To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).

3 Questions for the Caucasians

edited July 2008 in General
Hello, I'm Asian and I'm curious. I have a few questions that I wish to get answers to. In my opinion, Caucasians have great variation in nearly every dynamic (e.g. looks, personality, beliefs, religious views, etc.) My first question is: Do Caucasians realize this (Are they consciously aware of how much they vary from even members of their own family?) Secondly, how do Caucasians perceive other Caucasians (E.g. Do Caucasians feel like every other white person is their cousin as sometimes portrayed on the media?) Lastly, are these variations an advantage or disadvantage ( A disadvantage could be that there could be less unity within communities like there are in brown communities, for example)

Comments

  • IVTIVT
    edited July 2008
    yes
    no
    advantage (i don't want some shmo to consider me his cousin)
  • edited July 2008
    IVT;33976 said:
    yes
    no
    advantage (i don't want some shmo to consider me his cousin)
    Aren't there advantages to being considered as one's cousin? E.g. crashing at one's trailer park?
  • edited July 2008
    I only thought white people all looked kinda different to me because I was raised around white people.

    I was under the impression that if I were an asian born in an asian country I would feel the same way about asian people. Am I incorrect?

    I feel no kinship among other white people solely because of race, theres so many white people why would there be any incentive to?
  • edited July 2008
    First question: Yes, we realize it. I just assumed it was a normal part of being human. Who would want to be a clone?
    Edit: and I don't think it's just a "White Person" thing, but more of a "Western Culture" thing.

    Second question: randomuser is right. There's no kinship among white people. None whatsoever.

    "Variation" is an advantage. Any sort of "unity within communities" based on race is exactly the sort of collectivist shit that we should be striving to eradicate.
  • edited July 2008
    peter8912;33975 said:
    In my opinion, Caucasians have great variation in nearly every dynamic (e.g. looks, personality, beliefs, religious views, etc.)
    We Asians too have great variations in every dynamic... We have Daoists, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, and a few Muslims here and there...

    There are also disgustingly fat Caucasians, Brad Pitt/ Christina Aguilera level hot Caucasians...
    My first question is: Do Caucasians realize this (Are they consciously aware of how much they vary from even members of their own family?)
    Going back to my first point, people of all ethnicities have variations. Ex: I am an Atheists with a particular interest in Islam and Confucianism while my two girl cousins are Christian Fundamentalists.
    Secondly, how do Caucasians perceive other Caucasians (E.g. Do Caucasians feel like every other white person is their cousin as sometimes portrayed on the media?)
    Well, I am certainly not aware that there are any Asian operated services out there that help Asian families track who the fuc* is their 6th to 10th cousin. I mean, according to some genealogy charts, I also had at least three second cousins out there and I met their annually in family gatherings. However, I haven't even bothered asking what their name is.

    One more thing, the media sometimes protrayed every other white person is their cousins?
  • edited July 2008
    peter8912;33975 said:
    Hello, I'm Asian and I'm curious. I have a few questions that I wish to get answers to.
    At your service :wink:
    peter8912;33975 said:
    In my opinion, Caucasians have great variation in nearly every dynamic (e.g. looks, personality, beliefs, religious views, etc.) My first question is: Do Caucasians realize this (Are they consciously aware of how much they vary from even members of their own family?)
    It's a Western thing: here it's all individualistic and people aspire to be different and unique; Eastern cultures see things more collectively, meaning it's unsurprising that two family members will be more similar to one another because they stick together. I'm sure if you took a third- or fourth-generation Chinese person he/she would exhibit just as much variation in personality and beliefs (i.e. many dynamics do not depend on race) as a Caucasian would.
    peter8912;33975 said:
    Secondly, how do Caucasians perceive other Caucasians (E.g. Do Caucasians feel like every other white person is their cousin as sometimes portrayed on the media?)
    We perceive each other like anyone would perceive anyone else I suppose :tongue: . Again, this has to do with being brought up in a Western/European culture as opposed to an Eastern one: I don't perceive anyone as my distant relative even if we're of the same ethnicity (although relations are usually more amicable between compatriots :wink:).
    peter8912;33975 said:
    Lastly, are these variations an advantage or disadvantage ( A disadvantage could be that there could be less unity within communities like there are in brown communities, for example)
    Again, non-physiological variations are engendered by culture, not race. I was brought up in the Western culture, so naturally, striving to be distinct and having your own set of ambitions takes precedence over being part of a collective unit.
  • edited July 2008
    I think ALL people are unique and different!
  • edited July 2008
    Whitey has no collective identity. That's partly cultural, but also partly enforced. White people with a sense of "white pride" are racists, while brown people with a sense of pride in their background are... what? Progressive? I think all that collectivism by race/ethnicity/religion is nonsense. It's right and good that we see racial pride as racist by default. I just wish it was applied uniformly. I'm the only one offended by "Miss India BC" pagents, and whatnot? How is that not racist?

