The importance of "race" for individual and group identity

In response to a Guardian article, "Mixed blessings", by Zenab Eve Ahmed on mixed race.

Link to article and thread at The Guardian.

How can ethnicity (mixed or otherwise), which is deeply bound up with the origin, history and culture of one's own ancestors, NOT be an essential part of individual and group identity?

It is interesting (and infuriating) how some individuals (not missing from the above posts), by failing (or stubbornly refusing) to see the importance of race for an individual's sense of identity, see themselves as occupying some "moral high ground" from which to demonstrate (as they "liberally" do) their OWN self-righteous moral superiority.

Race matters! And we need to understand why - so that we can deal with it in a rational and civilized fashion - rather than denying it, whether from stupidity, or from a desire (conscious or not) for a spurious "moral high ground" and the advantages, because of the political ideology of our nation state, that go with it.

2nd Post:

[Heavyrail], Human behaviour (and emotions) were formed and adapted by millions of years of evolution, during which time individuals struggled for survival and advantage as part of a FAMILY GROUP in the "natural environment" which included other, RIVAL, groups of humans. In just the past few thousand years circumstances (the environment) have changed completely (i.e. been REPLACED by an artificial "socio-economic environment")*, but not human behaviour and emotions - there has been far too little time for that.

Research confirms (unsurprisingly) that the FIRST things human beings normally notice about each other (i.e. from the greatest distance) are 1) their gender, and 2) their ethnicity. Why is ethnicity so important? Because it tells us whether or not an individual is a member of our OWN family group. Of course we can - and do - learn that someone with a different ethnicity can still become a friend, or even a member of our own family group, but our INITIAL response (seeing them as a threat) cannot be simply wished (or moralized) away, any more than we can wish away our tendency to feel jealous when we see our partner showing a sexual interest in someone else.

We grossly underestimate (or are in denial of) the importance and power of our own animal nature and behaviour, and the dominating influence they have had on the development of the socio-economic environment in which we continue (Yes, CONTINUE!) the Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage (e.g. who is the PM other than the top British APE?).

In general, and in the SOCIAL SCIENCES in particular, whose job it is to understand these things, lip-service is paid to what Darwin taught us about human origins, while the profound implications for past and present society and the existing socio-economic order are completely ignored. This is because we are ALL blinded (social scientists like the rest of us) by short-sighted, dumb-animal self-interest (which we use our prodigious but benighted intelligence to rationalize and justify), and by our total immersion in, familiarity with and dependency on it.

One of the most important implications is that free-market capitalism, which we are so dependent on, developed to serve, exploit and depend upon our animal nature and behaviour, thus making it "inherently" unsustainable. Something else we are in denial of!

* http://www.spaceship-earth.org/PoS/Social_Jungle.htm

3rd Post:

[jonnyboy71, bobdoney and heavyrail] I did wander a bit off topic in my previous post, drawing in other implications from what I refer to as an "evolutionary-anthropological" approach to society, which the so-called "social sciences" don't take, and is why their models of social reality are so hopelessly inadequate (comparable to those of natural science in medieval times).

Allowing mass immigration into our already overpopulated country and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society, i.e. "melting pot", into which a great many people, native and immigrant alike, do not wish to see their ethnic and cultural identities dissolve and disappear, was an act of political MADNESS, that I am attempting to understand, but which no one can mention publicly without being accused of "racism".

Europeans spent centuries fighting and killing each other over (among other things) their minimal ethnic and cultural differences, and just when we finally start to get our act together and resolve our small differences peacefully, we invite, not just a few (no problem with that), but millions upon millions of people of completely different ethnic and cultural background into our overpopulated continent (when we should be thanking God that our native population is declining naturally). That's not just asking for trouble and conflict, but begging for it! Complete and utter madness!

OK, we now HAVE the problem, and should try and deal with it in as rational and civilized a fashion as possible. In order to do that, however, we need to understand it - and why we created it in the first place - but we don't. As, until very recently, with global warming, a lot of people don't even realize (or refuse to admit) that there IS a problem (they even want us to CELEBRATE it!). We are not allowed even to consider it publicly, because it is "racist" to do so - a sacrilege, just as it is to suggest that free-market capitalism could be "inherently" unsustainable.

Maybe it's ME who is mistaken. I don't think so, but concede the possibility. My ideas on both counts, however, tend to be dismissed out of hand and without serious debate (you don't debate with crackpots or "racists" . . . . ) - which makes me think all the more that I'm probably not mistaken, but am digging close to some very uncomfortable truths - or rather, LIES - which underlie both our economy and the power structures of our nation state (and its institutions, particularly in the media), all of which are deeply rooted in our animal nature (see previous post). Which would explain why there is so much resistance to recognizing and facing up to them, and why it is so tempting to dismiss people like me as crackpots and "racists".

