Racial consciousness

[TheReasoner]

I am an Aryan. Tall, white (ok. Pink I guess), blue eyed and blond.
I probably fit the blueprint just about perfectly in fact.

Yet when I say I am Aryan (which I seldom do) what do people think? They immediately think one of the following thoughts:
Nazi. Hateful racist. Self-centered elitist. Or something else along those lines. Hitler is probably one of the first things to enter their mind.

Yet if someone were to say that they were black for example, do people automatically think of Idi Amin, Shaka Zulu and other African leaders with a terrible history of violence and oppression? Probably not. If you say you're a stereotypical Asian, do people think of Pol Pot and Mao? Probably not. I am sure they think of Kung Fu and sushi first.

Am I, as a man of my race not entitled to some non-racist pride in my own race? Is it racist to be proud of your race regardless of what race you are? Is it foolish, or does some amount of pride belong in a person of any race?
Does it (whatever you think) also translate to culture? Is pride in one's culture acceptable or does it only lead to segregation and separatism?

 

[HannahBanana]

Why say that you're Aryan, though? Why not say that you're Caucasian? The fact that you specifically choose to refer to yourself as "Aryan" shows that some part of you must want people to think of Hitler when they think of you.

 

[cantata]

What's great about being of any race?

Be proud of your culture, I guess, if you feel you must be proud of something you have no control over - at least your ancestors achieved something in producing it - but being proud of your race is just weird.

 

[wanderingone]

"aryan" simply isn't a word most people use so of course it turns heads.
Personally I don't understand having such pride in one's complexion, you do nothing to earn a complexion, it's an accident of genetics.. it doesn't come directly linked to a specific culture since people with the same complexion can have very different ethnic backgrounds.

While people may not immediately link "black" with some dictator (probably ini some part due to limited actual world history lessons not primarily about Europe) no matter what label used most people have some preconceived notion of what goes with that.. as minimal as an image of what that complexion looks like or an entire notion of behavior and culture that they assume to be attached to that label. On the other hand "african-american" is a label that people (of various complexions) get in snits about, my husband doesn't particularly care for it, he says he has no attachment to Africa, no recent ancestors there and he doesn't relate to the feeling of being "African" however he also realizes that most "white" americans doesn't refer to themselves when talking about their history as "white" but as coming from various national origins "Irish" "German" "Polish" etc.. and while many americans who are "black" have fairly recent connections to various nations those who don't may not care to eliminate the fact of their original origins especially when their family roots in the US are linked not to decision to emigrate but to being abducted.

From a Christian perspective, "pride" not a particularly valued character trait, it's a flaw.

 

[TheReasoner]

Why say that you're Aryan, though? Why not say that you're Caucasian? The fact that you specifically choose to refer to yourself as "Aryan" shows that some part of you must want people to think of Hitler when they think of you.

I'm not. Usually. Only for debates when it turns out to be beneficial to the debate, or to create one. But it could be used because caucasian is a broader term. Aryan is quite narrow. You're Caucasian if you have all sorts of hairtypes, bodytypes or skin colors. So long as you fit a certain broad definition.
Aryan is quite narrow. Tall, blonde, blue eyes and so forth.

I don't want anyone to associate me with Hitler. I used the term to spark debate. Had I said caucasian the debate would have been closed. A "It's OK. Move on" sort of thread would have been the result. But because I used a term which is laden with association a debate forms. People may think more about the issue when at least some controversy is present.

 

[wanderingone]

I don't want anyone to associate me with Hitler. I used the term to spark debate. Had I said caucasian the debate would have been closed. A "It's OK. Move on" sort of thread would have been the result. But because I used a term which is laden with association a debate forms. People may think more about the issue when at least some controversy is present.

