Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews. And I really have no idea what to check on forms that don't include a box for "Middle-Eastern."
Yup. Wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone didn't. (I'm Irish/Welsh/German, for statistical purposes.)
Are there any other groups of Caucasians you don't think of as "white"? I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me.
10: That is an odd use of unix-geek praeteriteo. The text is "cummy" but the subtext is "chummy"?
Yeah, that's backwards. I originally wrote "cummy", meaning to type "chummy" but accidentally omitting the "h", and couldn't think of a better way to keep both at once, after having decided that I wanted to.
Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews.
To the extent that this is true, I don't think it takes the form of considering Jews non-white; more of considering them particularly white -- really embodying "the Man".
Interesting if true. Another reason to lament something else I've been considering posting about: I don't think we have a single (other than Cobb, who has commented a few times) African-American commenter.
How would you know? I mean, seriously, sex shows up because people tend to pick gendered handles, and tend to correct misapprehensions. Race doesn't show up until the topic comes up (e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.).
(e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.)
On looking at this, I realize that it may merely indicate that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the jar.
wow, 36 really makes me want to scream at Lerner. "to take off your kippah, cut off your beard, hide your fringes; in other words, to reject your entire cultural and religious humanity." Dear me, maybe some Jews don't consider that to be part of our cultural or religious humanity. Reform Judaism started in Germany, you know.
And it's just a ridiculous spectacle for a Jewish leader playing Misery Poker about how mean people are denying him his right to be oppressed by calling him 'white'. I don't think I'm soft on anti-Semitism, but we're, what, 5x overrepresented in the U.S. Senate?
And then there's all that controlling the world that we do. That's worth something.
jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one.
Well, I think the link in 36 is helpful insofar as it really is an Us/Other distinction, more than anything (this is also at the root of the Italian issue LB brings up, I think).
I was surprised when I figured out Gilliard and Jessegon were black, but only because I blithely assume everybody is 36, white, male, living in NC, and on their second marriage with two sons until I hear otherwise (I managed to figure it out this one on my own). Oliver Willis, on the other hand, has pretty much always had his picture front and center, hasn't he?
"...that's some idiosyncratic usage (Jewish=non-white) you have going there"
The argument has a considerably more invidious history than "idiosyncratic," but I'm quite sure Ogged is unaware of this, or he wouldn't have brought up the topic. I strongly suggest dropping "are Jews white?"" into Google, and perusing just a bit; I have no doubt Ogged had no idea what the history here is.
"I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews."
Um, this is ahistoric if put out there in a vacuum. The next topic for googling might be "Jews" + "civil rights movement" or "black-Jewish relations."
"I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me."
Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.
I can't say this without seeming, and perhaps without being, condescending, I'm afraid, but one might want to look a bit more into the history of "race," and racism in America, and, for instance, the history of both Italian and Irish immigrants. Here is one cut-to-the-chase piece. I commend it to all.
"My penis is circus-sized." Most circuses historically featured lots and lots of midgets, he observed.
I think we're working off several different definitions. I'm not sure that, for example, "white" is equivalent as "Caucasian"; IIRC, Pakistanis and Indians are classified as Caucasian, but I don't know that they'd generally self-identify as such. Relatedly, I believe many Mexicans self-identify as white, but I don't know how many (other?) white folks would accept that classification.
Ogged, it's definitely helpful for setting up the dispute. Didn't mean to criticize you about that. But I also think that we members of the tribe should recognize that if we're going to play Misery Poker in America with black people, we lose.
on the whole, not that interesting in that race itself is blurry. If you want to define jewish people as non-white, fine, depending on the purpose. But what is gained or lost?
Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.
I knew there were historical issues, but I've had the impression they were obsolete on the level of Irish not being considered white. Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades.
Gary, I'll damn myself by saying I do know about some of that history. I was thinking of the Irish and Italians when I wrote 45. And I do know that white supremacists insist that Jews aren't white, but I think we can have a discussion here without worrying about what they think.
"jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one."
For your next trick, if you like (which you probably won't), explain how to distinguish "white" people from "non-white people," scientifically, and the good reasons for embarking on such "distinctions."
Gary, I think "would be allowed to drink from white-only fountains, admitted to white-only country clubs," etc. etc. is not a bad way of drawing the distinction. It's of no scientific value, but a lot of value for understanding what goes on in the U.S. And Jews are definitely white by that criterion. (White Christian-only country clubs are a different matter.)
GF -- exactly. see later posts. But so long as we are talking about the way people actually use language, "jewish" is not a racial distinction in the way that "black" is.
Ok, I'm slightly annoyed. We don't really have to defend ourselves from accusations of latent racism, do we? This is starting to look like the sexism crap all over again.
The question, for those who've lost the thread, was: are white guys (generally speaking) bad parents because they can always fall back on bacon, or have they horded the bacon because they're bad parents?
We've gone around on this before (at Obsidian Wings). What bothers me about the 'radical colorblindness' argument you were making (my apologies for naming your position -- please reject the label and substitute whatever you think better sums it up) is that deciding that I'm not going to acknowledge racial categories is easy for me -- I'm, visually, pretty damn white, as in in-two-years-in-the-South-Pacific-I-couldn't-get-a-tan white. Race doesn't impinge itself on me at all unless I make an effort to pay attention. To the extent that my race affects how people treat me, it probalbly mostly imperceptibly smooths my path.
On the other hand, if you're black, or latino, or asian, race is a salient fact in your life -- it makes a real difference how people treat you, what strategies you need to adopt, etc. What I worry about is that, if all the non-racist-white-folks decide that we're going to be color-blind, and pretend that race isn't a socially important factor, then we end up simply blindly accepting white privilege, and not noticing that there's still racial oppression going on.
I think the way ogged is using white is pretty clear here, Gary - he seems to be referencing the undifferentiated muddle that is the median culture. That's a pretty well-understoo colloquial meaning.
Ditto LB's 69: pointing out the poverty of "race" as a scientific category is helpful only in the context of a project of confronting race as a social category.
re(73): ogged grumpy. I meant that between the time I started writing a scant sentence and the time I posted said sentence, several comments had elapsed.
"Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."
I'll ante into Misery Poker with the note that a lot of folks have the privilege of thinking that, say, a hundred years, or two hundred years, or more, is such a fantastically long time ago that it is now largely irrelevant, and that a lot of folks don't.
It's altogether impossible to understand common concerns of, dare I say, most Jews or "blacks" (and other ethnic groups, as well) in America without the sort of history many of us are either brought up soaked in, or find reason to do some soaking in when growing up, which most other folks are only fleetingly aware of; this tends to produce radically, if sometimes subtly (and sometimes not) different perceptions of contemporary political and social events/trends, it's been my observation all my life (but hardly mine alone).
For instance, most non-Jewish Americans (and folks in other countries) tend to think primarily of the Holocaust as being primarily responsible, in essence, for Jewish fear and paranoia, whereas in actually, if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality; it's the full context of the history of anti-Semitism, the history of at least the last three thousand/four thousand years, that does the job.
But most Americans don't, for some reason, tend to think of Babylon, say, or 1492, or the blood libel (quick, how familiar are you with its history?) as having "a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."
Yet it very very very very very very much does. Just for starters. For instance.
70 -- don't get the reference. Frankly, if you say something stupid that can be misinterpreted, you can expect people to question you on it. I'm not sure what conversation you expected the comment to engender; this one is more interesting, my guess.
if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality
Isn't this just false? Isn't it quite well-noted that many Jews in Germany were quite complacent because they believed that they were fully assimilated?