4th Post

[Redleader], You would call me a "person of regrettable ancestry", you say. Now what is that supposed to mean? An insult, I presume, but please do correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right and that is the level you wish to debate on, I suggest that you find another thread, where perhaps members of the BNP are posting.

It is a fact of modern life that everyone has opinions, attitudes and feeling that some other people are bound to find offensive. This is something that we ALL must learn to live with, instead of behaving as though we still lived in a small village where dissenting views can simply be suppressed.

[heavyrail], you made a few points that I'm still owing a response to. I agree that it is up to the individual to decide when, where and to what extent (if at all) they wish to emphasis the importance of their ethnicity (i.e. some aspect of themselves they associate with it; of course, skin pigmentation in itself is not important, but what is associated with it certainly can be, i.e. who your ancestors are, their origins, history, culture etc).

"Race is of declining importance" you claim. That may be true for some people (like yourself) but certainly not for everyone. It is not just many ethnic Europeans (white people), like myself, who want to retain and cultivate (in a non-aggressive, civilized, i.e. strictly non-racist, fashion) their ethnic identity and see it passed on to future generations. I recognise "my race" in the statues and images left by the ancient Greeks, and would like my descendents to do the same.

Is that RACISM? No, VANITY! And I stand by it.

But there is more to my attitude than just vanity. There is also my love of DIVERSITY, which the "melting pot" will eventually consume completely, if no (voluntary) constraints are placed on it; but any mention of this, at the moment, is deemed "racist". I've nothing against a small or moderately sized melting pot, especially since that actually increases human diversity, but the thought of virtually all ethnic and cultural diversity disappearing into it I don't like at all.

This is all I have time for at the moment (I want to walk the dog before it gets dark), but I'll be back, also to respond to jonnyboy71, bobdoney and gymnutkamal.

5th Post:

[Redleader], are you really incapable of exchanging views and debating without resorting immediately and repeatedly to malicious (as opposed to good-natured) insults? I don't believe in that Christian nonsense about loving one's enemies (as you obviously assume we are), but it is a good idea to try to UNDERSTAND them. You might discover that we are not enemies at all. Perhaps I'm just touching on a painful truth that you would rather not hear. My attitude obviously offends you, which I regret, but it is what it is and I am not going to pretend otherwise. In my heart I do not accept (i.e. identify with) multi-culti Britain. It is not something I really have any choice in. It's the way I FEEL. Many black people identify strongly with their African roots (ethnic and cultural), but I don't suppose you call them "racists". Why not? What have Europeans done to deserve such special treatment? Actually, a few things do spring to mind; but I still believe that Europeans have as much right as Africans to emphasis and celebrate their ethnic and cultural identity, provided, of course, they do it in a non-aggressive and civilized fashion.

[gymnutkamal], I remind you of your aunts, do I? I like that. As you can imagine, I have a lot of sympathy with them. What I like about family (although there are some sad exceptions) is that members can have the most outrageous and contrary views, but still tolerate and love each other.

It's not "ethnic purity" that is important to me, because there is no such thing. Europeans are a pretty mixed bunch, and who knows what "impurities" lurk within my DNA. I haven't a clue. Nor does it worry me. The essential point is that I am enough European (90 percent plus, I would guess) to identify myself as such. An ethnic British or English identity, I don't think is possible, since Europeans have been mixing here for millennia. I probably had ancestors on both sides at the battle of Agincourt, even perhaps at the battle of Hastings. And it is that kind of historical connection that I value and want to preserve. I'm NOT an immigrant (to Europe), but someone whose ancestors (certainly most of them) have lived here for millennia. And I DO occasionally feel a certain pride and, dare I say it, "superiority", for it, just as I'm sure that indigenous people the world over, in America, Africa, Australia or wherever, do too - living in the land of their forefathers. They are allowed to, of course - understandably. It's just native Europeans who are being "racist" when they do the same.

I am out of time again and still haven't responded to jonnyboy71 and bobdoney; while gymnutkamal, I've just noticed, has posted another comment that needs responding to. It is indeed a "slippery slope" I'm on, I know. But I've got my skis on, and like Eddie Eagle, I'm going for gold, hoping that I don't wind up flying off the side of the mountain. What is the point in living in a free country if you are afraid to honestly speak your mind?

