A message from Bill Cosby

[Michael]

"(many) black people treat white people in a certain way, based on a categorical belief about white people's categorical beliefs. and vice versa, in all possibly recursed permutations. that's what i meant by a 'relational category'"
I don't like to speak about this so theoretically. There are few examples where black people codified such beliefs into the lawbooks, or took any action similar to the racial laws of Pres. Jackson of the US (and others, such as the 3/5, etc.) or Sir Gray of England in South Africa. Some say perception is reality, but the chicken who laid that egg was something much more concrete. Perception was just convincing the masses to go along with the racist written policies.

As far as recent history in Zimbabwe, I'd categorize Mugabe as royalty first, black second. It's the elites who create all these factions. If there are any real categories, it's elites trying to control the masses. Black and white is just a technique the elites use for setting the masses against themselves, but we already knew that.

[Steve James]

who said anything about the people within the category defining it?

I did. A person's characterizations or perceptions of black people are that person's perceptions, not things that are inherent to black people. The category "black people" was created, specifically by "white people." That distinction was not a neutral categorization. It was the rationalization for oppression and exploitation, first, and disenfranchisement (to the extent that an Amendment to the Constitution was needed). You'd have to agree that all the segregation laws gave an unequal advantage to one category over another. At least, the Supreme Court agreed and declared "separate but equal" a fallacy and un-Constitutional.

The category that most black Americans have desired is that of "American" citizen. At least, if we take Bill Cosby seriously, that has been the desire of blacks in America for the majority of its history. In fact, that is the loss --the desire to be good citizens-- that he laments now. Hmmm.

Anyway, to answer your general question, I'd refer you to that old saying about what would happen if the "lion wrote history" (i.e., instead of the hunter).

Does the perception of a given category mean that the category exists? As a philosopher, I would say no.

sure it exists. it exists as a perception of a category and a predisposition to behave a certain way toward perceived members of that category.

Right. White people (scientists, maybe starting with Blumenbach, then Linnaeus, then Comte de Gobineau] have all come up with great racial theories. They created Caucasians, homo sapiens europiensis, and Jim Crow. They are the product of a particular imagination, at least the ideas about them. To that extent they are real. However, they are as valid as the categorizations of the Papuan natives of you. So, all I'm saying is that you should not expect "me" to accept your perceptions of the "myself." That might be suicide, for I would probably learn that I was defective or inferior in some way. I doubt that I would learn that I was superior, when even equality has been elusive --in the perceptions of some.

As Colin Powell would say, "Race is your problem, not mine."

the general category is neither the product nor the result of how the members of the category speak, look, or dress.

sure it is... the category is defined over a single property that all members of the extension share - wearing a hat.

Okay, all Caucasians are not white; all Negroes are not African American, or black; therefore .... what they have in common is their categorization. QED.

and that's exactly what i was talking about when i said that "the category" surely had some causal role in socio-economic disparities.

No, the "categorization" can play a causal role in social conditions. I wouldn't say "disparities" without being specific. What special ability do you share with other white people, let alone "all" white people?

(many) white people treat black people in a certain way, based on a categorical belief. (many) black people treat white people in a certain way, based on a categorical belief about white people's categorical beliefs. and vice versa, in all possibly recursed permutations. that's what i meant by a "relational category"

Yeah, but have you ever seen Dave Chappelle's skit about the blind (black) KKK guy? Anyway, yes, if one grows up in this society treated like a black person (i.e., confronted with the perceptions of others who do not want to recognize individuality), then it becomes natural to generalize about all white people (?). If the majority of white people believe stupid shit about black people (and yellow, brown, red and mixed people), then the natural tendency is to believe certain things about white people. My point is that this tendency to lump people together is something we can recognize and overcome. However, it is also natural for humans not to want to recognize it, especially when it comes to exploitation --and that brings us back full circle.

Let me point this last thing out. Africans and many West Indians do way better on standardized tests in the US than white Americans. If it were the category that caused the educational and social problems, this could not be the case. Yet, no matter how many phd's, mds, jds, general, etc., etc., it is always easier to point at rappers and teenage mothers as examples. It's all a diversion, and quite unnecessary. People want everybody to forget about race, but don't forget that it exists --cause it explains a lot.