You know, I can sing you a ballad about Little St. Hugh of Lincoln, and I know that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. That still doesn't change my impression that Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice.
LB, who is, or ever has, in blog thread discussions, argued in favor of that?
I recognize that you don't argue in favor of this -- I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?) is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category.
Ogged -- well taken. I should develop thicker skin.
GF -- as I explained, it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one. When we talk about race, we aren't talking about things like whether or not someone is jewish. Perhaps you would like to change that. But for the very reason that there isn't an adequate scientific basis for racial distinctions at all, I question any reason for doing so.
It's observable that my point may not be falsifiable, since it's arguably dependent upon mass mind-reading; I have no social study on the topic to cite. So if you want to disbelieve me, I am unlikely to be able to refute you in an inarguable fashion. I'm not sure that's the reaction that will lead to the best perspective, wisdom, and knowledge, on the issue, though. (Fair question, of course.) I kinda think if you read enough histories of anti-Semitism, though, or talked about it with enough Jews, you wouldn't be asking. But I could be wrong (on what you'd ask).
the reason racial distinctions are at all important is that we have treated them as such for thousands of years, with no adequate scientific reason for doing so. But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had. So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language.
This book is actually pretty good, but its title really should be "How the Irish in Pre-Civil War Philadelphia Followed Their Economic Interests And Joined the Democratic Party Rather than the Republican Party"
Gary, I'm aware of the history of anti-semitism, but I think your sentence that I quoted was hyperbolic, for the reason I gave. Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?
I have to say, every Jewish-American I've ever discussed this with has always told me that one of the things to be learned from Holocaust is that you should not trust that you can be more American than Jewish; that was the mistake the German Jews made.
Based on my prior conversation with Gary at ObWi, I'm pretty sure that he's got what he considers to be a point important enough to be contentious about, and I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Basically, we agreed on the biggies:
(1) Racial prejudice is a bad thing.
(2) Race is a biologically/scientifically incoherent concept.
(3) Nonetheless, "race" as socially conceived of is still an important social factor.
And then I couldn't quite figure out what we were disagreeing about, except that Gary disapproved of my usage of words naming racial groups. (Gary -- all the respect in the world, I just don't follow you on this.)
When I read ogged's post I expected the comments would turn into a warm bath of harmless philosemitism, and possibly relate the quality which makes Jewish men good dads with the qualities that make Jewish women* irrisistable to Malcolm Gladwell.
Instead, Italians are being lynched in the comments. How did it ever come to this?
"Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice."
Probably not-so-much, but lacking Italian-Americanss in my pocket, I couldn't really say.
"I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?)"
I hope you will forgive me that I'm uninterested in trying.
"...is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category."
I'm afraid I completely don't see why. The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.
I'm not arguing for "colorblindness," in the plain sense of the word (although the plain sense of discussing the "color" of people as distinguishing them by "race" is as connected to reality as discussing the problems involved in landing Apollo 11 on that huge hunk of cheese), nor in many common usages of that term (a term which I don't recall ever using in any context, incidentally). I'm arguing that most people in today's American society commonly think of people as "white" or "black," and that these are "two races," and that this is nonsense. There is no rational basis in fact for asserting that there are "two" "races" or five, or seven, or twelve. Passing familiarity with the history of "race" and racism puts this almost (but not quite) beyond dispute. Genetic clusterings are not "races," any more than "tall people" or "short people" or "thin people" or "red-haired people" or "pimply people" constitute a separate "race" from those who aren't in those categories. If, say, the theory that fat people were a "race" became a commonly accepted "scientific" theory in society, and fat people were, say, enslaved, that would create a social reality, but, you know, they still wouldn't actually be scientifically distinguishable as a "race," no matter how commonly people thought they were.
But freeing the fat people might still actually be worthwhile, anyway.
I am reminded of the SNL skit in which there was an attempt at conciliation between some rabbis and some rappers over some anti-semitic comments (it had to be the "got me on a cross like Jesus" thing). IIRC, the end result was a new song: The Italians Did It! The Italians Did It!
The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.
Okay, but Gary, I think everyone commenting here agrees with you about the pseudo-science. To the extent anyone doesn't you should smack them around, and I'll help. The conversation has been about race as socially constructed category, not biology. What are you disagreeing with?
(And ogged -- that's the thread I was thinking of. Why do I always remember comment thread debates as more coherent than they turn out to be in retrospect?)
Next let's dissect the patriarchy, and maybe after that we can talk about the oppression of the working class and whose pappy grew up the poorest. After that, let's rehash people's attitudes about Southerners and Yankees, and then I'd like to see if we can't work up to a discussion of whether gay people are an evolutionary dead end.
"But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had."
Obviously (although apparently not; what I don't get is why this is so frequently brought up when more or less no one but a stone (if perhaps completely unconscious) racist, or someone quite unfamiliar with our culture, would argue otherwise).
"So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language."
I wouldn't say it's "silly." I'd say it's not a "racial" distinction. It's, obviously, a pseudo-"racial" distinction; it's a social distinction. That people have them confused is the point. That people shouldn't have them confused, and we're never going to get very far if people aren't unconfused first, is the point. One has a lot of trouble discussing an issue if one uses language that accepts, you know, false things. It would be like, say, before discussing the validity of evolution, accepting the term "anti-God" as the common, acceptable, term for believing in evolution. Having to say, for instance, "we anti-Godists maintain that evolution is actully punctuated" would not actually contribute to rational discussion of evolution. Accepting false terms because they're currently socially common is never helpful to rational discussion.
"Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?"
Plenty of German Jews were complacent, yes, but plenty weren't. Notice also that I live in America, not Israel.
Contentious? Moi? How out of character!
:-)
But, yes, I think dealing with this is a terribly important point: "...it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one." It damages discourse when language doesn't map reality. That's the important point (though hardly the only important point, of course; just an important point).
I've tried a number of phrasings, but if I'm unable to communicate this point, LB, put it down to my poor communication skills, perhaps. On my part, I, as I've said, don't have a clue why discussing the science of a subject, and the social realities of it, are "incompatible" in the slightest.
"Maybe this blog would be better without comments."
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. I recommend gruntling.
"What are you disagreeing with....?" I don't know: what am I disagreeing with? I suggested, in 51, that it's helpful to have some familiarity with the history of the "are Jews/Italians/Irish 'white'? question" as more than useful to discussing the "question." Although I acknowledged the flammatory nature of the subject, I didn't, you know, introduce the topic, or somehow swerve, through my mighty powers of rhetoric, discussion away from some other topic. If I've said anything offensive to anyone, please feel free to point it out to me.
Okay, I think I finally get your point enough to disagree with you. 'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin." "Races" exist -- they are socially created categories. To the extent that someone says that "races" provide a biologically meaningful way of dividing up the human species, I can respond: "No, you're factually in error as to what races are. They're social, rather than biological, groupings."
What I now understand you to be saying is that to reject the idea that 'race' is a word that truly refers to biologically distinct groups of people, I have to stop using the word 'race' to refer to the social groups that exist and that were previously thought to be biologically distinct. Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns -- and I don't see that it has much of a use in clarifying people's thinking.