My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org

To: Comment at the Guardian Re: The importance of "race" for individual and group identity Date: 17 & 18 December 06

In response to a Guardian article, "Mixed blessings", by Zenab Eve Ahmed on mixed race. Link to article and thread at The Guardian. How can ethnicity (mixed or otherwise), which is deeply bound up with the origin, history and culture of one's own ancestors, NOT be an essential part of individual and group identity? It is interesting (and infuriating) how some individuals (not missing from the above posts), by failing (or stubbornly refusing) to see the importance of race for an individual's sense of identity, see themselves as occupying some "moral high ground" from which to demonstrate (as they "liberally" do) their OWN self-righteous moral superiority. Race matters! And we need to understand why - so that we can deal with it in a rational and civilized fashion - rather than denying it, whether from stupidity, or from a desire (conscious or not) for a spurious "moral high ground" and the advantages, because of the political ideology of our nation state, that go with it. 2nd Post: [Heavyrail], Human behaviour (and emotions) were formed and adapted by millions of years of evolution, during which time individuals struggled for survival and advantage as part of a FAMILY GROUP in the "natural environment" which included other, RIVAL, groups of humans. In just the past few thousand years circumstances (the environment) have changed completely (i.e. been REPLACED by an artificial "socio-economic environment"), but not human behaviour and emotions - there has been far too little time for that. Research confirms (unsurprisingly) that the FIRST things human beings normally notice about each other (i.e. from the greatest distance) are 1) their gender, and 2) their ethnicity. Why is ethnicity so important? Because it tells us whether or not an individual is a member of our OWN family group. Of course we can - and do - learn that someone with a different ethnicity can still become a friend, or even a member of our own family group, but our INITIAL response (seeing them as a threat) cannot be simply wished (or moralized) away, any more than we can wish away our tendency to feel jealous when we see our partner showing a sexual interest in someone else. We grossly underestimate (or are in denial of) the importance and power of our own animal nature and behaviour, and the dominating influence they have had on the development of the socio-economic environment in which we continue (Yes, CONTINUE!) the Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage (e.g. who is the PM other than the top British APE?). In general, and in the SOCIAL SCIENCES in particular, whose job it is to understand these things, lip-service is paid to what Darwin taught us about human origins, while the profound implications for past and present society and the existing socio-economic order are completely ignored. This is because we are ALL blinded (social scientists like the rest of us) by short-sighted, dumb-animal self-interest (which we use our prodigious but benighted intelligence to rationalize and justify), and by our total immersion in, familiarity with and dependency on it. One of the most important implications is that free-market capitalism, which we are so dependent on, developed to serve, exploit and depend upon our animal nature and behaviour, thus making it "inherently" unsustainable. Something else we are in denial of! http://www.spaceship-earth.org/PoS/Social_Jungle.htm 3rd Post: [jonnyboy71, bobdoney and heavyrail] I did wander a bit off topic in my previous post, drawing in other implications from what I refer to as an "evolutionary-anthropological" approach to society, which the so-called "social sciences" don't take, and is why their models of social reality are so hopelessly inadequate (comparable to those of natural science in medieval times). Allowing mass immigration into our already overpopulated country and the creation of a multi-racial/multicultural society, i.e. "melting pot", into which a great many people, native and immigrant alike, do not wish to see their ethnic and cultural identities dissolve and disappear, was an act of political MADNESS, that I am attempting to understand, but which no one can mention publicly without being accused of "racism". Europeans spent centuries fighting and killing each other over (among other things) their minimal ethnic and cultural differences, and just when we finally start to get our act together and resolve our small differences peacefully, we invite, not just a few (no problem with that), but millions upon millions of people of completely different ethnic and cultural background into our overpopulated continent (when we should be thanking God that our native population is declining naturally). That's not just asking for trouble and conflict, but begging for it! Complete and utter madness! OK, we now HAVE the problem, and should try and deal with it in as rational and civilized a fashion as possible. In order to do that, however, we need to understand it - and why we created it in the first place - but we don't. As, until very recently, with global warming, a lot of people don't even realize (or refuse to admit) that there IS a problem (they even want us to CELEBRATE it!). We are not allowed even to consider it publicly, because it is "racist" to do so - a sacrilege, just as it is to suggest that free-market capitalism could be "inherently" unsustainable. Maybe it's ME who is mistaken. I don't think so, but concede the possibility. My ideas on both counts, however, tend to be dismissed out of hand and without serious debate (you don't debate with crackpots or "racists" . . . . ) - which makes me think all the more that I'm probably not mistaken, but am digging close to some very uncomfortable truths - or rather, LIES - which underlie both our economy and the power structures of our nation state (and its institutions, particularly in the media), all of which are deeply rooted in our animal nature (see previous post). Which would explain why there is so much resistance to recognizing and facing up to them, and why it is so tempting to dismiss people like me as crackpots and "racists". 