations. A black cuckold whose black wife is seeing a white bull for example. The black wife likes the white bull as he is so different sexually and physically from her black husband.

Something I read on a cuckold forum ages ago was there seems to be a racial hierarchy of sorts as far as the cuckolds are concerned. Asian, Hispanic and Middle Eastern men see White men as being better and like the idea of their women cuckolding them with a white man.

White men have the racial stereotype of the well hung black man and like the idea of their white wives having a BBC.

In general I like reversing the usual stereotypes and tropes. In terms of race and cuckolding it would be interesting to explore the idea of a black man with a small penis who is cuckolded by his white or other race wife who sleeps with non black men with bigger dicks than her husband.

 

[XerXesXu]

No, I'm not. People in French overseas possessions were given French citizenship, which broadened the ethnic composition of France. People in British colonies were not. Beyond that, whatever you wrote in your post didn't have anything to do with my point. This predates the EU by centuries.

You do talk such rubbish. Before the beginning of the twentieth century there were no controls on immigration into the UK from anywhere in the world, though it's well known that the USA only welcomed immigrants, 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' - subject to immigration control. In the UK, through the first half of the 20th Century controls on the immigration of aliens ie; not British (persons not originating from a country within the British Empire/Commonwealth) became progressively more strict. Immigration by overseas British was first subject to control in 1962. Immigration from Ireland has never been subject to control. Immigration from EU countries was not controlled while the UK was in the EU.

During the 20th C the French granted certain civil and political rights to a number of islands - its overseas dependencies. The UK accepted unlimited immigration from eg: India and Nigeria, rather more than a few thousand people. The UK has a Hindu Prime Minister who's a child of Indian immigrants, Wales has First Minister who's a child of Carribean immigrants and Scotland, in a palace coup, has just lost a Muslim First Minister who's a child of immigrants. London has a Muslim Mayor, a child of immigrants and a majority of Londoners were born abroad. There is no prospect of France ever reaching that degree of acceptance and integration of immigrants. How's the USA doing?

 

[SimonDoom]

As someone for whom this is a second language, I find this quibbling over words amusing and a little endearing.

Outside of English, "race" and "breed" are indeed often covered by the same term. In turn, "human race" may be a completely nonsensical expression, since humans (Homo sapiens) are obviously an entire species. The term "race" is not particularly precise and carries some historical baggage with it, but it refers to real and easily perceived differences between groups of people.
Yes, the boundaries are fuzzy, but doesn't negate the concept's existence. No one (I hope) questions the applicability of "blondes" as a classifier just because it's not clear how dark a blonde can get before her hair is better described as "strawberry" or "walnut" or just "brown."

It's not just you ESL folks who think so. I do too. I always say that debates over definitions are meaningless.

"Race" is not a precise term in English, so it's silly to argue about whether "race" exists. Words in English can have multiple meanings, and "race" is one of those words with multiple, not-very-precise meanings. It depends upon what meaning you attach to the word. We're all one species. That's a scientific fact. But it's still meaningful to say that different groups of people, like, say, the Japanese and the Norwegians, are ethnically different, and there are minor genetic differences as well that account for differences in eye appearance, height, skin color, and in some cases things like susceptibility to diseases, tolerance for consumption of milk, etc. If you want to use the term "race" to describe these different groups of people, most people will know what you mean, more or less.

The important point isn't to get hung up on what race "is" but to acknowledge that it's not a basis for treating people differently morally, legally, politically or to make unwarranted assumptions about a person because of their "race." But there's no compelling reason why that nondiscrimination principle must apply in all cases to aesthetic and erotic taste. Some people are more attracted to people who look this way rather than that way. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

You do talk such rubbish. Before the beginning of the twentieth century there were no controls on immigration into the UK from anywhere in the world, though it's well known that the USA only welcomed immigrants, 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free' - subject to immigration control. In the UK, through the first half of the 20th Century controls on the immigration of aliens ie; not British (persons not originating from a country within the British Empire/Commonwealth) became progressively more strict. Immigration by overseas British was first subject to control in 1962. Immigration from Ireland has never been subject to control. Immigration from EU countries was not controlled while the UK was in the EU.

During the 20th C the French granted certain civil and political rights to a number of islands - its overseas dependencies. The UK accepted unlimited immigration from eg: India and Nigeria, rather more than a few thousand people. The UK has a Hindu Prime Minister who's a child of Indian immigrants, Wales has First Minister who's a child of Carribean immigrants and Scotland, in a palace coup, has just lost a Muslim First Minister who's a child of immigrants. London has a Muslim Mayor, a child of immigrants and a majority of Londoners were born abroad. There is no prospect of France ever reaching that degree of acceptance and integration of immigrants. How's the USA doing?

In fact this weekend has involved riots in New Caledonia (a French départment in the south Pacific) because of the increasing numbers of mainland French moving there and the fears of the Polynesian locals of discrimination.