Fair enough summary, LB. The thing is that when you say "'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin,"" while I don't, of course, contend that that is what it means to you (or to many other folk) is that not only is that not what many other folks mean by it, it's a completely ahistoric usage. I don't know how to over-state that point. To use it that way is to effectively linguistically deny how these concepts were invented and how they were used, because the entire history of "race" and the terminology of it was claiming it was science. Right up through Ashley Montagu, et al. We wouldn't have any "race" problems if not for the invention of the "science" of "race," and the subsequent events the belief in this false "science" led to. So to continue to use terminology that is contiguous with this history is to continue to mask the assumptions many people continue to have that there is still some scientific basis for eyeballing people and thinking of them as belong to one "race" or another. The inevitable result of people continuing to think that way is that they continue to perpetuate, well, a false idea.
If I believed for one second that most people who give no thought before thinking "oh, he's 'black,' she's 'white" were simply thinking "oh, he's someone who has probably been lumped into a social category with a history of oppression," I'd see no problem whatever. I simply don't see much evidence that that's the case with the majority of folks. Instead what I typically see is that most people seem to think that "racism is a bad thing, which is why I shall treat that person of another 'race' as equally as I possibly can," while continuing to assume that there is an actual "valid" way to "racially" categorize" everyone. And the typical response for an awful lot of people if this issue is brought up is that they get very very upset and defensive, because, after all, belief in biological race isn't racist. If I had a penny for every time I've gone through that discussion with someone....
As I said, if most people were thinking what you say above, no problem, no harm, no foul. But where's the evidence that that's what they're thinking?
Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence; like text said, I don't think anyone here disagrees, so it seems needlessly didactic to rehearse it all. In any case, now it's done...
Incidentally: "Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns...."
A not unfair POV, but plenty of people thought plenty of things weren't historically practical, whether it was ending slavery or ending racism. The first endeavor is still ongoing in the world (and in tiny ways, in this country, if we count imported illegals in some circumstances) and the second is still ongoing everywhere. My point about people continuing to use the same racist terms as in the past, just fewer of them (that it's still acceptable to categorize people as "white/black/other" rather than to carefully, for instance, characterize people as "octaroon," quadroon, etc.) is that they're still using language in a way that doesn't map reality. It's as if we still insisted on referring to fire as "phlogiston," or "here on our flat earth," even though some of us knew better. It's just hard to think correctly using language that continues to make distinctions that don't exist.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I noted that I found the basics of General Semantics and Korzybski sensible at a very early age. (And got an "A+" from my wizened professor when I took a senior-level seminar in it at the age of 16 before I dropped out of college.) So now you can throw the term "pseudo-science" at me, if you like. :-)
"Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence;"
I'm not at all clear what you're "sure" is agreeing with, Ogged, but assuming the "this" refers to the whole language point, I didn't bring it up until 62, in response to "text." And wouldn't have said anything more except that LB brought it up, and I responded to her puzzlement.
Regarding Gilliard's post, and this: "...Rabb said Zuniga 'looked at me like I was crazy. He had no interest in the world to help me. He never extended himself; that speaks volumes.'"
I'd just like to say that Kos has never lifted a finger to help me, or blogroll me, either. And neither has Atrios!
They listen to them, reason with them, and generally treat them like human beings.
You have clearly never met my second husband.
WASPs don't treat their sons like robots; they ignore them whilst the lads are off at boarding school, then get them into Harvard or Yale, a couple of clubs and the right tailor. Noticing them as small children would be perilously close to acknowledging the mechanics of fatherhood and we wouldn't want to talk about that, would we??
Erm -- you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed. It's the kind of thing which tends to make people believe that you disagree with them with a certain amount of vehemence.
"Insistent" was a poor choice, I apologize. I read your comments in this thread as intended to instruct the ignorant, and I didn't think people were all that ignorant. Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me.
"...you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed."
And:
"Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me."
Ah. Fair enough. I'll resist the slight urge to respond defensively or in detail on that, and just accept the criticism. (Save that I did think, perhaps wrongly, that I was fairly low-key in 51.)
"It's one of those tone-not-coming-across-well-in-casual-writing things...."
Alas, that on a blog, no one can see how much my eyes are truly bulging out of my head, as, in my maddened state, I wave my torch. But the crowd of peasants behind me: they see!
I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story.
Come to think of it, I think two of those guys were Unf and Magik Johnson.
Well, it's been instructive watching this Very Special Episode of Dawson's Creek, but can we get back to the issue at hand? How do we identify the Jews?
Say what you will about race being a social construct, all I know is those CMH haplotype positive guys sure are good with money!
SCMT -- that is one of the best SNL skits of all time!
For two thousand years we've heard the news
That Christ was killed by the Jews
But now we're hear to tell the real truths... The Italians did it!
Ogged, the asterix was when I was thinking I should really make my parallelism between Jewish men and Jewish girls with the express purpose of provoking an angry discussion of sexism. Then I realized that would be wrong.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. After about a minute of waiting for further comments, I was scratching at my screen while shrieking, "Please don't let that be the last comment! Please don't let that be the last comment!"
My step-father is Jewish and I was traumatized by the introduction of his open, sharing parenting style into my home. Before his arrival on the scene, I was raised to keep up appearances at all times, never complain, address issues only indirectly, and hold grudges. I wanted no truck with this "healthy" crap.
"I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story."
Wouldn't you have had to, you know, asked three times (or at least twice), not once?
On the "original topic," it's a good thing Jewish dads are so great; that must be why we have no examples of Jews writing about their crap family environments/history or their resulting neuroses. Good to know.
In my experience Jewish people rush to tell you they're Jewish, and ascribe perfectly normal crazy things to specifically Jewish categories, like having overly protective mothers or having very physical touchy-feely families.
This is probably because I offer all my new acquaintances a greasy side of bacon* when I first meet them, but I offer my anecdote all the same.
*Also Muslims are keen to share knowledge of their religion with me!+
+These anecdotes may be totally made up. At least the side-of-bacon part.
Is it just me, or did you just derive a judgment? Try that shit again, I dare you. I have your inferential faculties bound up in studded leather straps, bitch, so how about you show some respect?
I had THE WORST intro logic class. (I had a much better intermediate logic class.) For two years—the year I took it, and the year after—it was taught, not by Ted Cohen, who used a textbook by Quine, had the class meet at either 8 or 7am, three times a week, used at least half the time for telling jokes, and under whose leadership it was reputed to be the hardest undergraduate course offered at Chicago, but rather by someone else, and it blew. Blew, blew, blew.
First it's bridge using "bitch" as an insult, then Wolfson using "blew" as a pejorative; what's with you logic people? "Blew donkeys" is still acceptable.
My logic course (the only one I took, it was neither the lowest nor highest level available, but didn't require logic pre-reqs, so I'm not sure if I should call it intermediate or beginner) was taught by this guy using this book, except that mine has a different colored cover. Both the prof and the book are recommended.
Ugh, I indulge in some rhetorical aggression and out pops the sexist language. I suppose it's no excuse that I was channeling Allyson Hannigan in American Pie.
Re 149 and others: If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.
If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.
Not to mention Greek articles!
What's funny about Ted Cohen is that he isn't that funny.
I think he's funny, as long as you only hear the same jokes a certain number of times. (Whether he's as funny as he or this guy seem to think he is, is another question.)
The interesting thing about Italian Americans is that they have higher drop out rates than other Euro/Caucasion/Ethnic non racial socially/historically constructed (hedging as much as possible in picking typology of folks to avoid trouble with Gary) groups of people. If I recall correctly there are other social indicators that don't scan so highly for this group as well. Is it a function of assimilation? i.e. these were the last white people off the boat? Is it a function of culture? (I'd blame Goodfellas). Or is it something to do with pancetta?