4th Post [Redleader], You would call me a "person of regrettable ancestry", you say. Now what is that supposed to mean? An insult, I presume, but please do correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right and that is the level you wish to debate on, I suggest that you find another thread, where perhaps members of the BNP are posting. It is a fact of modern life that everyone has opinions, attitudes and feeling that some other people are bound to find offensive. This is something that we ALL must learn to live with, instead of behaving as though we still lived in a small village where dissenting views can simply be suppressed. [heavyrail], you made a few points that I'm still owing a response to. I agree that it is up to the individual to decide when, where and to what extent (if at all) they wish to emphasis the importance of their ethnicity (i.e. some aspect of themselves they associate with it; of course, skin pigmentation in itself is not important, but what is associated with it certainly can be, i.e. who your ancestors are, their origins, history, culture etc). "Race is of declining importance" you claim. That may be true for some people (like yourself) but certainly not for everyone. It is not just many ethnic Europeans (white people), like myself, who want to retain and cultivate (in a non-aggressive, civilized, i.e. strictly non-racist, fashion) their ethnic identity and see it passed on to future generations. I recognise "my race" in the statues and images left by the ancient Greeks, and would like my descendents to do the same. Is that RACISM? No, VANITY! And I stand by it. But there is more to my attitude than just vanity. There is also my love of DIVERSITY, which the "melting pot" will eventually consume completely, if no (voluntary) constraints are placed on it; but any mention of this, at the moment, is deemed "racist". I've nothing against a small or moderately sized melting pot, especially since that actually increases human diversity, but the thought of virtually all ethnic and cultural diversity disappearing into it I don't like at all. This is all I have time for at the moment (I want to walk the dog before it gets dark), but I'll be back, also to respond to jonnyboy71, bobdoney and gymnutkamal. 5th Post: [Redleader], are you really incapable of exchanging views and debating without resorting immediately and repeatedly to malicious (as opposed to good-natured) insults? I don't believe in that Christian nonsense about loving one's enemies (as you obviously assume we are), but it is a good idea to try to UNDERSTAND them. You might discover that we are not enemies at all. Perhaps I'm just touching on a painful truth that you would rather not hear. My attitude obviously offends you, which I regret, but it is what it is and I am not going to pretend otherwise. In my heart I do not accept (i.e. identify with) multi-culti Britain. It is not something I really have any choice in. It's the way I FEEL. Many black people identify strongly with their African roots (ethnic and cultural), but I don't suppose you call them "racists". Why not? What have Europeans done to deserve such special treatment? Actually, a few things do spring to mind; but I still believe that Europeans have as much right as Africans to emphasis and celebrate their ethnic and cultural identity, provided, of course, they do it in a non-aggressive and civilized fashion. [gymnutkamal], I remind you of your aunts, do I? I like that. As you can imagine, I have a lot of sympathy with them. What I like about family (although there are some sad exceptions) is that members can have the most outrageous and contrary views, but still tolerate and love each other. It's not "ethnic purity" that is important to me, because there is no such thing. Europeans are a pretty mixed bunch, and who knows what "impurities" lurk within my DNA. I haven't a clue. Nor does it worry me. The essential point is that I am enough European (90 percent plus, I would guess) to identify myself as such. An ethnic British or English identity, I don't think is possible, since Europeans have been mixing here for millennia. I probably had ancestors on both sides at the battle of Agincourt, even perhaps at the battle of Hastings. And it is that kind of historical connection that I value and want to preserve. I'm NOT an immigrant (to Europe), but someone whose ancestors (certainly most of them) have lived here for millennia. And I DO occasionally feel a certain pride and, dare I say it, "superiority", for it, just as I'm sure that indigenous people the world over, in America, Africa, Australia or wherever, do too - living in the land of their forefathers. They are allowed to, of course - understandably. It's just native Europeans who are being "racist" when they do the same. I am out of time again and still haven't responded to jonnyboy71 and bobdoney; while gymnutkamal, I've just noticed, has posted another comment that needs responding to. It is indeed a "slippery slope" I'm on, I know. But I've got my skis on, and like Eddie Eagle, I'm going for gold, hoping that I don't wind up flying off the side of the mountain. What is the point in living in a free country if you are afraid to honestly speak your mind? My homepage: http://www.spaceship-earth.org