African American? or just American?

[Jgordon]

This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American? To some, yes, it is a cultural term and used in a way that expresses pride, but when I say it, and most of the other people say it, it is just another word for black people. And if we did, have to call them something other than blacks, why are they African American? Why arnt they like me? like you? Arn't they just Americans? And you do infact believe that they are African American, what are you? Where did your great great grandparents come from, and then we can call you a German-American, or Russian-American, or English-American. Blacks should not be specified with a name while we are just called American. I am pretty sure that they got here just around the same time as us (+or- 50 years) and that not even everyone of the blacks we call today are African American. Some of them have come from other countries and or been born from a black mother and diff. ethnicity of a mother. Again, arn't they just like us, just AMERICANS!

[Rob Lister]

There's a touch of racism, a touch of culturalism, a touch of stereotyping, and a touch of recognition.

I'm pretty sure I'm Europion but, from which state therein I neither know nor care. Then again, I don't have a government and self-elected vocal civic leaders convincing me I'm not inferior while demanding I get special treatment to overcome my un-inferior status.

[AmateurScientist]

The preferred term was "negro" a few generations ago. Then, in the 1960s, activists asserted that "black" was the neutral, non-offensive term, as "negro" still carried with it racist overtones.

"Black" worked just fine until the early 1990s, when some white professors at elite Eastern universities and other activists of the Politically Correct movement arbitrarily decided that "black" was offensive as well, so they coined the unwieldy and inappropriate term "African-American" as a substitute. They claimed it helped black persons (I won't take part in the silliness, as the term "black" is nothing but neutral, and no less offensive than "white") reclaim part of their ancient heritage, something of which they were encouraged to be proud.

This was also an outgrowth of a black separatist movement that began in the 1960s, and reached a new level of absurdity when a black American invented out of whole cloth the "tradition" of Kwanzaa in the 1970s as a black alternative to celebrating the "white" Christmas. One hundred percent of the tradition associated with it is made up.

Black Americans who are the descendants by several generations of former slaves are no more African than anyone else in the US who did not immigrate from Africa, or grow up with African parents. They have little in common with any random group of Africans -- take your pick of any mostly black African country and compare. The black persons who live in the US and are second, third, and higher generation Americans are just as American as any non-black second, third, and higher generation American.

AS

[Mephisto]

It's no affront on you personally what any minority group wants to be called. When I was younger my friends were always Black, as it was a term that flaunted their color with pride (of course, Black people were still trying to get people to stop using the N-word. Young African-Americans I've met sometimes eye me suspiciously when I inadvertantly call them Black but they're usually not offended.

Sure they're Americans, but they have a different history than many Americans and they're proud to include it in their personal identity. The PC term for "Orientals" is now Asians, or for citizens here, Asian-Americans. They're only claiming their Asian descent.

You could honor your roots (assuming you're Caucasion) by calling yourself, Irish-American or British American or Brazilian-American or whatever, and I would stand up for your right to do so. :)

[WildCat]

I've never heard any blacks use "African-American" in a casual conversation. Ever. And I work primarily for black people in black neighborhoods, for nearly 25 years. But give any self-appointeed "community leader" a podium and suddenly it's African-American this or that.

In my own neighborhood, 90+% of the blacks are not American at all. What are they to be called? African-Africans? Since when is "African" a race anyways? The whole thing is just stupid IMHO.

[Dave1001]

I don't have a problem with "African American" or "____ Americans", but I think the "American" part should be first. Not because of some kind of jingoistic patriotism, I just think it's more accurate. Most people are American before they are their ethnicity. How many of us Americans really want to return to the country we or our ancestors came here from?

[AmateurScientist]

It's no affront on you personally what any minority group wants to be called. When I was younger my friends were always Black, as it was a term that flaunted their color with pride (of course, Black people were still trying to get people to stop using the N-word. Young African-Americans I've met sometimes eye me suspiciously when I inadvertantly call them Black but they're usually not offended.

Sure they're Americans, but they have a different history than many Americans and they're proud to include it in their personal identity. The PC term for "Orientals" is now Asians, or for citizens here, Asian-Americans. They're only claiming their Asian descent.

You could honor your roots (assuming you're Caucasion) by calling yourself, Irish-American or British American or Brazilian-American or whatever, and I would stand up for your right to do so. :)

It doesn't insult me, but it is foolish and it is divisive. We're Americans. Period. Hyphening the term and adding whatever nationalist or continental or ethnic heritage we happen to claim leads to an unnecessary expansion of identity and encourages identity group politics. Identity politics is the politics of victimhood and BS, frankly. It's also anathema to the colorblind society Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lauded as a goal we should strive to obtain. Separatist movements are a step backwards, and I'll have no part in encouraging or recognizing them. The black separatist movement is no less racist than white separatist or white supremacist movements. They're two sides of the same coin.