Confluence. Just got off the phone with the ex, whose WASP mom married her Jewish dad, as you'll recall. Ex says that her WASP grandmother said to Ex's mom, "I know why you want to marry him. I've heard that the Orientals are good lovers."
I thought we agreed that there is no scientific basis for the so-called flaccid penis length. That we speak of a "flaccid length" is a pernicious linguistic artifact that hinders rational penismetrics.
I like Alyson Hannigan even better than this "Allyson Hannigan" you guys know. (I would have liked to have seen her in "When Harry Met Sally" in London; although only prurient types would check out these pictures.)
How can you be sure you're not classing some Jewish guys as white guys? Some of us look just like anyone you might meet on the street, you know.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:09 PM
This is not my method, but in the locker room, it's not such a tough call.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:13 PM
In America it's not uncommon for goyim to be circumsized.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:15 PM
Indeed, which is why I rely on the time-tested "looks Jewish" method.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
listen to them, reason with them, and generally treat them like human beings
Why is this good? I note that a robotic society is an efficient society, a productive society.
And I note that Ben's comment (#3) makes ogged's comment (#2) a TMI situation.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
Some Jews eat bacon, too!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:17 PM
Yup, that's some idiosyncratic usage (Jewish=non-white) you have going there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:18 PM
Some Jews eat bacon, too!
And their children are the true chosen ones.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:19 PM
Tim, I don't understand why you needed 3 to make 2 TMI. What did you think I meant?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:20 PM
Ch^Hummy locker-room conversation, of course.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:21 PM
OK, fine, I didn't need #3. Mea culpa, B-Ogg.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:23 PM
Do other people think of "white people" as including Jews?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:32 PM
When I'm asked what I am on forms 'n' whatnot, there's no option for "Caucasian but Jewish so not really".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:33 PM
I get the feeling that black people do.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:33 PM
10: That is an odd use of unix-geek praeteriteo. The text is "cummy" but the subtext is "chummy"?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:36 PM
I treat my unruly robots like they were my children. However, *I* get the last slice of bacon or else.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:37 PM
Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews. And I really have no idea what to check on forms that don't include a box for "Middle-Eastern."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:37 PM
Yup. Wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone didn't. (I'm Irish/Welsh/German, for statistical purposes.)
Are there any other groups of Caucasians you don't think of as "white"? I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:38 PM
circumsized.
I've never previously seen this word spelled with a z. My penis is circus-sized.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:38 PM
10: That is an odd use of unix-geek praeteriteo. The text is "cummy" but the subtext is "chummy"?
Yeah, that's backwards. I originally wrote "cummy", meaning to type "chummy" but accidentally omitting the "h", and couldn't think of a better way to keep both at once, after having decided that I wanted to.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:39 PM
ARG. Circumcised. I suck.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:39 PM
apostropher reclaims the crown, with my apologies. (You had been scarce lately.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:40 PM
Work has been busy busy busy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:41 PM
LB, *you're* white. Everyone else has to fight for it.
Seriously, Iranians and Jews are the ones that come to mind right now that I think of as separate but Caucasian.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:41 PM
Chris Rock: "Black people hate white people—we ain't got time to dice y'all into little groups."
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:42 PM
I was also thrown by a contrast being drawn between jews and white people. Used to seeing one between jews and gentiles.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:42 PM
Hmm. I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews.
To the extent that this is true, I don't think it takes the form of considering Jews non-white; more of considering them particularly white -- really embodying "the Man".
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:43 PM
I agree it's unusual. But we all know that Jews are Chinese.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:44 PM
There is that Kosher Chinese place in Brookline, no?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:46 PM
And the traditional Jewish Christmas dinner.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:46 PM
really embodying "the Man".
Interesting if true. Another reason to lament something else I've been considering posting about: I don't think we have a single (other than Cobb, who has commented a few times) African-American commenter.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:47 PM
I don't think I read a single African American blog.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:49 PM
Odd, no? Cobb is the only one on our blogroll.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:49 PM
Hard to tell about that, though. (And I think 17 was a touch broad-brush.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
How would you know? I mean, seriously, sex shows up because people tend to pick gendered handles, and tend to correct misapprehensions. Race doesn't show up until the topic comes up (e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.).
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
The first paragraph here brings up the central issue of Jewish "whiteness." (Haven't read beyond that.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:50 PM
Oh, boy. "Where are all the black bloggers?" in 5... 4... 3...
Should go check Pandagon now.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:51 PM
No, Matt, I don't think anyone wonders that; people recognize that they exist.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:52 PM
Jesse's black? I've even seen his picture.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:53 PM
(e.g., I was reading each of Oliver Willis, Jesse whatever-his-last-name-is from Pandagon, and Steve Gilliard regularly for months before I figured out each of them was black.)
On looking at this, I realize that it may merely indicate that I'm not the sharpest pencil in the jar.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:54 PM
wow, 36 really makes me want to scream at Lerner. "to take off your kippah, cut off your beard, hide your fringes; in other words, to reject your entire cultural and religious humanity." Dear me, maybe some Jews don't consider that to be part of our cultural or religious humanity. Reform Judaism started in Germany, you know.
And it's just a ridiculous spectacle for a Jewish leader playing Misery Poker about how mean people are denying him his right to be oppressed by calling him 'white'. I don't think I'm soft on anti-Semitism, but we're, what, 5x overrepresented in the U.S. Senate?
And then there's all that controlling the world that we do. That's worth something.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:54 PM
How would you know?
No one objected when I said I didn't like big butts.
No? Maybe you're right; I assume it would have come up, but that's probably not the case.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:55 PM
jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:55 PM
Well, I think the link in 36 is helpful insofar as it really is an Us/Other distinction, more than anything (this is also at the root of the Italian issue LB brings up, I think).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:57 PM
Oh, and of course Us/Other distinctions are fluid and contingent.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:57 PM
No one objected when I said I didn't like big butts.
Didn't FL?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
I got mad hits like I was Rod Carew. sweet, lovely, sonorous words.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
I was surprised when I figured out Gilliard and Jessegon were black, but only because I blithely assume everybody is 36, white, male, living in NC, and on their second marriage with two sons until I hear otherwise (I managed to figure it out this one on my own). Oliver Willis, on the other hand, has pretty much always had his picture front and center, hasn't he?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:58 PM
Didn't FL?
By quoting a black man, as I recall.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:59 PM
It's an us-other distinction based on religion and culture, not on race.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 2:59 PM
"...that's some idiosyncratic usage (Jewish=non-white) you have going there"
The argument has a considerably more invidious history than "idiosyncratic," but I'm quite sure Ogged is unaware of this, or he wouldn't have brought up the topic. I strongly suggest dropping "are Jews white?"" into Google, and perusing just a bit; I have no doubt Ogged had no idea what the history here is.
"I thought black people had a little bit extra dislike for Jews."
Um, this is ahistoric if put out there in a vacuum. The next topic for googling might be "Jews" + "civil rights movement" or "black-Jewish relations."
"I've heard that some Italians don't self-identify as white. but it always sounded silly to me."
Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.
I can't say this without seeming, and perhaps without being, condescending, I'm afraid, but one might want to look a bit more into the history of "race," and racism in America, and, for instance, the history of both Italian and Irish immigrants. Here is one cut-to-the-chase piece. I commend it to all.
"My penis is circus-sized." Most circuses historically featured lots and lots of midgets, he observed.
