WMN: t3_383qcb_t1_crs2pfe

[TITLE]

CMV: Labeling people as the "First African-American" or "First Woman" to do something does more to separate us than bring us together

[pmbasehore]

I think that all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal. In other words, if I don't know you at all, my respect for you won't change based on your gender, orientation, race, religion, etc (If I do know you, and you give me reason to increase or decrease my respect for you, I will, of course). I think that referring to people based on their accomplishment is just fine -- being the First Person in Space is a grand title for Yuri Gagarin. But why is he referred to as the first *man* in space? To me, calling Valentina Tereshkova the First *Woman* in space simply emphasizes her difference -- she's female -- instead of her accomplishment. If we're all supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of race, nationality, gender, orientation, religious views, etc; wouldn't referring someone as the first *whatever* to do something simply remind everyone that the difference is still there, and make it that much more difficult to ignore in the future? EDIT: My V has been C'd! I see that the social impact of the accomplishment is equally important, and we need to recognize what these people had to go through in order to actually get there! I do think, though, that these types of titles will slowly become irrelevant for future accomplishments, and eventually will be relegated only to the history books. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[utspg1980]

[STA-CITE]>all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal. [END-CITE]You should realize that this is a ***very*** new concept. It's only in the last ~100 years that this has become the accepted viewpoint. Think about it, since the dawn of homo sapiens (when was that? 300,000 years ago?) discrimination due to gender, etc has been the norm. That's 0.03% of our history.

[cdb03b]

That label has nothing to do with bringing people together. It has to do with the historical importance of the person or event.

[NaturalSelectorX]

[STA-CITE]> wouldn't referring someone as the first whatever to do something simply remind everyone that the difference is still there [END-CITE]That's the whole point of it. "First x to do y" announcements both celebrate how far we have come, and serve as a reminder that we have a long way to go. There was a time when a black president would have been unthinkable. Pointing it out shows that we have progressed far enough to consider them equals, but remind us that it's an uncommon thing and we shouldn't stop progressing. We reach our goal when we stop having to make announcements about a particular group.

[BenIncognito]

Could you be specific on how this does more to separate us? I'm not sure what you mean by your post.

[pmbasehore]

I feel like this sort of thing emphasizes the wrong thing. Saying someone is the "first X of Y" is like saying, "They did Y! Oh, but they were X"... If you're a Trekkie, it reminds me of the scene in the 2009 movie where Spock is discriminated against by the Vulcan Science Council because he's half-human. If it doesn't matter, why bring it up?

[BenIncognito]

It is a celebration of our milestones in equality, but this doesn't really answer my question. In what specific ways does this foster separation? I don't feel *more* separated from black people when we acknowledge Obama as the first black president. If anything, I feel less separated! Like now we can acknowledge that the ceiling is gone and we truly are on equal footing (in terms of who can be President, at least). To say that these traits "don't matter" is missing the point - race, gender, and sexuality did matter for a long time in history and still do.

[pmbasehore]

I guess I should have said, "If it isn't supposed to matter, why bring it up?". I understand why we do this (thanks to this thread) but I still feel that it emphasizes the wrong thing. Let's take President Obama, to continue your example. Yes, he's the first black President. He's also the first President from Hawai'i and (IIRC) the first single-term Senator to be elected President. Why are none of these other facts commonly used? Because they don't matter. Race or gender or etc. shouldn't, either.

[BenIncognito]

But race *does* matter, I'm not sure why you don't think it does. Do you think it's just a coincidence that since 1776 our first black president was elected in 2008?

[wizgrao]

It matters in his case because black people are historically underrepresented as presidents. White people don't make nearly 100% of the us population, however, up until Obama, they made up of 100% of the presidents. Obama becoming president exemplifies this shift. Him being from Hawaii is not important, as Hawaii has less than 1% of the US population, and it is expected that not many Hawaiians are elected.