As countless others have previously pointed out, adhering to the use of "African-American" as a substitute for "black" leads to silly results. We see references in news media to "African-Americans" when they are really referring to persons who appear to be ethnically black (if you'll allow me to refer to that as an ethnicity), but are actually from nations other than the US. I've seen plenty of references to black British citizens as "African-Americans." That's just downright stupid. I had a black British client once, and we discussed that very topic. He agreed with me, and wasn't the least bit offended that I referred to Jimi Hendrix as black, for instance, or that I called him black. That he was happened to be black was very pertinent to my representation of him. It was a central issue in our litigation. He understood that, and fully grasped that any attempt on my part to dance around that issue would be nothing but sophistry.

No thank you. You can keep your political correctness, and you can indulge in the silly little games it demands, but I'm going to stick with honesty and forthrightness. I live in a state with a population of whom more than 1/4 are black persons, and I've lived alongside them, gone to school with them, and worked with them all my life. I know no one who is offended when we discuss "black" persons, issues, or affairs. I do it almost daily with black persons, some of whom are in positions of authority over me. They don't mind.

AS

[Ladewig]

This was also an outgrowth of a black separatist movement that began in the 1960s, and reached a new level of absurdity when a black American invented out of whole cloth the "tradition" of Kwanzaa in the 1970s as a black alternative to celebrating the "white" Christmas. One hundred percent of the tradition associated with it is made up.


AS

I don't have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Kwanzaa any more than I have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Christmas. I see nothing wrong with making up a holiday.

I do consider the African American thing to be an imprecise and potentially confusing aspect of language and I would prefer to see it go away.

[JamesDillon]

However one might feel about it, the fact remains that racial identities remain relevant classifications for many purposes in contemporary society, and therefore we have to have terms by which to identify the groups of which we wish to speak. I'm sympathetic to the point that the constantly shifting "proper" terminology (Negro-->black-->African American-->person of color) has an air of silliness about it, but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life. It would make no more sense to abandon the language of racial classifications, than to eliminate the linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" on the grounds that we're all human, and gender shouldn't matter. It does matter, and so we need words with which to discuss it.

[Rob Lister]

...but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life...


And round and round your logic goes.

[JamesDillon]

And round and round your logic goes.

Huh?

[AmateurScientist]

I don't have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Kwanzaa any more than I have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Christmas. I see nothing wrong with making up a holiday.

What I have a problem with is this:

1) It assumes Christmas is a racist holiday;

2) It is sold to black persons in the US as a traditional African celebration. That simply is untrue. It was invented in the US, and bears no relation to any actual African celebration in December.

Basically, it's a lie on both counts.

Is Christmas made up? Sure. It's a lie too, as it is nothing more than the Roman Saturnalia as appropriated by the Christian church and altered to reflect some Christian myths.

In either event, Christmas is at least more traditional in that its celebration predates Kwanzaa's by many generations, and it isn't separatist, at least not with respect to most black Americans. Granted, it is separatist with respect to Jewish, Islamic, and all other non-Christian (or secular, but raised in Christian homes) persons. That's a religious difference, however, not one based solely on racial self-identity and a rejection of "white" America.

I view Kwanzaa as sort of like Frank Costanza's Festivus. He treats it as sacred and holy and traditional, but the truth is he made it up.

AS

[Rob Lister]

James Dillon sez
Huh?

CCL -- Classic Circular Logic/Cause-effect/yada-yada.

Blonds and brunetts too are classified. Blond jokes abound and yet, few blonds mind (perhaps they don't understand). Many brunetts follow suit and head to the hairdresser. To my knowledge, they have no spokesman other than that blond that thinks tuna is chicken.

[JamesDillon]

CCL -- Classic Circular Logic/Cause-effect/yada-yada.

Blonds and brunetts too are classified. Blond jokes abound and yet, few blonds mind (perhaps they don't understand). Many brunetts follow suit and head to the hairdresser.

Are you suggesting that racial differences are only significant because the language makes them that way? If so, I disagree; do you really think that the racial tensions in America would just go away if we eliminated the terminology of race from the English language? I very much doubt it.

[AmateurScientist]

However one might feel about it, the fact remains that racial identities remain relevant classifications for many purposes in contemporary society, and therefore we have to have terms by which to identify the groups of which we wish to speak. I'm sympathetic to the point that the constantly shifting "proper" terminology (Negro-->black-->African American-->person of color) has an air of silliness about it, but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life. It would make no more sense to abandon the language of racial classifications, than to eliminate the linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" on the grounds that we're all human, and gender shouldn't matter. It does matter, and so we need words with which to discuss it.

I agree, especially to the extent that although cities are largely integrated in many workplaces, and in the places we shop and the public events we attend, but that they remain ethnically, and especially racially, divided with respect to housing and church affiliation. There is such a thing as "black" culture in so many places in the US, and any attempts to deny that are simply dishonest. Also, there is unfair discrimination against poor black persons in many urban neighborhoods, especially in projects, and especially as committed by many police forces assigned to those areas. I can't count how many times I've heard police officers use the euphemism "high crime area" to refer to a black neighborhood as a justification to conduct a stop of some "suspects" who aren't engaged in any apparent criminal activity. In that sense, it does matter and it is a useful term.

