|
African Americans? Anyone Else Offended By That Term? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| svens_bath |
| 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. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
the oppression thing, i didnt mean necessarily just the slavery thing, but also in america in terms of civil and political rights, which definitly was based on colour.
i think the the thing about Black, is it quite a crude term. you could make a connection with negro, which means Black, in another language, german maybe but im not sure. from negro you get n*gger, and also negro/negroid was one of those terms banded about when ideas of biolgical differences between 'races' were prevalent.
i think this is perhaps a reason why african-american has come about, and if people feel more comfortable with using this then i dont think you can criticise them for that.
however, you do make a very good point about the whole 'african' thing further distinguishing them, and creating further segregation from the rest of america. but americans in general i perceive, to have to constantly assert some kind of cultural, or geographical root..ie, your not just an american your am italian-american, or a jewish-american, etc. by deniyng african-americans the same right, you can be seen to be discriminating against them, by only letting them be called 'Black'
times change, and old words and terms are replaced by new ones, which are have become more acceptable. thats the essence of political correctness imo. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Svens, if this issue is as serious as you claim it to be, with regards to colonialism, etc., then the nature of the problem is far more than skin deep and we're having a conversation that is only skin deep. |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| i thought the conversation we're having is more than just skin deep to be honest? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by svens_bath
the oppression thing, i didnt mean necessarily just the slavery thing, but also in america in terms of civil and political rights, which definitly was based on colour. |
Well, yes, although those rights were theoretically the same, we all know that wasn't the case, especially in the southern states until less than 50 years ago. That's why all this labeling the word black as an insultive word seems to me like an unnecessarry overreaction to opression.
| quote: | | i think the the thing about Black, is it quite a crude term. you could make a connection with negro, which means Black, in another language, german maybe but im not sure. from negro you get n*gger, and also negro/negroid was one of those terms banded about when ideas of biolgical differences between 'races' were prevalent. |
Actually it's from french and spanish, ultimately of latin origin (niger), german is schwartz. Anyway, yes, you can make a few connecting leaps to connect the word black with the word nig-ger, but I assure you that I can think up a lot of negative associations regarding african americans. FFS, just look at what hole Africa actually is, and the ideas just start flying around.
Anyway, people are stil distiguished by race, among other things, just it's no longer called white and black, it's called caucasian and african. Same but in a different package.
| quote: | i think this is perhaps a reason why african-american has come about, and if people feel more comfortable with using this then i dont think you can criticise them for that.
however, you do make a very good point about the whole 'african' thing further distinguishing them, and creating further segregation from the rest of america. but americans in general i perceive, to have to constantly assert some kind of cultural, or geographical root..ie, your not just an american your am italian-american, or a jewish-american, etc. by deniyng african-americans the same right, you can be seen to be discriminating against them, by only letting them be called 'Black' |
Well, by all means, if someone feels that his african heritage is something that is relevant in describing himself as a person, let that person call himself african american, just like those italian americans, jewish americans, and all the other americans. But when an italian american is asked for his race, he will say white, not italian, because italian is not a race (regardless of how elusive and undefined the term race in reality is).
| quote: | | times change, and old words and terms are replaced by new ones, which are have become more acceptable. thats the essence of political correctness imo. |
But can't you see the pointlesness of it? Years ago the term nig-ger was not an insulting term. Then somehow it became insluting, and black people started calling themselves black (alhtough they of all people still use the term nig-ger the most). Then somehow someone decided that the term black should be insluting too, and thought up the term african american. You see, the thing is that as long as the status described by the term is still in use (in whichever form the term exists), all these changes are superficial. A dick or a penis, it's the same thing. But the term african american is especially stupid because it a) actually removes the possibility of black people who recently came from Africa or those who feel some sort of a bond to their ancestral homeland to distinguish themselves different from those blacks who've been living in the US for 300 years and can't name 5 african countries, and b) there are some white people living in Africa for whom the term is not applicable. Furthermore it confuses racial/genetic traits with cultural ones. |
|
|
| Cal |
| Man American History X was a good movie |
|
|
| svens_bath |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
But can't you see the pointlesness of it? Years ago the term nig-ger was not an insulting term. Then somehow it became insluting, and black people started calling themselves black (alhtough they of all people still use the term nig-ger the most). Then somehow someone decided that the term black should be insluting too, and thought up the term african american. You see, the thing is that as long as the status described by the term is still in use (in whichever form the term exists), all these changes are superficial. A dick or a penis, it's the same thing. But the term african american is especially stupid because it a) actually removes the possibility of black people who recently came from Africa or those who feel some sort of a bond to their ancestral homeland to distinguish themselves different from those blacks who've been living in the US for 300 years and can't name 5 african countries, and b) there are some white people living in Africa for whom the term is not applicable. Furthermore it confuses racial/genetic traits with cultural ones. |
you make some good points there.
however, ill say again, regardless of how you or i feel about it they have a right to be called african-american if they wish. i dont say its extreme political correctness either, because there is a significant enough amount of people who would choose the term. if its softer as a label than Black, and makes them feel more comfortable, then i dont think you can critice them for that. i think you actually agree with me about this, if im reading you correct.
this is all ive been contending, but yes what your saying does make sense to me. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| In retrospect, I should've just replied to the title of the thread with a simple "uhm, no" and been done with it. |
|
|
| King_Mack |
yea this topic has gotten a little out there, but some interesting posts..however Im interested in this post by Arbiter..
"The concept of offense itself is nonsense as well."
Ive read some of your posts, and I must applaud you for them. Im just curious as to why you think its nonsense =) |
|
|
| neiil_yates |
| Blacks call Clinton the first black president because in their view he was a P.I.M.P just because he banged that Whore. Thats why |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by King_Mack
yea this topic has gotten a little out there, but some interesting posts..however Im interested in this post by Arbiter..
"The concept of offense itself is nonsense as well."
Ive read some of your posts, and I must applaud you for them. Im just curious as to why you think its nonsense =) |
Sorry for the oversimplification.
I only object to the concept of offense when used improperly (as it is 90% of the time or more.) "Offense" in this sense is generally a projection of one's personal emotional reaction to some object onto that object and then incorrectly viewed as a characteristic of that object ("offensive.")
No word/image/idea or anything really can intrinsically be "offensive" it can only "offend" if someone takes offense - it's in the beholder, not what they are beholding that the "offense" comes into existence.
So what I object to is people claiming to be "offended by something." That wording implies that the "something" is what's creating the offense, when it's actually the people themselves.
Sensible:
I take offense to such and such.
Non-sense:
Such and such offends me. |
|
|
|
|
