Talk:Race (Archive 5)

Part 4

P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): I think that we may finally getting somewhere. It will take me a longer time to digest all of the above than I have at the moment.

P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): There is one other very fundamental point that is, if not a pitfall, at least something to stumble over. The article title is race, which directs our attention to trying to describe what [race] (singular) is. The phenomenon that we ought to be looking at, however, is one in which people are divided into [races]. Language prompts us to go ahead confidently talking about [race] and the [races] when there are a large number of [races], none of which may really be the same for the people who use these words. Of course, everybody learns what the main characteristics of the [races] are in his/her society. But these same people frequently can't tell you simple facts about commonplace subjects that should be within their normal ken. They are instant experts on who is "really" a member of this or that [race], but they can't tell you the difference between a.c. and d.c. current. So there is the presumption that [race] is a question of the division of all humans into 4 or 7 or whatever number of [races], that they are "just out there" waiting to be discovered. If we were to supply "a list of criteria that people have used to explain what the different races are (at any given time, in any given place)," then that list would probably be a mile (maybe a parsec) long. A list of "criteria used to explain" is different from a list of ways that people categorize by race.

P0M: Perhaps we need to say something like this: The study of race is the study of how people divide their own species into groups that they call "races." Then we go on to say, "The same species gets divided into different [races] by different people. Here is a sample of the ways that people have used to try to categorize people." Either here, or after the next point, it would be fitting to make it clear why people frequently do not fit into unambiguously defined [races]. The next point would concern how people apply these [racial] designations to themselves and to others. (E.g., how does a Nazi know which people to send to the death camps? How many circumcised ordinary Germans were gassed? How does a census-taker handle it when somebody says his race is Hunza when there is no box for "Hunza" on his demography chart?) Then we could look at the attachment of unproved characteristics to the [races]. Finally, we could look at how the categorization of humans by [race] works out in practice. Are there advantages for public health? Are there disadvantages when, e.g., the gym coach says, "White guys can't jump!"?

P0M: I don't mean to suggest throwing away the existing article and starting all over again. Too much has been said, thrown away, resurrected, reverted, retrieved... But it has been on my mind for a long time to point out that sometimes after one has written a term paper or something of that sort, it is worthwhile to go back and outline one's own paper. P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Slr: I do not agree that we would be better off opening the article with, "Perhaps we need to say something like this: The study of race is the study of how people divide their own species into groups that they call "races.""

P0M: Are you seriously suggesting that I advocated beginning an article with the words "Perhaps we should say something..." If it wasn't just carelessness you are employing a rhetorical device called "setting up a straw man."

It was just carelessness on my part. I hope that other readers understand that, and I hope you will forgive my carelessness -- I do trust that you understand what I meant. Slrubenstein

Slr: This is implicit in most encyclopedia article (that the article is about the study of what the article is about).

P0M: This? This what? Part of the problem people have with arguing with you is that you are not always clear. The referent for "this" is in this case not clear. It certainly refers to nothing before it in the material quoted above.

Slr: I do agree that "The article title is race, which directs our attention to trying to describe what [race] (singular) is. The phenomenon that we ought to be looking at, however, is one in which people are divided into [races]."

P0M: I think you and I agree on far more than you will admit to. Part of the problem is that you seem to go into attack mode before you have understood what I have said.

Slr: However, and I don't take pleasure in beating a dead horse (though I'd like to think of myself as attempting CPR), this is what the earlier opening statement, "Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things," was meant to express/communicate.

P0M: I respectfully submit that, if you were really talking about the "phenomenon ... in which people are divided into [races]", then your words about "principle" do not mean what you want them to say. I have tried several different ways to indicate why "Race is a principle" is as nonsensical as "Species is a principle", "Population is a principle", etc. You've got the cart before the horse. Maybe William Saffire could make it clear to you. I give up.

Slr: I think it is implicit in the current opening ("Race is a type of classification used to group living things"), although I still prefer the earlier version -- either way, my point is that I believe the first sentence addresses this issue, but if POM believes it could be explained more clearly I invite him to suggest ways.

P0M: I think I should never mention more than one thread of thought at a time. What I said or meant is what you end up with, that it would be good to "spend a little time thinking about the structure of the article" (to use your own words). And I pointed out that the way the whole thing is structured, i.e., by assigning ourselves the task of discussing [race] (singular), we set up an unneeded obstacle to clear thinking.

Slr: I agree with POM that this is an important issue, but perosnally, I think it is clear already. I also agree with POM that "A list of "criteria used to explain" is different from a list of ways that people categorize by race," and perhaps this point can be the topic of the second paragraph of the article. POM is right that a complete list of criteria could be virtually endless. As I have discussed with Peak -- who I think made this point earlier -- an alternative would be to use the first paragraph (as POM seems to suggest too) to sum up different ways people have studied race (I think we can do this without changing the first sentence).

P0M: I will never agree with anything that bases itself on the assumption that [race] is something "out there" to be studied. Any argument that starts by assuming what it intends to prove is fallacious.