As for the distinctions between "negro," "black," "African-American," -- and the most awkward of them all -- "person of color," a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name. Black just happens to be the most descriptive and least politically charged of them all, in my opinion. It worked great until some white eggheads in academia decided all by themselves that it was offensive to blacks. Hmmm...maybe someone should have surveyed some black persons first.

On the other side of the coin, is anyone truly offended by being called "white?" If not, then what is the big deal about "black?" It's convention, people. They are neutral terms.

AS

[JamesDillon]

As for the distinctions between "negro," "black," "African-American," -- and the most awkward of them all -- "person of color," a rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name. Black just happens to be the most descriptive and least politically charged of them all, in my opinion. It worked great until some white eggheads in academia decided all by themselves that it was offensive to blacks. Hmmm...maybe someone should have surveyed some black persons first.

On the other side of the coin, is anyone truly offended by being called "white?" If not, then what is the big deal about "black?" It's convention, people. They are neutral terms.

AS
I agree with that, and none of the black people I know are offended by the term (any more than I'm offended by being called white). I suppose, as Avery Brooks and some others have pointed out, that "brown" is the more accurate descriptive term, and it does avoid the negative connotations of evil and darkness that have long been associated with the term "black," but it never picked up any great currency and would probably be viewed as more offensive than "black" by most of the demographic group in question. Is it just my mistaken impression, though, or has the mid-1990s preoccupation with "sensitivity" in terminology eased off a bit, so that formerly inoffensive terms like "black" have made a return to mainstream respectability?

[AmateurScientist]

Are you suggesting that racial differences are only significant because the language makes them that way? If so, I disagree; do you really think that the racial tensions in America would just go away if we eliminated the terminology of race from the English language? I very much doubt it.

Not only that, but I'm continually befuddled by scientists who insist that there is no difference genetically among the different so-called "races." If that is the case, then how do they account for the fact that genetic defects that cause the disease sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive found in black persons, and that cystic fibrosis is almost exclusively a Caucasian disease? Both are caused by genetic defects.

What say the scientists who contend such a thing?

AS

[Alliebubs]

It's interesting that Asians are rarely ever called "yellow". At least, here in Toronto.

[AmateurScientist]

Is it just my mistaken impression, though, or has the mid-1990s preoccupation with "sensitivity" in terminology eased off a bit, so that formerly inoffensive terms like "black" have made a return to mainstream respectability?

No, I think you're right. Most of the "sensitivity" nonsense seems to have subsided, and I think, as Wildcat pointed out, that it's almost exclusively self-appointed "black leaders" who trot out the term "African-American" only when they're on a soap box. The only other time I hear it is from whites with liberal guilt walking on eggshells.

I say shame on both of them. I try to honor and value intellectual honesty when I can.

AS

[pounce]

i too hate the term african american. it's a bunch of pc ******** that strikes me as more seperatist than it is unifying and properly respectful. i hate racism and discrimination, but that kind of awkward silliness isn't something i can abide by. ditto kwanza. what a load of crap. it seems like that kind of thing moves us more backward than forward, and my concerns for racial equality aren't served by overly pc language or made up holidays.

[AmateurScientist]

It's interesting that Asians are rarely ever called "yellow". At least, here in Toronto.

You're right. It's a term that practically no one ever adopted. I'm happy that "Asian" doesn't seem to carry negative racial or ethnic overtones, although I find it terribly vague, and almost to the point of being practically useless, especially considering that the British use it to refer to Indians and Pakistanis, but not to persons from the Far East.

Why don't we refer to persons from the Middle East as Asians? Geographically, they are. What about Russians? The Russians in the west, especially around Petersburg and even Moscow, seem to identify with Europe, but the rest is more Asian to me. We never seem to refer to Russians as Asians, however.

When referring to Asians, I would prefer to know and refer to each as Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Pakistani, Tibetan, Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian, or whatever else. Asian doesn't bother me, but it's just as vague as "European."

To what continent does New Zealand belong? Are they Asian? They're not Australian. How many of us would refer to the mostly white New Zealanders as Asians?

AS

[WildCat]

To what continent does New Zealand belong? Are they Asian? They're not Australian. How many of us would refer to the mostly white New Zealanders as Asians?
Of course not, they're Kiwis... :boxedin:

[marksman]

Technically, they're Oceanians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania)

[AmateurScientist]

Technically, they're Oceanians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania)

I don't buy it. Although schoolkids may be taught something different today, I have to harken back to what I was taught in the 60s and 70s. There are seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asian, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Oceanian or Oceana is not a recognized continent. It may be a legitimate geographical and/or political region, but it's no continent.

