TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- African Americans? Anyone Else Offended By That Term?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

youve missed the point i was making. in saying they are actually brown, i am saying that the label Black is not accurate, and is often used to lump together ethinc minorities.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Every American is an African-American in that they have ancestors who lived in Africa. It's just another non-sense term invented to make up for the inadequacies of the average mind.

What about those with Native American ancestry?

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath youve missed the point i was making. in saying they are actually brown, i am saying that the label Black is not accurate, and is often used to lump together ethinc minorities.

I got your point, i think most people would agree that if somebody is referred to as black, you would automatically think negroid, not Arab or Indian or Pakistani etc. what i am saying by your logic is that to label me white is not accurate either, because my skin is not the colour white.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What about those with Native American ancestry?

Well they are native Americans, or native American Indians, whichever.

quote:

Originally posted by zig Well they are native Americans, or native American Indians, whichever.

Right--but not descended from Africa as far as I know. Just clearing up from Arbiter's post (I have native american ancestry).

quote:

Originally posted by zig I got your point, i think most people would agree that if somebody is referred to as black, you would automatically think negroid, not Arab or Indian or Pakistani etc. what i am saying by your logic is that to label me white is not accurate either, because my skin is not the colour white.

basically we are saying the same thing...we both agree that labels based on colour are inaccurate..and i didnt mention anything about who was white and who wasnt.

what im saying is that African-American people might be more offended by being labelled Black, because it has been used in the past to differentiate all other ethnic minorities from the 'White' majority, in a way that implies inferiority. i understand that probably most African-American people wouldnt mind being lablelled as Black, but some might, hence me not understanding the comment made earlier.

This would be a more interesting topic if it were a 2 way street. The way I am reading this thread, we're all being insensitive if we don't properly refer to a dark-skinned person by his ancestral heritage. Can I also get offended the next time someone calls me white or caucasian when that doesn't really accurately reflect who I am? (In all honesty I could care less, but I don't want to create a double-standard.) I think it sounds more offensive to refer to an Asian person as "yellow" than it does to refer to an African-American as "black".

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Right--but not descended from Africa as far as I know. Just clearing up from Arbiter's post (I have native american ancestry).

Well there are two different theories on the origions of homo sapiens, both are yet inconclusive, one theory gives a regional explanation and the other proposes that homo sapiens evolved from a smaller isolated population probably from Africa.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

Cool ancestry...... ........have you looked much into it?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This would be a more interesting topic if it were a 2 way street. The way I am reading this thread, we're all being insensitive if we don't properly refer to a dark-skinned person by his ancestral heritage. Can I also get offended the next time someone calls me white or caucasian when that doesn't really accurately reflect who I am? (In all honesty I could care less, but I don't want to create a double-standard.) I think it sounds more offensive to refer to an Asian person as "yellow" than it does to refer to an African-American as "black".

Couldnt agree more.....but that was really my point.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath why do you say this? dont you think that some people may find offense in being labelled as Black? particulalry when theyre actually brown. and if so dont they therefore have a right to be offended?

Well, people label me as white although I'm more or less pinkish..sometimes with a copper tan during the summer. And guess what, I'm not offended. Black is not a derogatory word. People who get offended by being called black will probably invent a new term describing their race in 20 or so years and will thereafter be offended when someone calls them african american.

quote:

youve missed the point i was making. in saying they are actually brown, i am saying that the label Black is not accurate, and is often used to lump together ethinc minorities.

I really haven't heard anyone use the term black for people who have not originated from Africa unless perhaps by mistake, but then again, same mistake would be made for african americans.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka This would be a more interesting topic if it were a 2 way street. The way I am reading this thread, we're all being insensitive if we don't properly refer to a dark-skinned person by his ancestral heritage. Can I also get offended the next time someone calls me white or caucasian when that doesn't really accurately reflect who I am? (In all honesty I could care less, but I don't want to create a double-standard.) I think it sounds more offensive to refer to an Asian person as "yellow" than it does to refer to an African-American as "black".

slavery; colonialism. thats why its not a 2 way street

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, people label me as white although I'm more or less pinkish..sometimes with a copper tan during the summer. And guess what, I'm not offended. Black is not a derogatory word. People who get offended by being called black will probably invent a new term describing their race in 20 or so years and will thereafter be offended when someone calls them african american.

yes, but some people may get offended by the term Black, which is why labels such as african-american have arisen. just because you dont find being called White a problem, doesnt mean that similalrly, people being called Black will feel the same. and asive said, im sure most dont, but some might, and i dont think you can criticise them for that.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I really haven't heard anyone use the term black for people who have not originated from Africa unless perhaps by mistake, but then again, same mistake would be made for african americans.

dont you think its time we stopped labelling people by the colour of their skin anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath slavery; colonialism. thats why its not a 2 way street

Please. Get over it. Do you support reparations?

ive got nothing to get over! reperations or no reperations slavery is one of those most vile things that one human can do to another. im not saying that people labelled as White dont have any right to complain etc, but i do think a greater sensitivity is required towards ethnic minorities in Western countries...at least for the time being. hopefully we can move on, but not yet.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath yes, but some people may get offended by the term Black, which is why labels such as african-american have arisen. just because you dont find being called White a problem, doesnt mean that similalrly, people being called Black will feel the same. and asive said, im sure most dont, but some might, and i dont think you can criticise them for that.

Don't you see the poinlessness of being offended by one generally non offensive term and then inventing another non offensive term which has exactly the same meaning as the previous one?

quote:

dont you think its time we stopped labelling people by the colour of their skin anyway?