[thelordpresident]

Noticing differences doesn't separate anyone. And it's more of an accomplishment to be the first anything in anything than the third human in anything. I would rather be known as the first woman.

[old_tombombadil]

I think the reason that we do this is to recognize the person, remind us of our progress towards equality, as well as remind us that there was a time when that would not have been possible. Jackie Robinson was the first black player in Major League Baseball. It was something that was revolutionary in American sports and helped change the way black people were viewed by American society. If we all pretended that he was just some other MLB player then he would be forgotten and we would forget how influential he was to equality. He was different, the entire concept of whites playing baseball with blacks was different, and because of that he serves as a reminder that we should all have equal rights.

[awful_hug]

Many groups have barriers to accomplishing things that would make it impossible for them to be "the first of all". However, the ability to overcome that barrier and become the first of that group to do it should be acknowledged. You're not just noting an accomplishment, you are noting that somebody completed it + the extra baggage. And actually, by celebrating the fact that someone is the first in a certain group to do something, you are celebrating the fact that we ARE becoming less different. To be the first in a group to do something means that your group can now do something that other groups have already been able or allowed to do.

[pmbasehore]

I'm not sure I follow how celebrating our differences makes us become less different. Can you elaborate further?

[awful_hug]

I'm not sure how to explain it better but I will try. Do you accept the idea that certain groups of people currently are or historically have been treated differently, and that treatment would have prevented them from being "the first" to do something? If so, then the fact that they are or were able to do those things means that society has progressed. It means that certain circumstances have occurred that allowed society to view these people as less different.

[pmbasehore]

I see what you were saying now, thank you.

[TryUsingScience]

If someone sets a world record for the 400m sprint, that's impressive, yes? Let's say they're the first person to run that distance in X amount of time. A few other people run it in that time afterwards, but it's still a rare accomplishment. Let's imagine that a few years later, someone finishes the 400m sprint in X time while wearing a 50lb rucksack. Would you agree that that is a different accomplishment and should be celebrated on its own? Being part of a socially disadvantaged group is the equivalent to sprinting while wearing a heavy rucksack. Not only that, but people look for role models. If you're a straight while male, you have tons of role models. Want to be a scientist? Most scientists look just like you! So do most politicians! Want to be a belly dancer? It might not even occur to you that you *can* be a belly dancer - it probably never has - because you've never seen a belly dancer who looks like you. (I know straight while dudes who bellydance exist, but they aren't common.) No one is actively preventing you from being a belly dancer, but it's not something you're likely to try doing. If you did try, some belly dance schools might turn you away because you don't fit what they think a belly dancer should look like. Now imagine being black, or gay, or a woman. Or all three. There aren't any notable scientists who look like you. At least not many. Same for politicians. You know that lots of people don't like people like you, so they wouldn't give you grant money or vote for you even if you tried. It probably won't occur to you to try, and if it does, you'll see that no one who is like you has succeeded and you might give up. But if you can see that hey, there is a black lesbian senator, she looks just like me, she got votes, she got funding, she can do it! Then maybe you'll think, hey, I could do it too. So it's important that you know about that black lesbian senator, or you might decide to give up and be a belly dancer instead.

[Juswantedtono]

[STA-CITE]>I think that all humans deserve the same amount of respect, all else being equal. In other words, if I don't know you at all, my respect for you won't change based on your gender, orientation, race, religion, etc [END-CITE]Most people believe this, the problem is that people are *not* given the same amount of respect and they're not treated the same. Study after study proves discrimination is alive and well even if it's more subtle than it was in the 1950s. People with black-sounding names get their job applications thrown out. Third graders associate professions like engineering and doctors with men. Hate crimes against Muslims spiked after 9/11 and still haven't returned to their pre-2001 levels. And even if people stopped discriminating today, that wouldn't erase the hundreds of years of unequal treatment of different classes of people which results in situations like white households having twice as much wealth as black households even when yearly income is identical. Given this context, it's absolutely a noteworthy achievement for a person to rise to the top of a field usually dominated by people of another sex/race/religion/etc.