Australia is the smallest continent. Although Tasmania is part of it, New Zealand clearly is not. Therefore, New Zealand belongs to some other continent. The only one it could belong to geographically is Asia. New Zealanders are Asians.

AS

[PogoPedant]

I've never heard any blacks use "African-American" in a casual conversation. Ever.
I have, but the guy was from Zimbabwe, so it didn't really work...

I don't buy it. Although schoolkids may be taught something different today, I have to harken back to what I was taught in the 60s and 70s. There are seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asian, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Oceanian or Oceana is not a recognized continent. It may be a legitimate geographical and/or political region, but it's no continent.

Australia is the smallest continent. Although Tasmania is part of it, New Zealand clearly is not. Therefore, New Zealand belongs to some other continent. The only one it could belong to geographically is Asia. New Zealanders are Asians.
AS
You haven't looked at a map for a while, have you? If New Zealand is not a part of the Australian continent, but we still insist that it be part of some continent, Antarctica is the next best alternative. I still vote for Oceania, though.

[Earthborn]

1) It assumes Christmas is a racist holiday;No, it doesn't.

2) It is sold to black persons in the US as a traditional African celebration.No, it isn't. It is sold to black persons in the US as a celebration that in some ways resembles traditional African celebrations. The official Kwanzaa website (http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/origins1.shtml) readily admits when it was invented and who invented it.

It's also anathema to the colorblind society Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lauded as a goal we should strive to obtain.I like to see your evidence that Martin Luther King was in favour of a "colourblind" society. Here (
"http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_mlk.shtml") is an article that convincingly argues the opposite.

[Mycroft]

This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American? To some, yes, it is a cultural term and used in a way that expresses pride, but when I say it, and most of the other people say it, it is just another word for black people. And if we did, have to call them something other than blacks, why are they African American? Why arnt they like me? like you? Arn't they just Americans? And you do infact believe that they are African American, what are you? Where did your great great grandparents come from, and then we can call you a German-American, or Russian-American, or English-American. Blacks should not be specified with a name while we are just called American. I am pretty sure that they got here just around the same time as us (+or- 50 years) and that not even everyone of the blacks we call today are African American. Some of them have come from other countries and or been born from a black mother and diff. ethnicity of a mother. Again, arn't they just like us, just AMERICANS!


I don't see any problem in general with identifying your racial/ethnic/cultural background. Sure, we're all Americans, but there is no reason we can't also take pride in being hispanic/Jewish/Irish/English/African/Asian/Arabic/Catholic/Masonic/Protestant or whatever the heck you think is an important identifier after American.

Why would you have a problem with it?

[Matabiri]

I don't buy it. Although schoolkids may be taught something different today, I have to harken back to what I was taught in the 60s and 70s. There are seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asian, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.

I remember being taught about Australasia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasia), which includes New Zealand, rather than Australia as the continent. This usage dates back, apparently, to 1756.

[Skeptic]

First, the group in question was known in polite society as "colored people".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term was "negroes".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became "blacks".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became "african-American".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became... "people of color"... which means exactly the same thing as "colored people".

I dunno, you figure it out.

[AmateurScientist]

No, it doesn't.

No, it isn't. It is sold to black persons in the US as a celebration that in some ways resembles traditional African celebrations. The official Kwanzaa website (http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/origins1.shtml) readily admits when it was invented and who invented it.


Thank you for expressing your disagreement with my position. You're simply wrong, however. If you lived in this country and heard so much of the rhetoric surrounding it, you might get it. Then again, maybe not.

From the wikipedia entry on Kwanzaa:

Ron Karenga created Kwanzaa in California in 1966, during his leadership of the black nationalist United Slaves Organization (also known as the "US Organization"), in order to give African Americans an alternative holiday to Christmas. He later stated, "...it was chosen to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society."

Concerning those who thought he was adapting kwanzaa from a traditional African practice, Karenga noted "People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods were partying."

The name Kwanzaa derives from the Swahili phrase "matunda ya kwanza", meaning "first fruits". The choice of Swahili, an East African language, reflects its status as a symbol of Pan-Africanism, especially in the 1960's, though most African-Americans have West African ancestry.

An additional "a" was added to "Kwanza" so that the word would have seven letters. At the time there were seven children in Karenga's United Slaves Organization, each wanted to represent one of the letters in Kwanzaa[3] Also, the name was meant to have a letter for each of what Karenga called the "Seven Principles of Blackness". Kwanzaa is also sometimes spelled "kwaanza".

It is a celebration that has its roots in the civil rights era of the 1960s, and was established as a means to help African Americans reconnect with what Karenga characterized as their African cultural and historical heritage by uniting in meditation and study around principles that have their putative origins in what Karenga asserts are "African traditions" and "common humanist principles."