I don't think the debate would have been closed if you were asking the same questions your asking here about "racial pride" you essentially are asking 2 different questions... one is the issue of a word and what is associated with the word, and one is the notion of pride in one's assigned "race"

 

[GeratTzedek]

Basically, different words have different associations. I could call the same man "large" or "fat" and while both tend to say the same thing, the latter is a slam and the former is not.

You have chosen to use the word Aryan instead of Caucasion. Aryan is a word associated with the Nazis, so why are you surprised with the responses you get?

And btw, the generalizations of "black, histpanic, white, asian" are helpful, as when the police know the serial killer is likely to be a middle aged white guy. But they are not absolutes. Scientifically, there is not such thing as seperate races. Traits can be more common in one area of the world than another, but there is no dividing line; they sort of fade out as you get further away. For example, there are areas in Africa where skin is loaded with melanin. As you make your way to the East Coast of Africa, Sudan, Egypt, etc, it gradually lightens. Where is the dividing line when someone stops being "black" and starts being "Arab"???? There is none, other than CULTURE.

Genetics is no reason for pride. None of us did anything of virtue to inherit the genes we did. It is fine to be fascinated by one's ethnic history. But to feel it makes one "special" is just silliness. I can trace my lineage back through the Scots all the way to the Picts in 400 AD. I have whole volumes in my home that my family obsessively keeps. I think it's cool. But I'm not PROUD of my heritage. It doesn't make me better than anyone else.

 

[GeratTzedek]

What's great about being of any race?</p>

Be proud of your culture, I guess, if you feel you must be proud of something you have no control over - at least your ancestors achieved something in producing it - but being proud of your race is just weird.

Let's see, how do I rep someone in the new system?

 

[TheReasoner]

Let's see, how do I rep someone in the new system?

The lightbulb in the top right corner of the post you want to rep.

 

[Kroger99]

I am an Aryan. Tall, white (ok. Pink I guess), blue eyed and blond.
I probably fit the blueprint just about perfectly in fact.

Yet when I say I am Aryan (which I seldom do) what do people think? They immediately think one of the following thoughts:
Nazi. Hateful racist. Self-centered elitist. Or something else along those lines. Hitler is probably one of the first things to enter their mind.

Yet if someone were to say that they were black for example, do people automatically think of Idi Amin, Shaka Zulu and other African leaders with a terrible history of violence and oppression? Probably not. If you say you're a stereotypical Asian, do people think of Pol Pot and Mao? Probably not. I am sure they think of Kung Fu and sushi first.

Am I, as a man of my race not entitled to some non-racist pride in my own race? Is it racist to be proud of your race regardless of what race you are? Is it foolish, or does some amount of pride belong in a person of any race?
Does it (whatever you think) also translate to culture? Is pride in one's culture acceptable or does it only lead to segregation and separatism?

I can honestly say that I didn't think anything other than you wanted me know that you are Aryan. I beleive that it was this guy named Martin Luther King who has this dream that one day people go out to eat (back when people could afford to drive to the eating place) and people would pay attention to the color of their skin. Well... His dream came true... at least in one little sector of Louisville, Kentucky

 

[quatona]

I am an Aryan. Tall, white (ok. Pink I guess), blue eyed and blond.
I probably fit the blueprint just about perfectly in fact.

Yet when I say I am Aryan (which I seldom do) what do people think? They immediately think one of the following thoughts:
Nazi. Hateful racist. Self-centered elitist. Or something else along those lines.

Do they? How do you know?

Hitler is probably one of the first things to enter their mind.

Is it? How do you figure?

I don´t know about the connotation of the term in America, but here in Germany the term is - although having had several different meanings in its history - somewhat charged due to Hitler´s excessive use of it as a label for the allegedly supreme white race. I guess it´s a bit like with the swastika - it has been used as a symbol for different things throughout history, but the most intense reminiscence is what it was a symbol for in recent history.
Depending on what you want to communicate, there are other - often even more precise terms - than "Aryan". White, caucasian, indogerman...