    That said, white cultures do definitely tend to be more forgiving about variation within families. It's not a huge deal for a child to do something totally different from their parents. I think that's a good thing. I'd hate to be an electrician like my dad.
  • edited July 2008
    Morro;33995 said:
    White people with a sense of "white pride" are racists, while brown people with a sense of pride in their background are... what? Progressive?
    Boisterous :tongue:
    Morro;33995 said:
    I think all that collectivism by race/ethnicity/religion is nonsense. It's right and good that we see racial pride as racist by default. I just wish it was applied uniformly. I'm the only one offended by "Miss India BC" pagents, and whatnot? How is that not racist?
    In absolute terms you're right, it is racist. But in our society it's considered all right since they're the minority (I don't necessarily agree with that notion). Here's the other thing that drives me a little crazy: the concept of visible minority. I mean, really, what is it about skin colour that is particular? Do visible minorities deserve protection simply because the majority is racist or at least dismissive of race? These aren't the fucking early 1900s!

    The biggest problem with that concept is that it reduces minority status simply to race. Take, say, a sixth-generation Canadian-born Chinese person or a fourth-generation Indo-Canadian versus an Eastern European immigrant: who's had to overcome more linguistic, cultural, and economic (as a result of not being born in this country) barriers? It's a load of shit when you consider that sometimes "minorities" are given preference for jobs and graduate programs. The definition definitely needs to become more fucking substantive and less unfair.

    /rant
  • edited July 2008
    Morro;33995 said:
    Whitey has no collective identity. That's partly cultural, but also partly enforced. White people with a sense of "white pride" are racists, while brown people with a sense of pride in their background are... what? Progressive? I think all that collectivism by race/ethnicity/religion is nonsense. It's right and good that we see racial pride as racist by default. I just wish it was applied uniformly. I'm the only one offended by "Miss India BC" pagents, and whatnot? How is that not racist?
    I think ur confusing the word pride with power. "white power" can be seen as racist but pride is being "proud" of who you are. Im brown and im proud to be it. I value my cultural background, traditions etc... doesnt mean im racist tho rite???


    I dont see collectivism by race, ethncity a a problem. Can u guys eplain a little more about it...and what would be an alternative criteria by which ppl can "unite".
  • edited July 2008
    lazyGUY;33998 said:
    I think ur confusing the word pride with power. "white power" can be seen as racist but pride is being "proud" of who you are. Im brown and im proud to be it. I value my cultural background, traditions etc... doesnt mean im racist tho rite???
    He's not confusing anything, lazy. Think of "white pride" as being a less concentrated form of "white power", I think what Morro's getting at is that even something as meagre as "white pride" (as opposed to "white power") among Caucasians is enough to give all but the most objective observer the impression of covert racism; "white power" can be considered overt racism if you like.
  • edited July 2008
    well i guess so..but i think that only applies to white ppl...they have the history behind them to give ppl those kind of impressions. Im not saying that its right for those "objective observers" to think that, but I can see why they do.
    This is just my opinion, but when u hear brown pride or asian pride, do you automatically think.."omg that guy hates black ppl"
  • edited July 2008
    I think all this has more to do with culture rather than race, no?

    All behavior and opinions are learned behavior, after all, not inherent.