(Anyone left for me to piss off?)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:00 PM
I think we're working off several different definitions. I'm not sure that, for example, "white" is equivalent as "Caucasian"; IIRC, Pakistanis and Indians are classified as Caucasian, but I don't know that they'd generally self-identify as such. Relatedly, I believe many Mexicans self-identify as white, but I don't know how many (other?) white folks would accept that classification.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:00 PM
Ogged, it's definitely helpful for setting up the dispute. Didn't mean to criticize you about that. But I also think that we members of the tribe should recognize that if we're going to play Misery Poker in America with black people, we lose.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:01 PM
on the whole, not that interesting in that race itself is blurry. If you want to define jewish people as non-white, fine, depending on the purpose. But what is gained or lost?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:01 PM
"There is that Kosher Chinese place in Brookline, no?"
Is there something special in Brookline that's different from the thousands of other kosher Chinese restaurants in America?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:03 PM
Following on Gary, from what I hear this book is germane and interesting.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:03 PM
Well, I suspect you're not familiar with Rollins v. Alabama. Or that Italian-Americans have been lynched for not being "white." "Silly" isn't quite the best term.
I knew there were historical issues, but I've had the impression they were obsolete on the level of Irish not being considered white. Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
Does Misery Poker require that one be hobbled? Because I think that would be a good reason to sit out the game.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
did not read 51 before posting -- yes, where invidious purposes, much can be lost.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:04 PM
Gary, I'll damn myself by saying I do know about some of that history. I was thinking of the Irish and Italians when I wrote 45. And I do know that white supremacists insist that Jews aren't white, but I think we can have a discussion here without worrying about what they think.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:05 PM
Is there something special in Brookline
Yes, baa (or close to, anyway).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:06 PM
"jews are white (except for Rod Carew, etc. -- should say). anglo-saxons aren't the only white folk. It's an ethnic/religious distinction, not a racial one."
For your next trick, if you like (which you probably won't), explain how to distinguish "white" people from "non-white people," scientifically, and the good reasons for embarking on such "distinctions."
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:09 PM
White men can't jump, Gary (except for that high-jumping Swede).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:11 PM
Gary, I think "would be allowed to drink from white-only fountains, admitted to white-only country clubs," etc. etc. is not a bad way of drawing the distinction. It's of no scientific value, but a lot of value for understanding what goes on in the U.S. And Jews are definitely white by that criterion. (White Christian-only country clubs are a different matter.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:13 PM
GF -- exactly. see later posts. But so long as we are talking about the way people actually use language, "jewish" is not a racial distinction in the way that "black" is.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:13 PM
Ok, I'm slightly annoyed. We don't really have to defend ourselves from accusations of latent racism, do we? This is starting to look like the sexism crap all over again.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:17 PM
I'm not accusing you of latent racism, ogged, but overt racism, and sexism too. You bastard.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
The question, for those who've lost the thread, was: are white guys (generally speaking) bad parents because they can always fall back on bacon, or have they horded the bacon because they're bad parents?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
Gary-
We've gone around on this before (at Obsidian Wings). What bothers me about the 'radical colorblindness' argument you were making (my apologies for naming your position -- please reject the label and substitute whatever you think better sums it up) is that deciding that I'm not going to acknowledge racial categories is easy for me -- I'm, visually, pretty damn white, as in in-two-years-in-the-South-Pacific-I-couldn't-get-a-tan white. Race doesn't impinge itself on me at all unless I make an effort to pay attention. To the extent that my race affects how people treat me, it probalbly mostly imperceptibly smooths my path.
On the other hand, if you're black, or latino, or asian, race is a salient fact in your life -- it makes a real difference how people treat you, what strategies you need to adopt, etc. What I worry about is that, if all the non-racist-white-folks decide that we're going to be color-blind, and pretend that race isn't a socially important factor, then we end up simply blindly accepting white privilege, and not noticing that there's still racial oppression going on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:19 PM
Text, your eagerness to chase low-hanging fruit has always struck me as having a distinctily North African cast, and that's no compliment buddy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:20 PM
I think the way ogged is using white is pretty clear here, Gary - he seems to be referencing the undifferentiated muddle that is the median culture. That's a pretty well-understoo colloquial meaning.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:21 PM
Jeebus. I so can't keep up with the speed of this conversation.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:22 PM
See 68 for remedial assistance.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:23 PM
Ditto LB's 69: pointing out the poverty of "race" as a scientific category is helpful only in the context of a project of confronting race as a social category.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:25 PM
re(73): ogged grumpy. I meant that between the time I started writing a scant sentence and the time I posted said sentence, several comments had elapsed.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:25 PM
"Slightly more recent, but without a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."
I'll ante into Misery Poker with the note that a lot of folks have the privilege of thinking that, say, a hundred years, or two hundred years, or more, is such a fantastically long time ago that it is now largely irrelevant, and that a lot of folks don't.
It's altogether impossible to understand common concerns of, dare I say, most Jews or "blacks" (and other ethnic groups, as well) in America without the sort of history many of us are either brought up soaked in, or find reason to do some soaking in when growing up, which most other folks are only fleetingly aware of; this tends to produce radically, if sometimes subtly (and sometimes not) different perceptions of contemporary political and social events/trends, it's been my observation all my life (but hardly mine alone).
For instance, most non-Jewish Americans (and folks in other countries) tend to think primarily of the Holocaust as being primarily responsible, in essence, for Jewish fear and paranoia, whereas in actually, if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality; it's the full context of the history of anti-Semitism, the history of at least the last three thousand/four thousand years, that does the job.
But most Americans don't, for some reason, tend to think of Babylon, say, or 1492, or the blood libel (quick, how familiar are you with its history?) as having "a lot of resonance in the last four or five decades."
Yet it very very very very very very much does. Just for starters. For instance.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:26 PM
70 -- don't get the reference. Frankly, if you say something stupid that can be misinterpreted, you can expect people to question you on it. I'm not sure what conversation you expected the comment to engender; this one is more interesting, my guess.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:29 PM
if the 1940s were somehow deleted from history, it would make only, if at all, the faintest possible difference in the typical Jewish mentality
Isn't this just false? Isn't it quite well-noted that many Jews in Germany were quite complacent because they believed that they were fully assimilated?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:29 PM
Text, it was completely a joke. Sorry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:30 PM
"'...jewish' is not a racial distinction in the way that "black" is."
As I invited, feel free to explain the basis in science for this.
"...pretend that race isn't a socially important factor...."
LB, who is, or ever has, in blog thread discussions, argued in favor of that?
"The question, for those who've lost the thread, was...."
Good try, but, alas, people tend to comment as they wish, not as the poster of a blog entry wishes they would.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:31 PM
You know, I can sing you a ballad about Little St. Hugh of Lincoln, and I know that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. That still doesn't change my impression that Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:31 PM
LB, who is, or ever has, in blog thread discussions, argued in favor of that?
I recognize that you don't argue in favor of this -- I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?) is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:34 PM
Ogged -- well taken. I should develop thicker skin.
GF -- as I explained, it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one. When we talk about race, we aren't talking about things like whether or not someone is jewish. Perhaps you would like to change that. But for the very reason that there isn't an adequate scientific basis for racial distinctions at all, I question any reason for doing so.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:34 PM
"Isn't this just false?"
It's observable that my point may not be falsifiable, since it's arguably dependent upon mass mind-reading; I have no social study on the topic to cite. So if you want to disbelieve me, I am unlikely to be able to refute you in an inarguable fashion. I'm not sure that's the reaction that will lead to the best perspective, wisdom, and knowledge, on the issue, though. (Fair question, of course.) I kinda think if you read enough histories of anti-Semitism, though, or talked about it with enough Jews, you wouldn't be asking. But I could be wrong (on what you'd ask).