In 1967, a year after Karenga proposed this new holiday, he publicly espoused the view that "Jesus was psychotic" and that Christianity was a white religion that blacks should shun. However, as Kwanzaa gained mainstream adherents, Karenga altered his position so as not to alienate practicing Christians, then claiming in the 1997 Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture, "Kwanzaa was not created to give people an alternative to their own religion or religious holiday."

The entry supports both my contentions, especially the parts I have bolded and italized. Do you know to what "dominant society" refers? Do you realize that in this context -- that of the Black Separatist movements -- it is a polite euphemism for "reject whitey?" If you still disagree about the founder's position regarding Christmas as a racist, white holiday, then please explain to me Karenga's use of "white religion" and the "Seven Principles of Blackness."

As to his selling it to black Americans as an African tradition, please explain Karenga's remark that he knew they wouldn't celebrate it if it was American, and why he gave it a Swahili name.

My theory is that you don't know what you're talking about. You're simply disagreeing with me because you don't like my politics.


I like to see your evidence that Martin Luther King was in favour of a "colourblind" society. Here (
"http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_mlk.shtml") is an article that convincingly argues the opposite.

You know exactly to what evidence I am referrring, and yet you ask me for it rhetorically. You also conflate two separate issues here. I was referring to the black separatist movements, of which Dr. King was clearly not a part, and you are referring to legislative and administrative programs for preferential treatment. That you do not seem to understand the distinction between the two says more about your flimsy position than you likely know.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

Not only that, but I'm continually befuddled by scientists who insist that there is no difference genetically among the different so-called "races." If that is the case, then how do they account for the fact that genetic defects that cause the disease sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive found in black persons, and that cystic fibrosis is almost exclusively a Caucasian disease? Both are caused by genetic defects.

What say the scientists who contend such a thing?

AS

I've never heard of a scientist claiming that. Instead, what I have heard claimed is that there's more genetic diversity within the African population than amoung all other human ethnic groups, and that in comparison to most other mammals, there's astoundingly little genetic diversity amoung human beings, and little difference between races. A German Shepperd and a Selki are more different from one another, genetically, than any two humans. Horse breeds are more distinct from one another than any two humans. While it's certainly true that humans have "races" it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't buy it. Although schoolkids may be taught something different today, I have to harken back to what I was taught in the 60s and 70s. There are seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asian, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.

Oceanian or Oceana is not a recognized continent. It may be a legitimate geographical and/or political region, but it's no continent.

Australia is the smallest continent. Although Tasmania is part of it, New Zealand clearly is not. Therefore, New Zealand belongs to some other continent. The only one it could belong to geographically is Asia. New Zealanders are Asians.

AS

By that logic, so are Russians.

[AmateurScientist]

I don't see any problem in general with identifying your racial/ethnic/cultural background. Sure, we're all Americans, but there is no reason we can't also take pride in being hispanic/Jewish/Irish/English/African/Asian/Arabic/Catholic/Masonic/Protestant or whatever the heck you think is an important identifier after American.

Why would you have a problem with it?

I assume it's not the taking pride part that he objects to. It's the insistence by purveyors of political correctness that we use the ridiculous term "African-American" in place of the term "black," which somehow, mysteriously was once the preferred term, but is now somehow offensive, that is objectionable.

It's nothing but taking offense for its own sake. It's not only silly, but it's downright rude and presumptuous and insulting to our intelligence.

I'll have no part of it. You can indulge in those silly games if you like.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

By that logic, so are Russians.

Indeed. Although Russia seems to lie partly in Europe, and partly in Asia.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

I've never heard of a scientist claiming that.

Well, I have. What I have heard many of them say, somewhat smugly, is that the concept of race is meaningless at the genetic level. That's what prompted my rhetorical question (or observation) about sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, I have. What I have heard many of them say, somewhat smugly, is that the concept of race is meaningless at the genetic level. That's what prompted my rhetorical question (or observation) about sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

AS

Aside from coloration and changes in risk for certain conditions, razce IS meaningless. It's not as if there's significant morphic differences between different races. The differences are, when compared to other mammals, miniscule.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It doesn't insult me, but it is foolish and it is divisive. We're Americans. Period. Hyphening the term and adding whatever nationalist or continental or ethnic heritage we happen to claim leads to an unnecessary expansion of identity and encourages identity group politics. Identity politics is the politics of victimhood and BS, frankly. It's also anathema to the colorblind society Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lauded as a goal we should strive to obtain. Separatist movements are a step backwards, and I'll have no part in encouraging or recognizing them. The black separatist movement is no less racist than white separatist or white supremacist movements. They're two sides of the same coin.

As countless others have previously pointed out, adhering to the use of "African-American" as a substitute for "black" leads to silly results. We see references in news media to "African-Americans" when they are really referring to persons who appear to be ethnically black (if you'll allow me to refer to that as an ethnicity), but are actually from nations other than the US. I've seen plenty of references to black British citizens as "African-Americans." That's just downright stupid. I had a black British client once, and we discussed that very topic. He agreed with me, and wasn't the least bit offended that I referred to Jimi Hendrix as black, for instance, or that I called him black. That he was happened to be black was very pertinent to my representation of him. It was a central issue in our litigation. He understood that, and fully grasped that any attempt on my part to dance around that issue would be nothing but sophistry.