    And before any of you say North Americans have no culture, look around you--we are basking in North American culture... in all it's democratic, socialist, capitalist, individualistic, multi-cultural and freedom-loving, glory.
  • edited July 2008
    peter8912;33975 said:
    Hello, I'm Asian and I'm curious. I have a few questions that I wish to get answers to. In my opinion, Caucasians have great variation in nearly every dynamic (e.g. looks, personality, beliefs, religious views, etc.) My first question is: Do Caucasians realize this (Are they consciously aware of how much they vary from even members of their own family?) Secondly, how do Caucasians perceive other Caucasians (E.g. Do Caucasians feel like every other white person is their cousin as sometimes portrayed on the media?) Lastly, are these variations an advantage or disadvantage ( A disadvantage could be that there could be less unity within communities like there are in brown communities, for example)
    I think to some extent I am aware of these differences, but as other posters have noted I'm sure to an Asian or an African, white people probably look very similar. :)

    I think the sense of interconnectedness among each other is not so strong; I don't feel all other white people are my 'cousins' per se. As other posters have noted, collectivist instincts tend to be weaker in Western societies for a number of reasons. The implicit Biblical admonition to be your brother's keeper could use a little dusting off, IMO.

    Finally I think this does lead to the question of 'unity' - but what is 'unity', exactly? I do think a white person might tend to want to interact more with a white person than a non-white person. Ultimately I think this is basically genetic, from the hundreds of thousands of years ago when something that didn't look like you might be something that would eat you.

    Today, of course, it is very unlikely that anyone would want to eat someone else, but I have talked to several people who have admitted that their first instinct tends to be to approach someone of their own color first when they need something.
  • edited July 2008
    Ether;33982 said:

    Second question: randomuser is right. There's no kinship among white people. None whatsoever.
    No kinship whatsoever? Can you support this claim?
    randomuser;33979 said:

    I feel no kinship among other white people solely because of race, theres so many white people why would there be any incentive to?
    Speaking solely of incentive, if there were kinship among communities, the community may grow together and develop a list of stereotypes. It is probably safe to say that we all are susceptible to being ignorant and think of stereotypes when we're interacting with others. Being the type of society that we live in, these stereotypes may greatly influence the perception of an individual within a group. A real life example is when you go to apply for a job. If your community had a stereotype of being dependable and hardworking, and if the employer was the type of person who pass judgment based on those stereotypes, then you'd be at an advantage. Do you agree? It is hard to deny that stereotypes greatly change our perception of things and that our lives are constantly altered by decisions that other people make based on their perception of individuals.
    NukeChem;34007 said:

    I do think a white person might tend to want to interact more with a white person than a non-white person. Ultimately I think this is basically genetic, from the hundreds of thousands of years ago when something that didn't look like you might be something that would eat you.

    Today, of course, it is very unlikely that anyone would want to eat someone else, but I have talked to several people who have admitted that their first instinct tends to be to approach someone of their own color first when they need something.
    This proves my point from above. Humans innately interact more comfortably with things that we're more familiar with. The less known is feared and it conforms with the idea of survival of the fittest. So, if a person had a community to which they "belong" to, that community could be representative of that minority. Thus, creating more awareness to the others and could very well change the perception of those individuals. So you could say that collectivism is simply a mechanism in which humans try to take advantage of in order to maximize our chance of survival. These advantages can be linked to reproduction, chances of finding a mate, etc.
  • edited July 2008
    you know what, from what I heard and can deduce, there is no biological dinstinction to create the term race other than human invented terms that created inequality based on skin color.

    What if we just started classifying people by ear size, or height, or blood type?

    All humans can interbreed which doesnt make sense to me why the term 'race' is even used like were all fundamentally different. The only thing that separates us all is the amount of that skin pigment melanin and how it manifests itself?
  • edited July 2008
    randomuser;34010 said:
    you know what, from what I heard and can deduce, there is no biological dinstinction to create the term race other than human invented terms that created inequality based on skin color.

    What if we just started classifying people by ear size, or height, or blood type?