[Madplato]

I understand what you're saying and, to some extent, agree with it. However, I feel you're brushing over the larger context with this view. While we strive to eliminate differences, I feel it's detrimental to become voluntary oblivious to the fact these difference exist, but more importantly *existed* in the past and constituted real obstacles which needed to be overcome. The first man in space was a human achievement of tremendous proportion to be sure. However, the first woman in space was also an achievement of tremendous proportion, but for quite different reasons which are important to keep in mind. The first man in space was a scientific achievement which pushed our human perspective forward by leaps and bounds. The first woman in space shattered social barriers and expectations. If you put it into context, acknowledging the peculiar position of women in societies, both events were tremendous achievements. But, if you just decide to swipe the differences under the rug, the first women in space is really nothing special compared to the first *human* in space, period.

[pmbasehore]

I can see that in the case of historical accomplishments, but what about modern ones? Is being the First LGBTQ Senator (for a random example) still a relevant thing to celebrate, even though LGBTQ people are not legally barred from running for office in the US?

[Madplato]

They might not be barred, legally speaking, but in an environment where prejudice is still strong an openly LGBTQ high ranking elected official is an important milestone for the group. It shows that barriers are thinning down (kind of like Obama being the first black president) and that their actions *did have an impact on society at large*, which strengthen the group further. When these prejudices disappear entirely, I don't think we'll celebrate these events the same way (you don't see acclaim for a black police officer for instance). I think ignoring these barriers, soft or hard, and the achievement that is shattering them will ultimately prove to be a disservice to our society.

[shinkouhyou]

Most of the really famous First To Do Whatever spots were claimed by white guys during a time when nobody could even *imagine* the idea that a non-white-guy would achieve something like that. So celebrating the First Woman or First African-American To Do Whatever is less about the accomplishment itself (although the accomplishment may still be very impressive) and more about recognizing the personal and societal obstacles that had to be overcome. I think the big accomplishments of the future are going to be a lot less segregated. We're going to celebrate the First Person On Mars one day, and maybe by then race and gender will be insignificant details instead of obstacles.

[pmbasehore]

I can get behind this. Historical accomplishments should bring up the society where the accomplishment was completed, along with the details of the accomplishment itself. ∆ I would also certainly like to think that future accomplishments will be much less segregated!

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/shinkouhyou. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/shinkouhyou)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

I'd say that there's a notable exception to this principle, and that's when a person had to overcome a major social barrier to become the first whatever of their category. For example, Jackie Robinson and his whole team took a major risk to be the first baseball team with a black player. When we celebrate these people, we're celebrating the battles previous generations fought to bring us together.

[mayonnaise_man]

But what great social barrier did Obama have to overcome to get where he is? Racial tension was hardly a problem in his lifetime. I don't think your idea really applies anymore tbh.

[willbradley]

I'm white and I was legitimately afraid that he'd be assassinated during his acceptance speech. There are still way too many racist people in America who are armed and think he's a Muslim operative from Kenya and/or a "filthy n____." Your point is invalid.

[mayonnaise_man]

Your fear of assassins makes my point invalid?

[willbradley]

Obama had to overcome a shit-ton of social opposition and hatred.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

I'd say that Obama winning the presidency was proof of just the opposite, that the social barrier wasn't there anymore.

[raanne]

Racial tension wasn't a factor in his lifetime? His parents marriage wasn't even legally recognized in quite a few states.

[krysis43ll]

I think he's trying to say that he doesn't think race was a significant obstacle for Obama.

[raanne]

Which is mind boggling. Growing up in the 60s and 70s in the US, race would have a significant factor.

