Do all white people look the same to black people?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

---

― man, Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha, what a brave thread.

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Do all amoebae look the same to paramecia?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I do NOT look like Ned.

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

White people do all look the same. And no, I'm not black.

― Sommermute (Wintermute), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Why do you deny how you were made in my image, Mark C?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The sideburns, Ned, the sideburns!

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Or lack thereof.

― Larcole (Nicole), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I was under the impression Mark had a shaved head and therefore no sideburns.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

See? You two do look alike.

― Larcole (Nicole), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/biondino/photos/markheadphones.jpg

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

When I lived in the Far East, a Chinese girl I worked with did say to me once that all gweilos (= foreign devils = white people) looked the same to her. But she had a wicked sense of humour, so I s'pect she was joking.

― C J (C J), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark C=Aaron Grossman=Donut Bitch=this dude I know at Columbia! You're all the same!

― Ally (mlescaut), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark C is MARKED BY THE DEVIL.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

The Baldwins all look the same to me.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Woah Ned, those are some sweet-looking headphones in that pic.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

What's even better is that I have a second pair of ears in my neck.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel dirty.

― Mark C (Mark C), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.castproductions.com/photos/jerryvandyke.jpg

http://www.andywilliams.com/images/andyXmasBig.jpg

http://www.wallsoffame.com/assets/images/1099knotts.jpg

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

To take this more seriously than it deserves, people learn to distinguish and recognise faces accurately. Distinguishing black faces is performed in a somewhat different way by black Africans, as compared to how white people in the UK distinguish and recognise other white people, and the skills do not transfer seamlessly. When I first read some studies on this, I happened to be working alongside a Malaysian guy who had only been in the UK for a couple of years. I asked him if he found white people harder to tell apart than the people back home, and he said he found it almost impossible. One reason is that white people habitually look at hair first, as that is very varied - but not a good first item for separating Malaysians, so he barely noticed if one person had fair hair and one dark. Similarly, if you look at nose width, and you have got used to the bell curve for white people, black people are all way up one end of the distribution, and just noticed as at that end, and the differences are not so easily noted.

Anyway, I could go on about this, but I must emphasise that this is no excuse for any white person who has grown up in a country with loads of non-white people to have not got the hang of distinguishing them just about as well as they distinguish white people, and anyone who says anything along the "they all look the same" is plainly scum.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 20:03 (twenty-two years ago)

If somebody was to try really hard, Martin, they reduce your statement to "people of colour all look the same." I'm not saying that that's what you were saying, but I think if somebody selectively interpreted lines like: "One reason is that white people habitually look at hair first, as that is very varied" and "Similarly, if you look at nose width, and you have got used to the bell curve for white people, black people are all way up one end of the distribution" they could be used to see, "See, white people are a more varied people than other races." Which could be a short step to some sort of racial superiority statement.
Just pointing it out because I noticed it, not because I'm accusing you of anything.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

what he's saying is that certain features and their variations are more salient to certain people.

― amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.toysfortots.org/images/gmcleod.gif http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/graphics/2001/04/28/bmeno.jpeg http://www.970wfla.com/images/staff/Hendrie.jpg http://www.adlermediatv.com/JonathanWinters.jpg

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Amateurist has me right - I'm not remotely saying that black people are more similar, I'm saying that white people used to looking at white people need to look in a different way to separate black people. This is a skill of the person looking, not remotely something in the looked-at person - surely the example I gave of my Malaysian colleague shows that?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

All I'm saying is that it you're also saying that since all Black people look alike and all Malaysian people look alike, complicated white people need to use different systems of telling them apart.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

No he wasn't.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Horace no he's saying that to tell white people apart you need to pay attention to certain features (like say hair color) because it is in those features that white people manifest the greatest differences. whereas other features (nose size or whatever) manifest the greatest differences for people of other races.

(keep in mind race is a functional and not an essential category blah blah blah.)

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

...so people used to telling people apart by hair color might be confused by two people whose most salient distinguishing features are their, um, eyelids.... and vice-versa (these are hypothetical, simplified examples).