Yet if someone were to say that they were black for example, do people automatically think of Idi Amin, Shaka Zulu and other African leaders with a terrible history of violence and oppression? Probably not.

In the same way that I don´t have to struggle with negative associations when someone says "white". "Aryan", however, is loaded.

If you say you're a stereotypical Asian, do people think of Pol Pot and Mao? Probably not. I am sure they think of Kung Fu and sushi first.

Then again, there was no claim of "asian supremacy" (and no resulting holocaust) in the recent history, using a particular synonym for "asian" as the signifier for this supremacy.

Am I, as a man of my race not entitled to some non-racist pride in my own race?

Uh, oh. I didn´t see this coming.
So far I was under the impression that you wanted to point out that "aryan" is just another objective term for a race, and now you tell me it´s got something to do with pride.

Is it racist to be proud of your race regardless of what race you are?

Depends on what you mean when saying "pride". My rule of thumb is that pride - if at all - only makes sense in regards to something you have accomplished. Being born with a certain skin colour is not exactly an accomplishment in my book.

Is it foolish, or does some amount of pride belong in a person of any race?
Does it (whatever you think) also translate to culture? Is pride in one's culture acceptable or does it only lead to segregation and separatism?

I´m really not sure I know what you mean by "pride". The term doesn´t make any sense to me in this context.

 

[TheReasoner]

Do they? How do you know?

Well. It's a common association here, and I assume in most of the west. Aryan is very loaded. I am not sure I think it SHOULD be, but I certainly understand that it is.

Is it? How do you figure?

See above. Power of association.

I don´t know about the connotation of the term in America, but here in Germany the term is - although having had several different meanings in its history - somewhat charged due to Hitler´s excessive use of it as a label for the allegedly supreme white race. I guess it´s a bit like with the swastika - it has been used as a symbol for different things throughout history, but the most intense reminiscence is what it was a symbol for in recent history.
Depending on what you want to communicate, there are other - often even more precise terms - than "Aryan". White, caucasian, indogerman...

Same here. It's extremely loaded here. Should it be though? Should we have negative associations related to any one racial term? I think we shouldn't. As I think we shouldn't be proud of our race.

In the same way that I don´t have to struggle with negative associations when someone says "white". "Aryan", however, is loaded.

Then again, there was no claim of "asian supremacy" (and no resulting holocaust) in the recent history, using a particular synonym for "asian" as the signifier for this supremacy.

Uh, oh. I didn´t see this coming.
So far I was under the impression that you wanted to point out that "aryan" is just another objective term for a race, and now you tell me it´s got something to do with pride.

I think it should be an objective term. I think my point, which I attempted to make subtly (sorry) is that racial terminology is loaded. And pride, like disgust, is irrational and not good.

Depends on what you mean when saying "pride". My rule of thumb is that pride - if at all - only makes sense in regards to something you have accomplished. Being born with a certain skin color is not exactly an accomplishment in my book.

I agree.

I´m really not sure I know what you mean by "pride". The term doesn´t make any sense to me in this context.

I'm mostly trying to play the devil's advocate and just generate debate more than anything.

I can honestly say that I didn't think anything other than you wanted me know that you are Aryan. I beleive that it was this guy named Martin Luther King who has this dream that one day people go out to eat (back when people could afford to drive to the eating place) and people would pay attention to the color of their skin. Well... His dream came true... at least in one little sector of Louisville, Kentucky

Racial pride is somewhat silly. It doesn't make sense to believe the color of your skin really matters. Still, I think it's OK to consider certain visual aspects of a race more attractive than others. I don't have anything against that.

Being proud of your culture does matter sometimes. So long as it isn't about a belief in cultural supremacy.

 

[quatona]

Well. It's a common association here, and I assume in most of the west.

Yes, I can say that for the country I live in, at least. However, you went into great detail when describing other person´s alleged thoughts, and you went quite to an extreme - and I think that´s not a good basis for a discussion.