[krysis43ll]

He undoubtedly faced at least some discrimination growing up, but I suspect it was tempered significantly by his upbringing in a white family. And it is difficult to parse how it affected his public life as well. I think that his race likely served as a boon in certain communities and as a disadvantage in other communities. I think that his upbringing was likely also instrumental in removing some obstacles that are often associated with being black. Specifically, it meant that he falls very far from any negative stereotypes associated with blackness. I'm sure he had to overcome some obstacles due to race, but I'm not sure that they were greater in magnitude than those faced by unlucky white Americans.

[morebeansplease]

[STA-CITE]> I'd say that there's a notable exception to this principle, and that's when a person had to overcome a major social barrier to become the first whatever of their category. [END-CITE]But race is not real, its pseudo science, hint, thats why we shouldnt be using it. In short you are pointing out that a bunch of people believing in pseudo science were thwarted by a person who proved them wrong. Then, instead of moving forward from the use of that pseudo science you label the person who stood against them by the now established wrong label...? Is this some sort of humiliation tactic to the ones who were wrong? Is this perhaps an act of remedial discrimination?

[Kai_]

Ethnic groups aren't pseudo-science, and 'race' is almost exclusively used to refer to ethnic groups in contemporary dialogue, so the point is a little semantically pedantic.

[morebeansplease]

[STA-CITE]> 'race' is almost exclusively used to refer to ethnic groups in contemporary dialogue [END-CITE]wrongly, incorrectly, unscientifically used. You are saying we shouldnt correct the wrongness because everyone is doing it that way, really, thats your response. Even better, lets make things worse while pretending to fix the problem. Then you have the gall to discount the truth as trivial and.. too much true, wtf? You admit the truth and continue to teach people wrongness. What are you doing here?

[Kai_]

It has become synonymous with ethnic group, and has been that way for some time now. That is what race means, and it's a very correct usage. Do you use 'awful' to mean good? Do you call poor people 'naughty'? Is a 'cheater' a collections officer of the king? No. Because although those used to be the 'correct' definitions, words mean what they are understood to mean. Language literally isn't prescriptive, and I don't mean that figuratively, although it wouldn't be wrong to use literally that way. Finally, there is nothing unscientific about ethnicity. Phenotype presentation isn't homogeneous amongst all humans. African-American people are not white. This is a difference, these are different races, and it isn't your imagination that they don't look the same. Conclusions drawn upon this fact are often wrong, but that isn't the question here.

[morebeansplease]

[STA-CITE]> It has become synonymous with ethnic group, and has been that way for some time now. [END-CITE][Is-ought problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem) [STA-CITE]>Finally, there is nothing unscientific about ethnicity. [END-CITE]An [ethnic group](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group) or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.[1][2] Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc. Sure, nothing unscientific about ethnicity but curious, I dont see the word race in there... [STA-CITE]>these are different races [END-CITE]Social conceptions and groupings of [races](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification) vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. **Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.** Trust me or dont trust me that part doesnt matter, I have posted the science look it up yourself. Please stop using race, its wrong, using it only creates more hate and ignorance.

[Kai_]

Where did I say ought? All I have said is that it is most broadly used, and therefore it is a correct usage. Is-is. That was some shockingly obvious trainspotting, I'll ask that you actually read what I say instead of skimming through it trying, and failing, to find the keywords of logical fallacies. That's what gue is for, not CMV. The only person prescribing language, saying that race ought to not mean what it means, is you. This is my central point. It isn't "unscientific" to use the word 'terrible' to refer to bad things, even though once upon a time it was synonymous to awful, which could mean greatly good. Instead of arguing against prejudice based on ethnicity (which is honourable and I assume your core intention), you're misguidedly arguing against ethnicity even existing, or having non-social components. If ethnicity doesn't exist, or has no non-social components, how can people base prejudice on it! It isn't a biologically classifying or taxonomic concept, but some babies aren't born black just by chance. The rest of your argument skirted around my central point and continued to try and justify denial of the existence of any non-social component of ethnicity so I'll switch to that fully. Show me the "science" (Wikipedia is cute though) which says that genetically differentiated phenotype presentation (not biological essentialism/phrenology/eugenics, although my money is on you not knowing the difference) is imaginary and I'll consider your argument. Until then you're still just making the wrong one. The reason you didn't find a connection between race and ethnicity is because you deliberately avoided it. On the race Wikipedia page (since this is an authority to you): **Starting from the 19th century**, the term was often used in ataxonomic sense to denote **genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]** This is what people mean when they say race. This is what people understand when they hear race. It's not 1800s Belgium where we invade the Congo and believe eugenicists to help cope with the guilt. It's the 21st century and biological essentialism is done away with. 'Race' still has meaning. Stop trying to change language and fight the actual problem: rac*ism*.