Look, there's a difference between equality and equivalence. We all have and should have equal basic rights, but that does not mean that we are genetically equivalent. A person's skin color is something that's usually pretty obvious and therefore it often proves itself useful in describing the appearance of a person. Same as eye and hair color, only even more noticable. It seems to me that this avoidance of the obvious can only be explained as an overreaction to the remnants of latent racism in the society.

it maybe pointless to you, but some people may find it less offensive, as it is recognising a disticntion based more on a geographical origination as opposed to one based on colour, which was used to justify an oppression against them. this is me making an argument for that case, regardless of however much i find it pointless, i still think that if thats the case for some people, then i think they have the right not to be labelled as Black and instead as what they prefer, for the reason i have just given or for any other.

in relation to the second quote, by all means use descriptions like african-american etc when needed eg eyewitness account. but i think that in general people are just too quick to categorise people according to the colour of their skin; often people use it to base an entire identity on, rather than seeing it for what it is: skin colour.

In all honesty, this is getting to be a pretty ridiculous thread. Yes, some blacks, if I may use the term all-encompassingly, are from locales other than Africa, be it British, Carribean, Dominican, etc. Beyond that, however, there are plenty of reasons to assume that a black person ancestrally from Africa since, as far as I know, on a long-term ancestral timeline, only "black" people can truly claim ancestral links to Africa, e.g. Africa is the birthplace of the "black" race.

If the term is not meant in a derogitory manner, it should not be taken offense to. "******" is the obvious prime example of a term that has derogitory connotation. I just say "black" and I've never had anyone who had a problem with it. If they care to clarify that they are not only dark skinned, but perhaps they a French black person. If someone called me white, I don't think I'd take offense, but if he really wanted to know, I could tell him that I'm actually of a mix between many ancestral origins. But I think we'd probably just agree to leave it at "white". In fact, if my friend introduced me to another person and said, "Soandso, this is Shakka, my euronativeamericrussian friend, I'd probably be a little taken aback.

the only reason i brought it up, was that people have a right to take offence to a particular label, however irrational it may seem to others. your n*gger example, for example, used to be ok with everyone until it was challenged. im not saying its the same as 'Black', but maybe we cant see the conotations it may hold for some people, and so they have a right to be offended. i find it hard to disregard such a right, which is what my man Tito said.

since then weve being going around in circles! but you know what its probably quite fitting that a ridicolus thread ends the way it started!

quote:

Originally posted by zig background of forced slavery mainly from Africa.

oh, and I hate when they pull out the "slavery" or the "minority" card.

tough times have passed, they have prevailed, and therefore have the same rights as any other American citizen.

it's all politics...

>JM<

quote:

ive got nothing to get over! reperations or no reperations slavery is one of those most vile things that one human can do to another. im not saying that people labelled as White dont have any right to complain etc, but i do think a greater sensitivity is required towards ethnic minorities in Western countries...at least for the time being. hopefully we can move on, but not yet.

Why not?

why not what?

I think he's asking why you don't think we can move on yet.

people who lived under colonialism are still around. the effects of colonialsm are still being felt in those countries where many of the ethnic minorities in western countries have migrated from. western goverments are still being percieved as subjugating other nations, this time through a new-colonialism through culture. the west have alot to answer for, and so i think should be a little more sensitive to those people who are coming from those nations, in the way they label and refer to them, until feelings of resentment can subside.

quote:

Originally posted by svens_bath it maybe pointless to you, but some people may find it less offensive, as it is recognising a disticntion based more on a geographical origination as opposed to one based on colour, which was used to justify an oppression against them.

Like they wouldn't be slaves if they were of any other color? The reason why they became slaves was that their regions were not nearly as developed as those in Europe, Middle, and Far East, so slave traders had no oposition whatsoever when capturing them. In other words, the new way they classify themselves is more closely related to their opression throughout history than the one that was previously in use. Besides, just look at what Spaniards did to local indian populations in South America, what English did to Irealand, and so forth, it had nothing to do with skin color.

Regardless of that the reason why such a distinction is idiotic because the terms are equivalent. 500 years ago there were no white africans, as well as there were no black non-africans.

quote:

this is me making an argument for that case, regardless of however much i find it pointless, i still think that if thats the case for some people, then i think they have the right not to be labelled as Black and instead as what they prefer, for the reason i have just given or for any other.

Well, yes but ultimately you come to the point of extreme political correctness where for every term you think of, somebody will be offended by it. What if I don't like being called white? Well, you can think of another term, but considering that there are 1000000000 white people out there in the world, it's pretty certain that at least one of those people will be unhappy with the new term as well. It's pointless to keep reinventing the same thing over and over again to satisfy the quirks of a small population of people who are never satisfied.

quote:

in relation to the second quote, by all means use descriptions like african-american etc when needed eg eyewitness account. but i think that in general people are just too quick to categorise people according to the colour of their skin; often people use it to base an entire identity on, rather than seeing it for what it is: skin colour.

Well, yes, I agree with the second part of your post, but the point is that you're needlessly inventing a new word that carries exactly the same connotations as the previous one. If I hate blacks, I'll hate african americans too, or whichever new name they come up with for themselves, I won't stop and think "Oh wait, they're not black anymore, they're americans like me just coming from africa. I suppose they're ok now!". Besides, the term is sometimes very imprecise. Take for example black people who lived for 5 generations in England and then moved to the US. What are they? African americans? English americans? African englishmen? Same goes for white ancestors of colonists who went to Africa hundreds of years ago? They are african, are they not? So what do you call them when they move to America? Also, why is not, say, Abraham Lincoln classified as an english or european american?

The thing is that by calling someone african american, you're actually implying that african americans are for some reason different than other americans, while by labeling them as blacks, you would only classify them as being of a different race yet equally american morale and culture wise as the white people. In other words, it implies that an african american is culturally more similar to some villager living in Rwanda than a white american, although they're both worlds apart from that guy and much more similar to each other than they are to him.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.