    All humans can interbreed which doesnt make sense to me why the term 'race' is even used like were all fundamentally different. The only thing that separates us all is the amount of that skin pigment melanin and how it manifests itself?
    You're right. Similar to religion, classification of people is just what we make of it. But, there MUST be benefits to having the idea of race. Think about it. Evolution has made it is an advantage to being physiologically varied within a population, correct? E.g. it keeps us from being wiped out from a single disease. So, the idea of physiologically separating humans by genetic makeup makes sense. Now, in my opinion, the idea of humans classifying other humans into races in our mental mindset, must also have an evolutionary purpose/advantage. What do you think?
  • edited July 2008
    The problem is that today, race is a social, not biological, construct, since people who are Asian have often been mistaken for being Latin American, or vice versa. This implies that perceptions of race matter just as much as the biological machinery that classifies a person as a human and then goes on to try and work out which "group" that person is in.

    The main biological basis of skin color has been hypothesized to do with differential resistance to the presence of the UV radiation component of sunlight, which is why Northern Europeans are white while Asians are brown, and Africans range from brown to dark brown.
  • edited July 2008
    Some people use the argument, "people with same skin color share a lot of common physical structures as well", which only has to do with adaption to the area they are in and a lack of diverse 'breeding'. look at something like AIDS which is anilihating any races it comes into contact with

    i dont understand how you are trying to mix a social concept with a purely biological construct
  • edited July 2008
    peter8912;34014 said:
    Now, in my opinion, the idea of humans classifying other humans into races in our mental mindset, must also have an evolutionary purpose/advantage. What do you think?
    So we can have a general concept of who is more similar or dissimilar to us. We can then decide on how to approach others of a different race based on our perception of stereotypes associated with them.
  • edited July 2008
    Shi2;34030 said:
    So we can have a general concept of who is more similar or dissimilar to us. We can then decide on how to approach others of a different race based on our perception of stereotypes associated with them.
    I really don't think social constructs have anything to do with evolution. Sterotypes are shortcuts and generally only lead to racism and incorrect assumptions. They're self fulfilling prophecies, when people are thought to be different, they will be different just because of a lack of intermingling. Sterotypes are also dangerous, they give people an excuse to create in an out groups, can anyone draw an inference to the holocaust?
  • edited July 2008
    Yeah, but how do you avoid the rather human tendency to try and generalize from specific examples even though mathematical and statistical techniques tell us that the best generalizations are done from many examinations of a similar/same thing, not just one?
  • edited July 2008
    randomuser;34031 said:
    I really don't think social constructs have anything to do with evolution. Sterotypes are shortcuts and generally only lead to racism and incorrect assumptions. They're self fulfilling prophecies, when people are thought to be different, they will be different just because of a lack of intermingling. Sterotypes are also dangerous, they give people an excuse to create in an out groups, can anyone draw an inference to the holocaust?
    I think it was originally just a way to protect ourselves. If we see someone different, we might be more cautious of our behaviour and interactions.

    Of course in the present day, many of us have seen all kinds of people already but if we came across a new 'race', we would probably try to observe and learn about them, and form some generalizations about their culture which might lead to stereotypes.
  • edited July 2008
    I personally think it was a way to justfiy conquering and pillaging of other peoples and cultures. For example native peoples, they were called savages and barbarians in contrast to how they acted. This way they are looked at as less of human and easier to take advantage of. What about asians being called chinks and stuff like head tax, race allowed them to be viewed as lower and it was accepted. Same things with blacks, not viewed or treated as humans, and therefore accepted as sub human slaves. How often were other races referred to as less than human by legal or social views? Males and females look different but we don't get cautious. Race is a social construct, it has nothing to do with evolution, as hormones and neurotransmitters don't recognize 'race'.

    Social constructs have nothing to do with evolution period, if you want to say social constructs (as in sterotypes) make humans social interactions easier, I can agree to that. Evolution on the other hand no, evolution is a bilogical concept, it should have nothing to with spurring social reactions. As opposed to something like 'flight or fight' when hormones and neurotransmitters, which would trigger a biological response developed through evolution. Touching a rock that was in a fire pit, you immediately jump back in fear and your body excites. An animal bites you, the same thing happens.

    One counter point could be for example, poisonous snakes or something, with their coloring, where other animals avoid them cause of this coloring. But animals dont avoid them cause of the color, they avoid them because of the poison which is signified by color. I dont see how an asian person can prompt any biological reaction out of fear in anyone.

Leave a Comment