SLR:However, I also think we can keep the first paragraph as a partial list of common criteria used, and qualify that by saying different people at different times have relied on some, but not all, and sometimes other, criteria. I also agree with most of the points POM makes in his penultimate paragraph. I do think there is a way to introduce all of them into the article. I think most of POM's points are actually implicit in the article. POM may not feel they are clearly enough stated, or fully explored. I suggest that one reason may be poor organization. Perhaps if we spend a little time thinking about the structure of the article, it will then be easier to see which of our various concerns are actually already addressed in the article, or to see where and how they need to be better addressed. Slrubenstein

P0M: After kicking up lots of dust you often come out agreeing with me.

and vice-versa! ;) Honestly, though, I never thought you and I disagreed about most issues on "race" in substance. I do think we have often agreed on writing style, and also how to present our views in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I never thought any of these conflicts were unsurmountable. I think the value of the talk pages is to force one another to more clearly articulate our positions, as a preliminary exercise towards expressing them more elegantly in the article itself. Slrubenstein

I think that most of the "points are actually implicit in the article." The question in my mind is whether outlining the article (keeping a few stumbling blocks from hiding in the weeds) might not show some kind of systematic omission.

I am sure you are right -- but I do think attending to structure first will make it much easier to locate (and agree upon) what has been omitted, and what is implicit but needs to be developed. Slrubenstein

I haven't done the work yet, so I can't tell for sure. It's just that I have learned caution.

P0M: Reading some of the things that you have written recently I am astounded to find you saying, in somewhat different words, many of the things that I have said either on this talk page or on the Racism talk page -- things that have been summarily, angrily, or contemptuously rejected.

As I hope I inferred above, I don't think I rejected -- or at least, I never intended to reject -- any of your substantive points, certainly not contemptuously. I admit that I have often rejected your way of expressing certain points, or what I took to be proposals for changes in the article, but again, I believe I did so more on stylistic and NPOV grounds than anything else. Maybe I crossed a line with the BS comment, and I apologize if you felt it was contemptuous. It seemed to me that you were proposing addressing stereotypes in the article in a specific way (I consider all, or virtually all, content on "talk" pages to imply proposed changes to the article, as I think that is the main purpose of the talk pages) without having done adequate research. I stand by that point -- at least in principle (as I surely may have misunderstood you) -- but I assure you that I hold to that point in general, and I would regret your having taken it personally.Slrubenstein

It used to be my role in bull sessions after dinner in college to listen to two people getting fiercely angry with each other while actually saying almost exactly the same thing. Now I find myself playing two roles at once.

P0M: Just to make things clear, I do not favor changing the first sentence back to the way it was before.

I understand that. We simply disagree -- such disagreements are common at Wikipedia. The consensus often changes over time; now it seems to have changed in your direction and there is nothing I can do about that, but six months or a year from now it will likely change in a different direction. Slrubenstein

I would be o.k. with retaining the mention of self-identification because it does express one of the common ways that people in our society assign people to various categories in demography studies. I would be o.k. with holding off on mention of it until a place in the article where it would be appropriate to discuss the "funny" aspect of it.

I think we are in agreement. I never meant that the issue of self (vs. other) identification should be left out of the article; I believe it should be explored, and fully. I just didn't feel it belonged in the first paragraph, because I think that before the article addresses how people are assigned to different races, it should first address how the notion of "race" first emerged and also how different society's racial categories, and concepts of race, have changed over time. This is an example of where I don't believe I ever disagreed with anyone about content, only about the style and structure of an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein

I would be in favor of deeply exploring the real-world consequences of labeling people by race. And, I would be in favor of my getting off my fanny and outlining the article to see if any holes show up. As I said a long time ago, the article seems to me to be in pretty good shape.

Part 5

P0M: Slrubenstein, the earlier form of the first sentence spoke of race as a principle of taxonomy. I've been going over the long paragraph that you wrote above, and I don't find any big problems with it I guess. I say "guess" because I wonder whether there is some problem lurking in whatever it is that makes you accept the idea that race is a principle. I have suggested as many definitions of "principle" as I could find in my dictionary, but nobody has ever claimed any one of them in regard to the aforesaid formulation. Please just give me a definition.

By "principle" I mean "assumption" and "standard." I personally do not think it is good one. But it seems to me that all talk of "race" is through a politicized or political discourse; there is no denying that (in my opinion, socially constructed) assumptions about or standards for racial categories have affected a good deal of people, and thus is as "real" as other social constructions, from nuclear bombs to specific beliefs about God/gods. Just as people can debate over whether it is right to make let alone use nucelar bombs, or can debate the consequences of belief in God, people debate over race. I personally believe race is a bad standard/assumption (or principle) but my argument is not that it is not a principle, but rather that it is a bad one. By the way, we need to archive much of this talk. I've been accused on archiving poorly in the past -- can you make an executive decision and do some archiving? Slrubenstein

P0M: What do you mean "standard"? "Standard" as in "He gave the standard Anarchist response when asked to salute the flag," or as in "A bar of metal in Paris, France is the original standard for the meter," or what? I'm not trying to be difficult, just to pin things down -- because in the past many of my attempts here to get a clear run at the idea of "race" have snarled on this point.

P0M 03:58, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC): Also, do you have any disagreement with the article on Categorization?