No thank you. You can keep your political correctness, and you can indulge in the silly little games it demands, but I'm going to stick with honesty and forthrightness. I live in a state with a population of whom more than 1/4 are black persons, and I've lived alongside them, gone to school with them, and worked with them all my life. I know no one who is offended when we discuss "black" persons, issues, or affairs. I do it almost daily with black persons, some of whom are in positions of authority over me. They don't mind.

AS

Seconded

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Kwanzaa any more than I have a problem with the made-up traditions related to Christmas. I see nothing wrong with making up a holiday.

Festivus for the rest of us!!!

I do consider the African American thing to be an imprecise and potentially confusing aspect of language and I would prefer to see it go away.

Two ways to help make it go away: 1) Don't use it yourself and 2) Correct others when they use the term

[The Central Scrutinizer]

However one might feel about it, the fact remains that racial identities remain relevant classifications for many purposes in contemporary society, and therefore we have to have terms by which to identify the groups of which we wish to speak. I'm sympathetic to the point that the constantly shifting "proper" terminology (Negro-->black-->African American-->person of color) has an air of silliness about it, but it's equally silly to suggest that we abandon terms of racial classification altogether, when race remains a powerfully divisive force in so many areas of life. It would make no more sense to abandon the language of racial classifications, than to eliminate the linguistic distinction between "man" and "woman" on the grounds that we're all human, and gender shouldn't matter. It does matter, and so we need words with which to discuss it.

We already have the words - black and white, being two examples.

[AmateurScientist]

Aside from coloration and changes in risk for certain conditions, razce IS meaningless. It's not as if there's significant morphic differences between different races. The differences are, when compared to other mammals, miniscule.

Why compare to other mammals? That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are genetic differences among the different human "races." Apparently, on average, there are, regardless of how large or small they are compared to those within other mammalian species. I don't see anyone claiming that persons of different "races" are separate species from other homo sapiens.

Would you agree, for instance, that on average, that the statistical norm in height for adult Asians is less than that of Caucasians? If not, why not? It seems to be well documented, and anyone visiting a city in Japan or China, for instance, can readily grasp it without measuring large samples of persons precisely by simply walking around with his or her eyes open.

AS

[Mephisto]

It doesn't insult me, but it is foolish and it is divisive. We're Americans. Period. Hyphening the term and adding whatever nationalist or continental or ethnic heritage we happen to claim leads to an unnecessary expansion of identity and encourages identity group politics.

Perhaps you should petition Black leaders and tell them all what they're going to be called from now on?

I don't see where any of this is anyone's business, but Black, African-Americans. If they want to be called, "God's Chosen People," or "The African Ancestors of Former Slaves," it isn't up to anyone but Black, African-Americans. Is it so much to refer to a people in the manner they feel most comfortable with? Does it hurt anyone (but the ethno-centric) that they want to pay homage to their African roots? No.

As for encouraging "identity politics," nothing has done that better than George W. Bush, "the great uniter."

[AmateurScientist]

Perhaps you should petition Black leaders and tell them all what they're going to be called from now on?

I don't see where any of this is anyone's business, but Black, African-Americans. If they want to be called, "God's Chosen People," or "The African Ancestors of Former Slaves," it isn't up to anyone but Black, African-Americans. Is it so much to refer to a people in the manner they feel most comfortable with? Does it hurt anyone (but the ethno-centric) that they want to pay homage to their African roots? No.

As for encouraging "identity politics," nothing has done that better than George W. Bush, "the great uniter."

Ha ha. Leave it to you to turn this into the 18 millionth Bush bashing thread. :rolleyes:

AS

[Mycroft]

First, the group in question was known in polite society as "colored people".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term was "negroes".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became "blacks".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became "african-American".
Then, that became offensive, so the polite term became... "people of color"... which means exactly the same thing as "colored people".

I dunno, you figure it out.

I find "people of colour" to be insulting because it implies that white people are dull and uninteresting.

[AmateurScientist]

I find "people of colour" to be insulting because it implies that white people are dull and uninteresting.

Not only that, but I believe (as I suspect you surmised) Skeptic's point is that it's simply coming full circle. "People of color" is nothing but a silly semantic variation of "colored people," a term discarded in common usage sometime around the 1950s-1960s as having racist and oppressive overtones. I believe he's noting the utter hypocrisy and silliness of the PC movement's promoting "people of color" as an unoffensive alternative to "black."

Round and round we go.

AS

[Ladewig]

It worked great until some white eggheads in academia decided all by themselves that it was offensive to blacks. Hmmm...maybe someone should have surveyed some black persons first.
AS


I haven't researched the origins enough to evaluate this claim. How do you know that it was white academic eggheads and not black academic eggheads or black self-appointed spokespeople? Does African-American predate Asian-American? If not, might it simply be a copying of that term?