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:36 PM
the reason racial distinctions are at all important is that we have treated them as such for thousands of years, with no adequate scientific reason for doing so. But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had. So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:36 PM
I feel like we're being contentious for the sake of it, and all pretty much agree on this. So ends the era of good feelings.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
This book is actually pretty good, but its title really should be "How the Irish in Pre-Civil War Philadelphia Followed Their Economic Interests And Joined the Democratic Party Rather than the Republican Party"
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
Gary, I'm aware of the history of anti-semitism, but I think your sentence that I quoted was hyperbolic, for the reason I gave. Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:38 PM
and all pretty much agree on this
Precisely why I'm annoyed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:39 PM
LB, is this the thread?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:41 PM
I have to say, every Jewish-American I've ever discussed this with has always told me that one of the things to be learned from Holocaust is that you should not trust that you can be more American than Jewish; that was the mistake the German Jews made.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:43 PM
Based on my prior conversation with Gary at ObWi, I'm pretty sure that he's got what he considers to be a point important enough to be contentious about, and I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Basically, we agreed on the biggies:
(1) Racial prejudice is a bad thing.
(2) Race is a biologically/scientifically incoherent concept.
(3) Nonetheless, "race" as socially conceived of is still an important social factor.
And then I couldn't quite figure out what we were disagreeing about, except that Gary disapproved of my usage of words naming racial groups. (Gary -- all the respect in the world, I just don't follow you on this.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:43 PM
When I read ogged's post I expected the comments would turn into a warm bath of harmless philosemitism, and possibly relate the quality which makes Jewish men good dads with the qualities that make Jewish women* irrisistable to Malcolm Gladwell.
Instead, Italians are being lynched in the comments. How did it ever come to this?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:45 PM
"Americans of Italian origin, in the present, (a) don't tend to have direct experience of racial prejudice aimed at them as non-white and (b) don't tend to have a lot of historic consciousness of such prejudice."
Probably not-so-much, but lacking Italian-Americanss in my pocket, I couldn't really say.
"I just can't figure out how the sort of colorblindness you seemed to be advocating in that ObWi thread (which I couldn't locate -- can you?)"
I hope you will forgive me that I'm uninterested in trying.
"...is compatible with recognizing that race is still a socially salient category."
I'm afraid I completely don't see why. The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.
I'm not arguing for "colorblindness," in the plain sense of the word (although the plain sense of discussing the "color" of people as distinguishing them by "race" is as connected to reality as discussing the problems involved in landing Apollo 11 on that huge hunk of cheese), nor in many common usages of that term (a term which I don't recall ever using in any context, incidentally). I'm arguing that most people in today's American society commonly think of people as "white" or "black," and that these are "two races," and that this is nonsense. There is no rational basis in fact for asserting that there are "two" "races" or five, or seven, or twelve. Passing familiarity with the history of "race" and racism puts this almost (but not quite) beyond dispute. Genetic clusterings are not "races," any more than "tall people" or "short people" or "thin people" or "red-haired people" or "pimply people" constitute a separate "race" from those who aren't in those categories. If, say, the theory that fat people were a "race" became a commonly accepted "scientific" theory in society, and fat people were, say, enslaved, that would create a social reality, but, you know, they still wouldn't actually be scientifically distinguishable as a "race," no matter how commonly people thought they were.
But freeing the fat people might still actually be worthwhile, anyway.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:47 PM
I expected the comments would turn into a warm bath of harmless philosemitism
Indeed. Maybe this blog would be better without comments.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:49 PM
baa -
I am reminded of the SNL skit in which there was an attempt at conciliation between some rabbis and some rappers over some anti-semitic comments (it had to be the "got me on a cross like Jesus" thing). IIRC, the end result was a new song: The Italians Did It! The Italians Did It!
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:49 PM
Are you coming back to that asterisk, baa?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:54 PM
The fact that a social reality has no scientific basis isn't in the least incompatible with discussing, confronting, and dealing with the social reality, although I do see it as utterly necessary to confront the history of the social reality, which is inextricable from the history of the pseudo-science, to be able to successfully confront the problems of the social reality.
Okay, but Gary, I think everyone commenting here agrees with you about the pseudo-science. To the extent anyone doesn't you should smack them around, and I'll help. The conversation has been about race as socially constructed category, not biology. What are you disagreeing with?
(And ogged -- that's the thread I was thinking of. Why do I always remember comment thread debates as more coherent than they turn out to be in retrospect?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:54 PM
Oh good! Let's talk about race!
Next let's dissect the patriarchy, and maybe after that we can talk about the oppression of the working class and whose pappy grew up the poorest. After that, let's rehash people's attitudes about Southerners and Yankees, and then I'd like to see if we can't work up to a discussion of whether gay people are an evolutionary dead end.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:57 PM
Why do I always remember comment thread debates as more coherent than they turn out to be in retrospect?
It's your orderly mind, LB. Not a bad thing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:57 PM
If my mind is orderly, it's clearly sucked up all the available order in my office, leaving none for my desk.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 3:59 PM
Paper is the devil.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:00 PM
"But you can't ignore the effect that treatment has had."
Obviously (although apparently not; what I don't get is why this is so frequently brought up when more or less no one but a stone (if perhaps completely unconscious) racist, or someone quite unfamiliar with our culture, would argue otherwise).
"So it makes sense to say: this is a racial distinction (because it has historically been treated as such), and this is not. You might say: but it is a silly distinction. Nevertheless, that is how people use language."
I wouldn't say it's "silly." I'd say it's not a "racial" distinction. It's, obviously, a pseudo-"racial" distinction; it's a social distinction. That people have them confused is the point. That people shouldn't have them confused, and we're never going to get very far if people aren't unconfused first, is the point. One has a lot of trouble discussing an issue if one uses language that accepts, you know, false things. It would be like, say, before discussing the validity of evolution, accepting the term "anti-God" as the common, acceptable, term for believing in evolution. Having to say, for instance, "we anti-Godists maintain that evolution is actully punctuated" would not actually contribute to rational discussion of evolution. Accepting false terms because they're currently socially common is never helpful to rational discussion.
"Is what I think about the complacency of German Jews wrong?"
Plenty of German Jews were complacent, yes, but plenty weren't. Notice also that I live in America, not Israel.
Contentious? Moi? How out of character!
:-)
But, yes, I think dealing with this is a terribly important point: "...it isn't a scientific distinction (there is no reputable science of race) but a linguistic one." It damages discourse when language doesn't map reality. That's the important point (though hardly the only important point, of course; just an important point).
I've tried a number of phrasings, but if I'm unable to communicate this point, LB, put it down to my poor communication skills, perhaps. On my part, I, as I've said, don't have a clue why discussing the science of a subject, and the social realities of it, are "incompatible" in the slightest.
I do again highly recommend reading this piece, by the way: http://interracialvoice.com/powell11.html
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:01 PM
"Maybe this blog would be better without comments."
Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. I recommend gruntling.
"What are you disagreeing with....?" I don't know: what am I disagreeing with? I suggested, in 51, that it's helpful to have some familiarity with the history of the "are Jews/Italians/Irish 'white'? question" as more than useful to discussing the "question." Although I acknowledged the flammatory nature of the subject, I didn't, you know, introduce the topic, or somehow swerve, through my mighty powers of rhetoric, discussion away from some other topic. If I've said anything offensive to anyone, please feel free to point it out to me.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:10 PM
Okay, I think I finally get your point enough to disagree with you. 'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin." "Races" exist -- they are socially created categories. To the extent that someone says that "races" provide a biologically meaningful way of dividing up the human species, I can respond: "No, you're factually in error as to what races are. They're social, rather than biological, groupings."
