You made 2 mistakes when you labeled Rima Fakih "Iranian". She's Lebanese, and Arab-American, not Persian, which are different races.

You do mean "different nationalities," don't you jeff? "Races?!" Come on.

No, maxins&arrows, I meant races. Hence "2 mistakes". The people of Iran are a genetically different race than the people of the surrounding middle eastern countries. Look it up.

To further clarify things for you, what you're saying is like calling an Indian and a Japanese person the same race, just because they're both Asian.

really throwing old kip under the bus this week, what if the roles were reversed and he kept talking about punching you in the face and what a lame lay you are? nope not funny that way either.

Race, jeff, is a political category. We are of one "race." Dictionary definitions (such as your claim of authenticity) are still written by people and have little to do with empirical science. And someone who uses race as a category betrays a kind of 'racism.'

maxisms@arrows:

We are all one SPECIES, and seeing and appreciating a difference in RACE doesn't equate to discrimination. Are you implying that if someone accepts that there is a noticeable and scientifically measurable difference between one type of person and another, that they're racist? That's absurd.

I have a hard time believing you'd use that argument given different circumstances (one where you weren't left trying to cover up your ignorance of another people, for example). If this was a discussion of the differences between african and european for instance, I don't think you'd have any problem with the two being described as different "races".

The main ethnic group that inhabits Iran are an aryan race that moved into the area from the north, and they're distinctly physically, genetically, historically, and culturally different from the people of the Arab nations. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

While the distinction between one race and another shouldn't matter in most things, the point of even mentioning "iranian" in the story was that someone who is "different" won the competition. I was just pointing out that the story was inaccurate in describing the difference.

While I don't appreciate your misinformed rebuttals to my comments, the fact that you made them further demonstrates my original message, which is that most Americans could use a little brushing up on their middle eastern history.

For your information, my ancestors are European (Hungarian, Russian, and English) but I've taken the time to educate myself a bit about middle eastern history and culture because I fell in love with a Persian woman whose entire family moved to the US during the revolution. We're now married, and my efforts to learn more about her heritage have led me to learn to cook persian food, and speak some phrases in Farsi (things like "I adore you"), so your implication that someone who thinks of a Persian, Arab, or any other non European race as "different" equating to racism is a little offensive.

Nice try, thanks for playing.

No offence meant, jeff. However, I do subscribe to a different modality, no doubt. And you're correct: I'm probably anything far from an "expert" on the subject. And so, you're probably correct in your assessment of my ignorance (at least regarding this topic). Since I'm trying to finish my thesis at present, I couldn't find time to do the proper research that would explain my position to you. But here's what I swiped off of Wikipedia for you:

"Conceptions of race and racial classifications are also often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the socially constructed and perpetuated beliefs regarding race are biologically warranted [...] Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact."

I'm no biologist. I'm more concerned with social-theory. But this is a paradigm with some currency.

Cheers. And than you for playing, too.
MA

Hey Maxims&Arrows,

I think it's pretty clear that we have more in common than not, and what we're arguing most about is semantics. The lines between race, ethnicity, and nationality aren't always clear. I believe that all three exist with a variety of groups and sub-groups in each. The reason I believe that we are all not just one race is biological, and I think that's what justifies my original statement. Miss America, after all, is largely based on looks, and ethnicity and nationality don't always determine physical appearance the way that race does. Rima is the first Arab American (race), Lebanese (nationality), and Muslim (which when added to the region she's from, and her cultural background, begins to describe part of her ethnicity) to win miss america. Had she been from Iran, like the article suggests, all three of those things would have been different.

I understand the theory you subscribe to about race, and on a lot of levels, I agree. I know that historically there are more negative associations attached to racial classification than positives, but I don't agree that the best path to a world where race "doesn't matter" is to deny that it exists.

Different types of people adapted in different ways to the places their civilizations developed in. You can take a drop of blood, which looks the same to the naked eye no matter who it came from, and still determine through the DNA it contains what the person looks like, and the general area their ancestors are from. That's empirical science, not politics.

Identity is a very important concept for people. It molds their life experience, and I believe race is part of it.

Her race, ethnicity, and nationality shouldn't matter when it comes to winning a pageant, but I think it does matter when your making a big deal about her identity, which this, and many other articles about her, have done.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, using the italicized "iranian" to describe Rima shows an ignorance of other people that I think we both wish didn't exist.

The only race I want to see is which video gets to Hulu first.

You are probably correct, in that you and I probably have more similar than dissimilar world-views, jeff. But let me see if I can substantiate my position and gain some credibility with you. Lets begin with an understanding that the characteristics you described are those of genetic markers: dominant genes yielding blue eyes, brown skin, blonde hair, and so on. By your definition, I seem to belong to the “blonde race.” Genetic features such as these are the result of cultural breeding practices. Such practices are situated in a historical context that is also governed by socio-political forces. Therefore, your argument for “race” is a profoundly problematic one. It might be more accurate (although no less ugly) to describe people’s in terms of “breeds.” However, such taxonomy is equally loaded.

This partly the reason academics have abandoned this relatively archaic description (and why I suggest you do too). Some might say that my position is “too complicated,” that it opens the way to many other criticisms and debate, and that yours is a “simple truth;” But it is neither simple nor truth. And when we engage any concept/construct, it is incumbent on us to be both critically conscious and intellectually honest. And while it might generate considerable disagreement, there are a number of scholars who would agree that (relations of power notwithstanding) the use of race as a category is predicated on assumptions about race which can be considered (to varying degrees) “racist.” That said, it is more common than anyone would like to admit, but we all tend to maintain certain assumptions based on such categorizations. Being critically minded means acknowledging this fact and bringing to it an awareness and engaging dialogically with it.

Benedict Anderson (among others) carefully illustrate historical trajectory of the construct of "nationality;" and others (Fromm, Foucault, etc.) also deconstruct identity creation. I get the semantics part (I am a linguistics student after all) and fully understand too that semantics are also elastic and malleable to socio-political, cultural and historical forces.

“The color of one’s skin cannot be separated from the practices that have historically constructed it—pigment is a product of a stylized repetition of acts” (Warren, Performing Purity, 2003, p. 32).

“[One] element preparing the way for modern Orientalist structures was the whole impulse [italics mine] to classify nature and man into types […] To these ideas was added second-order Darwinism, which seemed to accentuate the ‘scientific’ validity of the division of races into advanced and backward, or European-Aryan and Oriental-African” (Said, Orientalism, 1978, pp. 119 & 206).

And I would be remiss if I left out this little gem:

“I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity” (Nietzche, Twilight of the Idols).

As a representative of the commenter race, I'm embarrassed by how easily ODAAT trolled you all.

WHAT WILL THAT CRAZY ROMANO SAY NEXT WEEK?