Aryan is very loaded. I am not sure I think it SHOULD be, but I certainly understand that it is.

I can´t make much sense of the idea that a term "should" or "should not" come with certain connotations. If I don´t want to be misunderstood I think it´s a good idea to use words in the way they are commonly used and understood, and not in the way I think they "should" be used. Language works on the basis of convention and agreement, after all, and its functioning depends on everyone being aware of this.

See above. Power of association.

Symbolism isn´t used for nothing. It creates strong emotions, and it´s meant to work that way. Sure, I can reframe a swastika as merely being six lines forming a symmetrical picture, but that doesn´t do away with my first immediate associations.
That´s why I am very skeptical towards using symbolism in this way. That´s where we probably agree.

Same here. It's extremely loaded here. Should it be though? Should we have negative associations related to any one racial term? I think we shouldn't.

Terms get their emotional connotations from the context. A pig is not a bad thing, per se. But being called a "pig" is commonly connotated negatively.
As I said there are other terms that communicate the same objective message, without being associated with Nazi-terminology. I wonder why anyone would insist on using a loaded term if there are non-loaded terms for the same purpose.

I think it should be an objective term.

Fine, but until your suggestion has become common usage the term will be understood the way it is commonly used.

I think my point, which I attempted to make subtly (sorry) is that racial terminology is loaded.

I don´t think this is necessarily so. Picking the example of an indeed loaded racial term doesn´t help you making your point when - as you yourself have pointed out in your OP - there are racial terms that aren´t loaded.
There are racial terms that are loaded, there are racial terms that aren´t. There are terms for sexual orientation that are loaded, and there are terms for sexual orientation that aren´t. There are terms for certain beliefs that are loaded, and...

And pride, like disgust, is irrational and not good.

Pride is an emotion, and I don´t think particularly high of emotions. In fact, "pride" is a term that comes with strong negative connotations to me personally. It just does, no matter whether anyone thinks it "should" or "shouldn´t". One of my strategies to overcome the power of such emotional connotations on my part is to ask for a clear definition.

I'm mostly trying to play the devil's advocate and just generate debate more than anything.

Thanks for clearing that up. I like to play devil´s advocate myself.
However, if - upon the first skeptical question, which actually was but the request to define the keyterm of the position you advocated - you peddle back and say ´I´m just playing devil´s advocate' I think your are not doing a particularly good job as a devil´s advocate.

So what is "pride" supposed to practically mean, in this context? I need to know that in order to participate meaningfully in the debate you are trying to generate.
If it is just some unspecific warm and fuzzy feeling someone has it is not skin off my nose. If the term points to something beyond that (e.g. a more or less veiled claim of supremacy) I am concerned.

Being proud of your culture does matter sometimes. So long as it isn't about a belief in cultural supremacy.

So what does "being proud of my culture" actually mean here - when it doesn´t mean "belief in cultural supremacy"?

 

[jayem]

The term "Aryan" strictly speaking is a linguistic term, not a genetic one. It describes a group of languages of Indo-Persian origin. It was later expanded to include Indo-European languages in general. It was never meant to refer to races. In proper scientific usage, there are Aryan languages--not Aryan people. But it was corrupted by pseudoscientific racial theorists in the 19th century, and certainly is now a loaded term with connotations of ethnic prejudice.

If your genetic background is so important, it's more accurate to say that you are a Caucasian of northern European origin. Unless you just want to provoke a reaction.

This thread reminds me of the old saying that people who brag about their ancestry are like potatoes---the best part of them is underground.

 

[Exhausted]

Oh no, someone using a word you would like to use to describe yourself screwed up really bad, and now that word is no longer usable by those you feel it should be used by?

Welcome to every day of my life. Every group ever has that problem, you just happen to have a deformed, gigantically overgrown version of it.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Not everyone believes that all cultures are equally good. All have good points and bad points, but that doesn't make them equally good. I, for one, am very glad I did not grow up among cannibals.