What I now understand you to be saying is that to reject the idea that 'race' is a word that truly refers to biologically distinct groups of people, I have to stop using the word 'race' to refer to the social groups that exist and that were previously thought to be biologically distinct. Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns -- and I don't see that it has much of a use in clarifying people's thinking.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:12 PM
Fair enough summary, LB. The thing is that when you say "'Race', to me, means "Those categories people place each other in based on a poorly defined constellation of appearance, culture and geographical origin,"" while I don't, of course, contend that that is what it means to you (or to many other folk) is that not only is that not what many other folks mean by it, it's a completely ahistoric usage. I don't know how to over-state that point. To use it that way is to effectively linguistically deny how these concepts were invented and how they were used, because the entire history of "race" and the terminology of it was claiming it was science. Right up through Ashley Montagu, et al. We wouldn't have any "race" problems if not for the invention of the "science" of "race," and the subsequent events the belief in this false "science" led to. So to continue to use terminology that is contiguous with this history is to continue to mask the assumptions many people continue to have that there is still some scientific basis for eyeballing people and thinking of them as belong to one "race" or another. The inevitable result of people continuing to think that way is that they continue to perpetuate, well, a false idea.
If I believed for one second that most people who give no thought before thinking "oh, he's 'black,' she's 'white" were simply thinking "oh, he's someone who has probably been lumped into a social category with a history of oppression," I'd see no problem whatever. I simply don't see much evidence that that's the case with the majority of folks. Instead what I typically see is that most people seem to think that "racism is a bad thing, which is why I shall treat that person of another 'race' as equally as I possibly can," while continuing to assume that there is an actual "valid" way to "racially" categorize" everyone. And the typical response for an awful lot of people if this issue is brought up is that they get very very upset and defensive, because, after all, belief in biological race isn't racist. If I had a penny for every time I've gone through that discussion with someone....
As I said, if most people were thinking what you say above, no problem, no harm, no foul. But where's the evidence that that's what they're thinking?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:30 PM
Italics in 106 should have been closed after "everyone." Apologies.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:31 PM
Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence; like text said, I don't think anyone here disagrees, so it seems needlessly didactic to rehearse it all. In any case, now it's done...
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:34 PM
In a moment of synchronicity, Steve Gilliard's top post hits some of these points.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:39 PM
Incidentally: "Here, I think that that's just not a linguistically practical project -- it's on the order of introducing invented gender-neutral pronouns...."
A not unfair POV, but plenty of people thought plenty of things weren't historically practical, whether it was ending slavery or ending racism. The first endeavor is still ongoing in the world (and in tiny ways, in this country, if we count imported illegals in some circumstances) and the second is still ongoing everywhere. My point about people continuing to use the same racist terms as in the past, just fewer of them (that it's still acceptable to categorize people as "white/black/other" rather than to carefully, for instance, characterize people as "octaroon," quadroon, etc.) is that they're still using language in a way that doesn't map reality. It's as if we still insisted on referring to fire as "phlogiston," or "here on our flat earth," even though some of us knew better. It's just hard to think correctly using language that continues to make distinctions that don't exist.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I noted that I found the basics of General Semantics and Korzybski sensible at a very early age. (And got an "A+" from my wizened professor when I took a senior-level seminar in it at the age of 16 before I dropped out of college.) So now you can throw the term "pseudo-science" at me, if you like. :-)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:43 PM
"Gary, sure, but that's what bothers me a bit about bringing this up with such insistence;"
I'm not at all clear what you're "sure" is agreeing with, Ogged, but assuming the "this" refers to the whole language point, I didn't bring it up until 62, in response to "text." And wouldn't have said anything more except that LB brought it up, and I responded to her puzzlement.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:47 PM
Regarding Gilliard's post, and this: "...Rabb said Zuniga 'looked at me like I was crazy. He had no interest in the world to help me. He never extended himself; that speaks volumes.'"
I'd just like to say that Kos has never lifted a finger to help me, or blogroll me, either. And neither has Atrios!
I blame anti-Semitism.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:52 PM
"Sure" to your 106. Insistent at 51.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:53 PM
They listen to them, reason with them, and generally treat them like human beings.
You have clearly never met my second husband.
WASPs don't treat their sons like robots; they ignore them whilst the lads are off at boarding school, then get them into Harvard or Yale, a couple of clubs and the right tailor. Noticing them as small children would be perilously close to acknowledging the mechanics of fatherhood and we wouldn't want to talk about that, would we??
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:56 PM
What did I say that was "insistent" in 51?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 4:57 PM
Erm -- you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed. It's the kind of thing which tends to make people believe that you disagree with them with a certain amount of vehemence.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:01 PM
"Insistent" was a poor choice, I apologize. I read your comments in this thread as intended to instruct the ignorant, and I didn't think people were all that ignorant. Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:01 PM
"...you assumed that everyone commenting was ignorant of the racial history you referenced, apparently assuming that we couldn't possibly have been writing as we were if we had been fully informed."
And:
"Put another way, when I remark upon controversial topics, for the most part, I assume that we're all coming from a relatively enlightened position; comments that don't take that for granted irk me."
Ah. Fair enough. I'll resist the slight urge to respond defensively or in detail on that, and just accept the criticism. (Save that I did think, perhaps wrongly, that I was fairly low-key in 51.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:12 PM
Well, now that you're being gracious...Farber is banned!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:14 PM
It's one of those tone-not-coming-across-well-in-casual-writing things; no bones broken on either side, I hope.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:15 PM
"It's one of those tone-not-coming-across-well-in-casual-writing things...."
Alas, that on a blog, no one can see how much my eyes are truly bulging out of my head, as, in my maddened state, I wave my torch. But the crowd of peasants behind me: they see!
I blame all you racists.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:38 PM
I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story.
Come to think of it, I think two of those guys were Unf and Magik Johnson.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:41 PM
Well, it's been instructive watching this Very Special Episode of Dawson's Creek, but can we get back to the issue at hand? How do we identify the Jews?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:47 PM
I have a sharply hooked nose and have been issued two shekels which I am rub together as a nervous tic.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:50 PM
You know, most Jews do look Jewish.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:51 PM
Say what you will about race being a social construct, all I know is those CMH haplotype positive guys sure are good with money!
SCMT -- that is one of the best SNL skits of all time!
For two thousand years we've heard the news
That Christ was killed by the Jews
But now we're hear to tell the real truths... The Italians did it!
Ogged, the asterix was when I was thinking I should really make my parallelism between Jewish men and Jewish girls with the express purpose of provoking an angry discussion of sexism. Then I realized that would be wrong.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:53 PM
The horns are a dead tip off.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:54 PM
Tautology alert!
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:55 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you. After about a minute of waiting for further comments, I was scratching at my screen while shrieking, "Please don't let that be the last comment! Please don't let that be the last comment!"
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 5:58 PM
And you were powerless to do anything about it!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:01 PM
My step-father is Jewish and I was traumatized by the introduction of his open, sharing parenting style into my home. Before his arrival on the scene, I was raised to keep up appearances at all times, never complain, address issues only indirectly, and hold grudges. I wanted no truck with this "healthy" crap.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:04 PM
I swear to you, that never occured to me. Or not directly, anyway.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:05 PM
Just do what I do: make up some shit about the pluperfect and sign it "ben wolfson."