France's line has always been that immigrants must 'become French', used to justify bans on hijabs etc. The UK's official line for years was to embrace multiculturalism, with mixed success - certain towns like Bradford or Oldham are pretty segregated, invariably thanks to a decline in the jobs that immigrants came over to do. Other places have mixed pretty well, with certain exceptions (Orthodox Jews in north London, people from certain impoverished parts of Bangladesh practising a certain type of Islam, and of course Travellers and gypsies, all keeping to themselves). One thing the UK and France do have in common is a distrust of obvious religion, whether that's the Arab in traditional garb with a skullcap, or Tony Blair saying anything.

Richer and more educated immigrants (in the UK, Indians and Black Africans) have generally done better and mixed in better than poorer and less educated ones. Probably the same all over.

(Only 37% of Londoners were born abroad, though it's true under half define as 'White British').



Obviously race shouldn't be grounds for discrimination, but the fact is that it has been and is, and also is a proxy for having a different culture, in many cases. Exactly who is assumed to be in what category is only important when there is unequal treatment.

 

[ChloeTzang]

As an American whose spent a fair amount of time abroad in Europe and who has a bunch of American friends that live in various EU countries and the UK, it's not that they don't care. It's that the equation is different. Here in America (and I swear to God, folks, I'm just making generalizations here, don't @ me), I'd put a rough ranking of what people will respond to as:

1. Ethnicity
2. Class
3. Country of Origin
4. Politics
5. Religion

whereas the UK seems more like:

1. Class
2. Country of Origin
3. Ethnicity
4. Politics
5. Religion

Like I said, complete generalization, and I'm sure people might quibble here and there, but there's a much bigger emphasis on class. And that, while ethnicity matters, it matters less in America than that they're "not from here," with a few exceptions (people losing their shit over illegal immigration, for example). In America, whether someone is of African heritage, for example, matters a lot more (to the people it's likely to matter to, i.e., bigoted people, whether that's the mildly up to the extremely bigoted) than whether they're a recent immigrant or not, whereas the reverse might be true elsewhere.

Oh yeah, I could quibble a little, but in general terms I'd agree with you, again based on personal experience. Ethnicity here is a big thing, and politics too. In fact these days I'd rank politics as #1/#2 but that's just my take. But in the UK it's all class, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's huge, and I really noticed that - and class there is also inextricably tied up with things like regional accents and background. As a Chinese-American with a rather neutral accent, it's actually easy to slide right in anywhere across the spectrum altho my experience was pretty limited given I was with my mom and dad.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Oh yeah, I could quibble a little, but in general terms I'd agree with you, again based on personal experience. Ethnicity here is a big thing, and politics too. In fact these days I'd rank politics as #1/#2 but that's just my take. But in the UK it's all class, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's huge, and I really noticed that - and class there is also inextricably tied up with things like regional accents and background. As a Chinese-American with a rather neutral accent, it's actually easy to slide right in anywhere across the spectrum altho my experience was pretty limited given I was with my mom and dad.

Ah dude, the ABC/ARC neutral accent is totally a thing... it drives me crazy that I can't define it. I wish I could put my finger on what makes it "that way" but I can't... maybe it's like... the pronunciation are a bit too precise? Or it's a slight emphasis on certain vowels in certain words that others don't use?

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Oh yeah, I could quibble a little, but in general terms I'd agree with you, again based on personal experience. Ethnicity here is a big thing, and politics too. In fact these days I'd rank politics as #1/#2 but that's just my take. But in the UK it's all class, and ne'er the twain shall meet. It's huge, and I really noticed that - and class there is also inextricably tied up with things like regional accents and background. As a Chinese-American with a rather neutral accent, it's actually easy to slide right in anywhere across the spectrum altho my experience was pretty limited given I was with my mom and dad.

I could quibble with the order for the UK, too, but the general point is solid. Having an obvious religion is low-class, unless you are aristocracy or royalty or local established rural landowners who attend the local CofE on high days and holidays but otherwise never mention religion. The Church of England is called "the Conservative party at prayer", but the actual clergy are pretty left-wing. The typical Brit opinion is that religion is like a penis - it's OK to have one and even better proud of it, but not to get it out in public and not in front of children.

Accents and dialects are crucial, to the extent that most Brits can and regularly do dial them up and down the social scale, depending on their surroundings. Until the late 80s, regional accents and working-class dialects weren't allowed to present on mainstream BBC programmes (with the result that my American parent can't understand them at all!) But foreigners get a pass on the accent and class until more evidence comes to light.

Every time I look at UK forums on Reddit there's some American asking how they will be perceived as a tourist because they are black/gay/Hispanic/a quarter Irish/an eighth Scottish etc. And the answer, repeated by Americans living in the UK, is always "You're a Yank." Even if you're not ID'd by your clothing, you will be as soon as you open your mouth. They'll treat you as a Yank.

Cue "But I'm Texan" - no, you're all septics when you're over here. Conversely various expat friends of various skin tones are treated as posh, because they ended up with an old-fashioned RP accent which hasn't worn off.