[morebeansplease]

There seems to be some confusion. I am telling you race is not a scientific description and its use as a popular culture description causes hate and ignorance. Would you like to agree, perhaps disagree with evidence that it is scientific or take the position of unknown.

[Kai_]

I don't think you really understand what you're trying to say. Race refers to genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype - is there some perceived absence of scientific content here? Genetics is a field of science. Phenotypes are things that exist in nature and can be scientifically examined. Do you know what you mean by "unscientific", or is it just a non-declarative placeholder speech act you use when you have attitudes of aversion? More importantly, even if "race" - whether you mean the word itself or the concept it refers to - *is* in some manner, shape, or form "unscientific" (whatever exactly that's supposed to mean) why is that significant? What generates the "we *ought* to not use the word race", when all you begin with is "the word race/the concept that the word race refers to *is* unscientific"? You're going from the "is" to the "ought" which is obviously quite ironic.

[morebeansplease]

Wow you are putting alot of effort into avoiding my question. I was careful to put it into the most basic terms and yet there was still a communication failure, no problem, lets break out the crayola's. Do you hold the position that race is a scientific descriptor? Your answer should be framed as a "yes", "no" or "unknown". Seriously, dont over think this one, just a one word answer. You know what, let me pull it out of this paragraph and restate, again, no tricks, just a simple one word answer is all that required. Also, if you are worried about tricks go ahead and ask any questions you need, look up any references for clarification, just dont let it interfere with your response. Do you hold the position that race is an accepted scientific descriptor? Your answer should be framed as a "yes", "no" or "unknown".

[pmbasehore]

OK, that makes sense. I can understand specifying that difference in the case of someone like Jackie Robinson or someone else who not only did something amazing, but did it in a time/place where their demographic was typically not allowed to do so. ∆

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Glory2Hypnotoad. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Glory2Hypnotoad)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[BigPoopBreakfast]

Wouldn't it generally at least suggest that if a person is the first of their identity (sexual, gender, ethnic, etc) to do something that many other people have done that there *were* previously special barriers to them based on said identity?

[pmbasehore]

Not necessarily. I could truthfully say that I'm the first 25% Czech male in my position at my employer. There were and are no barriers saying that people with some Czech ancestry couldn't complete that accomplishment, though. Of course, I don't actually call myself that because it's silly. I only used it to make a point! :-)

[AdamNW]

I see what you're saying. It's kinda like saying I'm the first gay man to get two degrees in my specific fields at my university. In which case, I think the bigger issue is that there is a new trend in the states that will award just about anything and everything, which cheapens the actual accomplishments. That doesn't mean we shouldn't celebrate the fact that Hillary Clinton is the first female president (assuming she gets it obviously), because it shows a huge change in the way American society thinks. Just like how awesome it was that Obama got elected, even though he ended up being a rather lame president.

[wizgrao]

Well, even then, I don't think that 25% Czech males at your workplace were underrepresented, the proportion between 25% Czech males within the nation and within your employer are similar. However, when it took tens of people before the first woman, or hundreds before the first African American, then there would have to be some societal or economic barrier that they had to overcome.