[affa]

dood! as usual, you've grossly misinterpreted what i said. i can only assume it's your "standard social sciences," anti-foundationalist lenses that are driving you to CATEGORIZE me as a biological-determinist-racist.

a couple of examples:

I wouldn't say "disparities" without being specific.

i was specific. i said socio-economic disparities.

What special ability do you share with other white people, let alone "all" white people?

who the fuck said that? but yeah... i do have a special "ability" i tend to share with white people [in the US]... i was more likely to be born into a family above the poverty line.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/black/ppl-186/tab16.pdf

A person's characterizations or perceptions of black people are that person's perceptions, not things that are inherent to black people.

again, i didn't say that. did you not understand the distinction between "wearing a hat" and "what wearing a hat [IS BELIEVED TO] indicate"?

you need to check your epistemology, cuz your hermeneutics sucks

[affa]

"(many) black people treat white people in a certain way, based on a categorical belief about white people's categorical beliefs. and vice versa, in all possibly recursed permutations. that's what i meant by a 'relational category'"
Some say perception is reality, but the chicken who laid that egg was something much more concrete

definitely. but i didn't intend to say that "perception is reality." rather, perception is the ontological locus of categories. in other words, categories don't exist in the world, but they do exist. they exist in the cognitive tendencies of certain kinds of brains.

by the way michael, we should meet sometime. you ever make it up beijing way?

[Steve James]

in other words, categories don't exist in the world, but they do exist. they exist in the cognitive tendencies of certain kinds of brains.

I think that's what I've been saying. The second point was simply that because more black people are poor doesn't mean that they're poor because they're black.

[affa]

yeah... but what i was trying to hint at is that it's reasonably likely they're poor because people think they're black.

anyway... sorry i took a harsh tone. crappy week.

[Steve James]

yeah... but what i was trying to hint at is that it's reasonably likely they're poor because people think they're black.

anyway... sorry i took a harsh tone. crappy week.

Aw, don't worry about the tone. I understand crappy weeks.

I understand what you're trying to say. I disagree that there is a cause-effect relation between (this paticular) perception and (this particular) reality. Btw, I don't think that having a particular perception means someone is a racist.

I do agree with your statement above in another sense. I don't think that blacks are poorer because of the perception of white people. I agree with Cosby in the sense that some black people --who are poor-- blame their poverty on "the white man." That's silly. It's their "Perception of Themselves" that is holding them back then. Imho. And, what I meant earlier was that I believe a person is a fool if he allows others to define him or his perception of himself.

[affa]

some black people --who are poor-- blame their poverty on "the white man." That's silly. It's their "Perception of Themselves" that is holding them back then.

that's what i was trying to get at with this:

(many) black people treat white people in a certain way, based on a categorical belief about white people's categorical beliefs. and vice versa,

but i still have a hard time understanding why "the category" is not causally responsible. those people who blame their poverty on the WHITE (category) man believe that the white man believes they are inferior, because they are BLACK (category). and this latter belief was indeed historically true, and continues to be rather widespread to this day. so it's not that they fit into the BLACK category [defined by others] that's causal; it's that they believe the category [in the minds of others] has more power than it actually does. If we've defined the ontological reality of categories to be BELIEF, then a belief about a belief [i.e. "their 'Perception of Themselves' that's holding them back"] should still be a CATEGORY... but a "relational" one. in other words, it's not the BLACK category that's causal; its the WHITE'S DEFINED BLACK BELIEVES WHITES BLACK DEFINITION category.

either way. it sucks all around

[Muad'dib]

This is part of a speech, edited, from Bill Cosby in 2004

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeche ... speech.htm

[Michael]

by the way michael, we should meet sometime. you ever make it up beijing way?

Sounds cool. Haven't really been out of Guangdong in the 3.5 years I've been here except a one week trip to Fujian and frequent excursions to Hong Kong. Will have to go eventually. Don't really have the travel bug any more and generally prefer to stay home and maintain good practice habits. Sent you a PM.

[affa]

yeah... my wife and i are quite the homebodies as well. PM ping-ponged [stupid olympics]

[MikeC]

LOL! Walter for the kill.

Yeah, and wasn't there a lawyer somewhere back who said they were gonna ignore my posts from now on?

I guess he couldn't help himself...