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but the examples Martin gave were "White people have more variety in their hair colour" and "black people have less variety in their nose width". An example of something which has more variety in black/non-white people would have been clearer.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Who the fuck cares which race has more facial variety?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think ya'll are getting it at all. I think the article sited sounds pretty fascinating b/c it talks about how different cultures use different features to identify each other. *This* can cause problems when transferred cross-culture. Interesting.

― That Girl (thatgirl), Thursday, 17 July 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I AM NOT MONTEL WILLIAMS!

But there is room in what he's saying to build a racist statement.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

1. I cited a Malaysian person not being able to tell white people apart, NOT the other way around. Do you have some problem with me, Horace? Reversing what I've said to try to make me sound like a racist certainly gives that impression.

2. I did not say that black people's noses didn't vary much: I said that if you are used to the white person's bell curve, black people's noses were all way up at one end. This is why you need to learn better. I certainly don't think and didn;t say that they were less varied - I actually think they are more varied, but if you are used to distinguishing between 2 and 2.1cm widths, you will be less good at distinguishing between 3 and 3.1cm. This is a fact, and is completely reversible. I find it easier to tell the difference between people 5'10 and 6' than between people 6'8 and 6'10, on a similar sort of basis.

3. What all this stuff means is that if race A grows up seeing only race A, they will be less good at telling apart people of race B. This is fact. The specific features I mentioned as examples were (hair) the prime one cited in the article and (noses) another example of how learning one set of fine differences does not easily transfer to a set of differences on a different basic scale.

4. I am not among the world's leading experts in this area. I saw an article years ago and read it with interest, and still think it's interesting. Not really on a racial basis (I might mention that an old friend of mine who is of Chinese descent finds Chinese people very hard to tell apart, as beyond her immediate family she grew up seeing white and South Asian people, in Yorksire) so much as a psychological one. I have been to lectures (for fun) on how people recognise faces and identify emotions - this kind of thing fascinates me.

5 There is not a hint of racism in any of this stuff - this is why people trying to impute such motives to me are having to grossly misquote me. Why they would want to do this is another matter.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay...I'm sorry, Martin, I thought I made it clear in my first post that I wasn't accusing you of anything Martin. I'm certainly not accusing you of racism or trying to impute any motives to you.
I just thought it was odd that depending on how you wanted to interpret what you were saying, you could find either progress towards understanding or basis for wrong-headed racial stereotypes.

I never said your post was in and of itself racist. I admit my second post was somewhat facetious and maybe even, uh, baiting (if that's the right term). I didn't mean to offend you, Martin, and in fact quite often I find you to be one of the more astute posters here.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Hooray uncovering of unconscious biases followed by friendly man-hugs!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

OK Horace even if blacks, say, exhibited less variety in their facial psychiognomy why would that be damning? Why would it matter? And why would suggesting as much be racist in any way?

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i totally butchered the spelling of physiogmony

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

OK Horace even if blacks, say, exhibited less variety in their facial psychiognomy why would that be damning? Why would it
matter? And why would suggesting as much be racist in any way?

Because racism is illogical.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

What Horace said (regarding purely technical quibbles with Martin and much respect for him)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

so any form of illogic is racism???

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

"Most black people are darker than white people."

"RACIST! STONE HIM!"

"Hein? Ow, oof, yikes (etc)!"

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

so any form of illogic is racism???
racist against the fine people of Vulcan, yes.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

never mind.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Amateurist, what about phrenology? Racist institutions have a long history of justifying their actions with the most ridiculous and unsound ideas.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

sure and that should make you suspicious when anyone generalizes about racial characteristics or indeed implies some essential immutable differences between "races." but it doesn't make any statement regarding physiogmony and race necessarily racist. you have to ask yourself in good faith what is the purpose behind the research; what conclusions (however bogus) does it lead to. sometimes it's just benign.

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(Is looking for the racist interpretation of everything racist?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

sometimes it's just benign
well that's just it, right? I mean it's empirical data, it has no intent in and of itself. I mean, ideally, at least.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm saying sometimes the conclusions drawn don't have any sinister implications as they do in the cases of the research cited in "mismeasure of man" (for example).

― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad we have cleared all this up! Thank you for the kind words.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 17 July 2003 19:56 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.