[Ladewig]

What I have a problem with is this:

1) It assumes Christmas is a racist holiday;


I was not aware of the anti-white origins of the holiday


2) It is sold to black persons in the US as a traditional African celebration. That simply is untrue. It was invented in the US, and bears no relation to any actual African celebration in December.



I am surprised at the claim that it is sold as a traditional celebration. I knew before reading this thread that the holiday was a late-20th-century invention and I thought all people knew that. Is it really possible to hide the recent roots of the holiday in today's information age?



___________________
I am assuming that you are using "it" to refer to Kwanzaa and not to my comments.

[Earthborn]

From the wikipedia entry on Kwanzaa:Which is where I got to know about the "Official Kwanzaa website". I hope you have noticed the following sentence:The origins of Kwanzaa are not secret, and are openly acknowledged by those promoting the holiday.[14 (http://www.officialkwanzaawebsite.org/origins1.shtml)]

Do you know to what "dominant society" refers?I think so, yes. The term is highly descriptive.

it is a polite euphemism for "reject whitey?"So you say. Maybe you can support that interpretation?

If you still disagree about the founder's position regarding Christmas as a racist, white holiday, then please explain to me Karenga's use of "white religion" and the "Seven Principles of Blackness."It is irrelevant what Karenga means with "white religion" and "Seven Principles of Blackness". He might consider Christmas a racist white holiday -- or not -- regardless of what he means by them.

As to his selling it to black Americans as an African tradition, please explain Karenga's remark that he knew they wouldn't celebrate it if it was American, and why he gave it a Swahili name.Suppose an American living in Europe invented a holiday for other Americans living in Europe to celebrate their American heritage. Do you think it will be popular if he called it "apfelkuchenfest" ? I don't think so. He would probably chose an American sounding name.

Same thing here: a guy invents a holiday when black Americans who feel culturally connected to Africa, can celebrate what they see as their African heritage. And he gives it an African sounding name. How devious of him!

You're simply disagreeing with me because you don't like my politics.Boohoohoo... I am so sorry to make you sad by a slight disagreement. :oldroll:

Maybe you should tell me more about your politics, so I know what I am not supposed to like.

You know exactly to what evidence I am referrringNo, I don't. I've read many of King's sermons and speeches, and I don't recall him saying anything about favouring a "colourblind society". Admittedly, I read them years ago, so maybe I forgot. The article I linked to appears to put to rest the idea that he was against anything that is arguably not colourblind. And he does not appear to ever have said anything to the effect that blacks should not celebrate their perceived African heritage because it would be "the anathema of the colourblind society".

[Snide]

Not only that, but I believe (as I suspect you surmised) Skeptic's point is that it's simply coming full circle. "People of color" is nothing but a silly semantic variation of "colored people," a term disgarded in common usage sometime around the 1950s-1960s as having racist and oppressive overtones. I believe he's noting the utter hypocrisy and silliness of the PC movement's promoting "people of color" as an unoffensive alternative to "black."

Round and round we go.

ASI am also reminded of the idea that another derogatory or condescending way in which you could address blacks is by saying "you people." "People of color" seems to sound a bit like that as well.

I don't understand why "black" was ever considered offensive, but "white" was not.

edited spelling

[AmateurScientist]

I think so, yes. The term is highly descriptive.

So you say. Maybe you can support that interpretation?

It is irrelevant what Karenga means with "white religion" and "Seven Principles of Blackness". He might consider Christmas a racist white holiday -- or not -- regardless of what he means by them.



I suggest you go back and read my remarks in context, particularly with regard to my mentioning that Karenga and his founding of Kwanzaa were part of a black separatist movement in the 1960s. If you simply aren't familiar with American black separatist movements, then that's fine. Your unfamiliarity with them is understandable. Nevertheless, without that background, you aren't going to understand that "dominant society" in this context means "racist white society." My shorthand for that, one I have heard many times spoken in anger, is "whitey."

Perhaps you might wish to Google about or use wikipedia to look into black separatist movements in the US. You might want to start with Karenga's own United Slaves organization, one he calls "Us," which means "us" versus "them." I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means, and whether Karenga is a peace loving promoter of unity, like Dr. King, or a purveyor of vengence, hatred, and divisiveness like Malcolm X. Perhaps you might find his rhetoric and doubletalk admirable, but I don't.

I suggest you start here. Pay particular attention to the logo for his organization, which you can find at the top left corner of this page:

http://www.us-organization.org/30th/ppp.html

If he's not an Angry Black Man in America, then I don't know who is.


Suppose an American living in Europe invented a holiday for other Americans living in Europe to celebrate their American heritage. Do you think it will be popular if he called it "apfelkuchenfest" ? I don't think so. He would probably chose an American sounding name.