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:07 PM
I am legion.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:10 PM
I see I'm alone in my admittedly belated attempt to address the subject of the post.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:16 PM
No ac, I responded to you, but deleted it because I didn't want to take attention away from baa's awesome 133.
I said something like: I probably won't be a Jewish-style daddy, because I think a bit of severity is good for a kid.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:20 PM
Ok, baa, I actually laughed out loud on that one.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:24 PM
"I don't think I've ever mentioned that I once asked, on separate occasions, three white guys what it is that white guys think about (y'all are mysterious to me, you see) and they all said the same thing: keeping other people down. True story."
Wouldn't you have had to, you know, asked three times (or at least twice), not once?
On the "original topic," it's a good thing Jewish dads are so great; that must be why we have no examples of Jews writing about their crap family environments/history or their resulting neuroses. Good to know.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:37 PM
Gary, if you weren't already on the brink of death, I'd be very much interested in kicking your ass.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:40 PM
"Gary, if you weren't already on the brink of death, I'd be very much interested in kicking your ass."
See, who could tell what tone this is said in?
Whereas obviously the devilish glint in my eye is as pellucid as is my friendly and affectionate, even loving, sarcasm.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 6:57 PM
In my experience Jewish people rush to tell you they're Jewish, and ascribe perfectly normal crazy things to specifically Jewish categories, like having overly protective mothers or having very physical touchy-feely families.
This is probably because I offer all my new acquaintances a greasy side of bacon* when I first meet them, but I offer my anecdote all the same.
*Also Muslims are keen to share knowledge of their religion with me!+
+These anecdotes may be totally made up. At least the side-of-bacon part.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:00 PM
Jewish stories of neurosis tend to involve an excess of attention, as opposed to the cold, wintry, apache-warriorlike childhoods of my kind.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:05 PM
Mmm, bacon. Also, shrimp, pork ribs, crab, lobster, and babies boiled in milk.
Okay, maybe not the last one. Unless, of course, it's foamed and dehydrated.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:08 PM
You must carry a lot of rancid fat around, winna.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:09 PM
Is it just me, or did you just derive a judgment? Try that shit again, I dare you. I have your inferential faculties bound up in studded leather straps, bitch, so how about you show some respect?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:22 PM
bridge, either you've got his pollens, or you don't. My tollens tells me that he used his pollens in 144, and you must be a liar.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:25 PM
Tertium non datur!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:27 PM
There's more where that came from.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:30 PM
That's "ponens", o. SB can have my pollen up his ass.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:30 PM
Ponens, right right.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:34 PM
Somehow they gave me a philosophy degree with just one quarter of freshman logic.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:35 PM
In case I need to offer it (140 was my way of fishing, but no joy), Ogged, if I actually offended you, I apologize.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:36 PM
Actually, I deduced it using modus tollens:
If winna doesn't carry a lot of rancid fat around her, she must carry an adequate refrigeration system around with her.
She doesn't carry an adequate, etc.
---
Therefore: she doesn't not carry a lot of rancid, etc.
Therefore: she carries a lot of rancid fat around with her.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:38 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:41 PM
Gary, no worries.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:43 PM
I had THE WORST intro logic class. (I had a much better intermediate logic class.) For two years—the year I took it, and the year after—it was taught, not by Ted Cohen, who used a textbook by Quine, had the class meet at either 8 or 7am, three times a week, used at least half the time for telling jokes, and under whose leadership it was reputed to be the hardest undergraduate course offered at Chicago, but rather by someone else, and it blew. Blew, blew, blew.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:47 PM
And Gary, re: 51, if one's penis is the same size as a midget, that's still probably touching the floor.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:49 PM
First it's bridge using "bitch" as an insult, then Wolfson using "blew" as a pejorative; what's with you logic people? "Blew donkeys" is still acceptable.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:53 PM
I do indeed carry around lots of rancid fat.
It makes me popular on fishing trips, but that's about it.
Posted by winna | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:56 PM
What's funny about Ted Cohen is that he isn't that funny.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:56 PM
My logic course (the only one I took, it was neither the lowest nor highest level available, but didn't require logic pre-reqs, so I'm not sure if I should call it intermediate or beginner) was taught by this guy using this book, except that mine has a different colored cover. Both the prof and the book are recommended.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 7:57 PM
Ugh, I indulge in some rhetorical aggression and out pops the sexist language. I suppose it's no excuse that I was channeling Allyson Hannigan in American Pie.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:04 PM
Well, I do like Allyson Hannigan.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:07 PM
Re 149 and others: If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:10 PM
Looks like 153 resolves the question raised over here. It also demonstrates that my gotcha!-gland is overacting.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:21 PM
If it's not too much trouble, could people refer to ogged with something other than just "o"? We easily confused partisans of the vocative would appreciate it.
Not to mention Greek articles!
What's funny about Ted Cohen is that he isn't that funny.
I think he's funny, as long as you only hear the same jokes a certain number of times. (Whether he's as funny as he or this guy seem to think he is, is another question.)
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:38 PM
The interesting thing about Italian Americans is that they have higher drop out rates than other Euro/Caucasion/Ethnic non racial socially/historically constructed (hedging as much as possible in picking typology of folks to avoid trouble with Gary) groups of people. If I recall correctly there are other social indicators that don't scan so highly for this group as well. Is it a function of assimilation? i.e. these were the last white people off the boat? Is it a function of culture? (I'd blame Goodfellas). Or is it something to do with pancetta?
Posted by betnon | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:41 PM
I blame this.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:51 PM
Confluence. Just got off the phone with the ex, whose WASP mom married her Jewish dad, as you'll recall. Ex says that her WASP grandmother said to Ex's mom, "I know why you want to marry him. I've heard that the Orientals are good lovers."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:55 PM
Quoting from 168:
"The team found that Italian men had a lot to shout about, with average flaccid penis length of 9cm."
Now that is a sizable amount of pancetta, but apostropher, is it to blame because it is too much or because it is yet not enough?
I'm in awe of your circus sized data collection skills
Posted by benton | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 8:58 PM
I thought we agreed that there is no scientific basis for the so-called flaccid penis length. That we speak of a "flaccid length" is a pernicious linguistic artifact that hinders rational penismetrics.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-12-05 10:13 PM
I like Alyson Hannigan even better than this "Allyson Hannigan" you guys know. (I would have liked to have seen her in "When Harry Met Sally" in London; although only prurient types would check out these pictures.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 12:38 AM
what we agreed was that stretching did not adequately predict potential growth. And it was glorious.
GF -- why put my handle in quotations? Is my existence dubious? Should I refer to you as "Gary Farber?"
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:31 AM
I would guess to distinguish the poster from the text of the post.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:35 AM
Wait. Gary called you Allyson Hannigan? Is this a switch? If so, clear your cache.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:37 AM
I think he called me Alllyson Hannigan, then posted several lewd pictures thereof.
Is there a poster apart from the text of the post, or is the poster "dead" with regard to interpretation?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 8:41 AM
The author is dead, man.
The author is banned!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:02 AM
White men can't jump, Gary (except for that high-jumping Swede).
Can anyone identify (before clicking) who mouthed the following quote?
When I was playing basketball, I was reasonably athletic--I mean, a six-foot tall white guy who can dunk, give it up y'all . . .
Posted by Itch Ills | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:33 PM
Somebody has a lot to answer for.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 05-13-05 11:35 PM