Soldato
1.
OCUK Forum Racial Makeup Thread
- Thread starter Luke15
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
hehe i bet W. Bruce Lincoln is spinning in his grave. "All things possible" the most horrific wars that mankind has ever seen 
damn he still alive, maybe hes spinning on the spot
damn he still alive, maybe hes spinning on the spot
Caporegime
what were the proud/pride definitions for btw ?
Caporegime
dirtydog said:
heheh fair play
Soldato
numero uno (1)
Soldato
1
But I think race is a very outdated concept. Ethnicity makes more sense as it includes both physical and cultural characteristics.
But I think race is a very outdated concept. Ethnicity makes more sense as it includes both physical and cultural characteristics.
dirtydog said:
There's lots of ways of categorising people, some much less useful than others. This thread, for example, doesn't actually ask about race, it asks about skin colour, because two people can be different races but have the same skin colour (African and west indian blacks, or spanish and Nordic whites, for example).
Terms like race, ethnicity and the like are compound terms that tend to mean different things to different people. Some people seem to base it entirely on skin colour, some include culture, some include place of birth, family trees and all manner of other similar things.
I am, for example, white skinned, English born, have an english family tree for at least a few generations (there's a smidge of french in there, but hey, we can't help but have our faults
), much of my family comes from the North of england, primarily North Yorkshire, and many of my cultural traditions, superstitions and practices reflect this, much to the confusion of people down here in Plymouth (especially as I've never actually lived in the north, and have a southern accent with occasional northern phrasing). I have as much in common with a white skinned person from Poland as I have with a black skinned person from Africa, so simply grouping me by my skin colour is really of no practical value apart from a desire to create division.Race is more than just skin colour, but many people use the terms interchangeably, primarily it seems because of political correctness. They don't want to be seen to be grouping people by skin colour, so they use another term, regardless of the fact that grouping by skin colour is exactly what they are doing.
I can be culturally english irrespective of skin colour, and I could be culturally something else entirely even if I was white. There are huge variations in culture, practice and racial features even among those with the same skin colour (or same colour grouping in a survey such as this), and so I really cannot understand the point of it, as it doesn't tell us anything useful.
As for the difference between race and ethnicity, the definition used by those who use the terms in research is that Ethnicity refers to culture, country of origin, religion and presumed similarities in biology, whereas Race refers to physical and genetic traits shared among a group of people.
No, it askes about race. Explicitly.Dolph said:
Luke15 said:I thought it may be interesting to start a thread about the racial makeup of this forum.
It would give a good insight into what percentage of the forum is from each race(s).
If you could, please post with one of the numbers below describing your Race.
1. White
2. Black
3. Asian
4. Oriental
5. Mixed Race
6. Other
Thanks
edit: a poll would be nice, if possible.
So would you agree with me that non-whites cannot be classed as English.
Suspended
I dont a care what race you are, to me, your all blue 
dirtydog said:
Read the options, it asks about skin colour, but uses the term race. Perhaps a quick read over the rest of my critique of the position would clarify it, or perhaps you could clarify your disagreement by critiquing my position and why you believe it to be incorrect. I specifically addressed the use of the term race to mean skin colour and why people could do it, it's exactly what the thread starter did.
Depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about race, then no, if we're talking about ethnicity, maybe, depending on the exact definition and weighting you're using for the various componant parts (given the broad variety of cultures and religions in the UK), and if we're talking about nationality, then they certainly can.
The key is all in the terms, without a common definition for the grouping or the term, any attempt to draw a conclusion or solicit an agreement is either futile or an attempt to mislead.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 24,654
Dolph said:
Many aspects of race are socially constructed anyway, so saying that this thread is about skin colour is as legitimate a claim as saying it is about race.
Also, you're not acknowledging that there are racial associations with skin colour. For example, asking if a person is 'white' does not include black albinos. It does not include fair-skinned arabs. Asking if they are 'white' is a question of their racial makeup, not merely their skin colour.
I'll pass as it's all rather arcane and we're not going to agreeDolph said:
We disagree.I'm talking about everything that makes a person English. To me one of those things is race; to be English you must be white. Note this is English as distinct from British. English is not a recognised nationality in the way that British is. To be ethnically and racially English one cannot be non-white.
cleanbluesky said:
To me, this thread, given the lack of definition and closed nature of the questioning, is somewhat akin to asking 'What car do you have?' then giving options of 'blue', 'red', 'black', 'white' and then wondering why you don't get much useful information from it.
I'm not ignoring such facts, I'm actually pointing out that the classifications given ignore such things, just as they ignore many differences between people with similar colourations but different genetics and different cultures. This could be easily avoided by breaking down the list more, for example white british (or english), white european and white other would allow better conclusions to be drawn, as would black african and black carribean and so on. The nature of the questioning is structured to make the distinction about skin colour, rather than anything else, and that is why, yet again, we're having a discussion about skin colour and race, because if you say they are different (and I believe they are), then you have to use them differently.
Dolph you seem to be being ultra pedantic perhaps because you are unwilling to completely accept that race is about far more than just skin colour. Just because the OP used the widely accepted terms like white and black, it doesn't mean he was referring only to skin colour as you have said. You are totally and needlessly overcomplicating the issue.
dirtydog said:I'll pass as it's all rather arcane and we're not going to agree
I'm talking about everything that makes a person English. To me one of those things is race; to be English you must be white. Note this is English as distinct from British. English is not a recognised nationality in the way that British is. To be ethnically and racially English one cannot be non-white.
See, this is where I (at least partially) disagree. If you set up a series of tickboxes for being english, including culture, religion and so on (all things that traditionally flow enough through the country to be included in an ethnicity defintion), then do you class one part as more important than others, one as a 'must have' when the others could be optional? Traditional English cultural traits include the stiff upper lip, christian (specifically C of E) faith, belief in English heros like Robin Hood, St George and King Arthur and many other ideas, and yet people can decry most of those and still be thought of as English, but the way you portray it, someone could tick every single box apart from skin colour, and you'd state they were not and could never be considered english. Perhaps I'm reading that wrong, but if so, please say so. I'm not judging the position, just saying I don't particularly agree with it.
- Status