Same thing here: a guy invents a holiday when black Americans who feel culturally connected to Africa, can celebrate what they see as their African heritage. And he gives it an African sounding name. How devious of him!



Now that's just silly. First, the vast majority of second and third and higher generations of black Americans speak English. I would bet big money that less than 1% of black Americans know more than three words of Swahili (except to the extent that they may have learned some Swahili words from the "tradition" of celebrating Kwanzaa). Your analogy simply doesn't apply in that regard.

Furthermore, as far as feeling connected to African culture, I suspect that most Americans as a whole couldn't name even a third of the countries on the continent of Africa, and I doubt black Americans as a subset would fare any better in naming them than Americans in toto would.

The whole African cultural roots thing, in the context of Kwanzaa, is a sham. Most of the descendants of African slaves are descendants of West African tribes and nations. Swahili is East African, and Ed knows there are dozens, if not hundreds, of African cultures. Which ones, and what parts of them, are to be celebrated and embraced? It's arbitrary, for the most part, in this context. Karenga appears to have chosen several elements from various cultures and blended them together. Much of it is likely motivated by a desire to find some cultural roots with which to connect (and there's nothing wrong with that, of course), and/or to resist assimilating into mainstream American (read "white" when used by black separatists) culture.

Meanwhile, millions of black Americans feel comfortable pursuing the "American dream" and taking part in being part of its middle class. That's much closer to what Dr. King had in mind, not a separate black nation within the US, or some sort of black disapora or repatriation.

What Karenga has in mind is not a step in that direction. It's a step backwards, in my opinion.


Boohoohoo... I am so sorry to make you sad by a slight disagreement. :oldroll:

Maybe you should tell me more about your politics, so I know what I am not supposed to like.


Frankly, I don't care. Boo hoo all you like. In this thread, at least, you are failing to take context into proper account, and you also seem to lack background information necessary to understand my comments, or at least to post well-informed counter arguments.


No, I don't. I've read many of King's sermons and speeches, and I don't recall him saying anything about favouring a "colourblind society". Admittedly, I read them years ago, so maybe I forgot. The article I linked to appears to put to rest the idea that he was against anything that is arguably not colourblind. And he does not appear to ever have said anything to the effect that blacks should not celebrate their perceived African heritage because it would be "the anathema of the colourblind society".

Your link is rhetoric that runs counter to the understanding of a consensus of political and social scientists in the US who have studied King's views. The colorblind society ideal is evident in King's famous 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech (of which you are no doubt aware, so please don't play coy -- I consider it intellectually dishonest). Specifically, I'll remind you of the part in which he states that he dreams of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin. If that's not envisioning a colorblind society with respect to assimilation, then I don't know what is. Dr. King preached for a united America, not a separate, divided one.

Again, the writings or speeches in which he advocated remedial measures to catch black Americans up with other Americans in society do not advocate separatism. Remedial measures and separatism are very different concepts. You seem to be conflating the two, as does the article you cited.

AS

[The Mutha]

Ummm... my boss is from South Africa and he's obtaining his US Citizenship, so technically he is African-American. The Man is white as white can be.

I tease him that he should mark "African-American" on his daughters' scholarship applications for college... All four were born in South Africa, but primarily raised here.

[AmateurScientist]

I haven't researched the origins enough to evaluate this claim. How do you know that it was white academic eggheads and not black academic eggheads or black self-appointed spokespeople? Does African-American predate Asian-American? If not, might it simply be a copying of that term?

It was white academic eggheads, primarily at Eastern U.S. elite universities and newspapers and magazines, who founded and pushed the Politically Correct movement. I don't know who coined the term "African-American," but it arose out of the PC movement in the late 80s/early 90s. The movement was about raising awareness of the overt and subtle effects of our choice of words to convey meaning, intended or not, and how they had the potential to cause others offense. It then progressed to effectively place certain terms and phrases off limits in terms of being socially acceptable, and to replace them with pre-approved, politically correct terms. In many respects, the replacement terms were simply thinly veiled euphemisms that were no less offensive than the terms they were meant to replace. In other instances, the PC terms were simply absurd bastardizations. Much of it got to be instances of finding offense where there was none. In other words, much of PC was a solution in search of a problem.

In the case of African-American, selecting it to replace "black" as the preferred term is nonsense. The reason is that during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, black persons selected the term "black" to refer to themselves. "Black is beautiful" was a common refrain for black pride. There was nothing oppressive or offensive about the term "black" in the 1960, 1970s, or 1980s. Suddenly, with the emergence of political correctness, "black" mysteriously became offensive and oppressive. Silliness.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Ummm... my boss is from South Africa and he's obtaining his US Citizenship, so technically he is African-American. The Man is white as white can be.

I tease him that he should mark "African-American" on his daughters' scholarship applications for college... All four were born in South Africa, but primarily raised here.

Thanks -- another instance of the absurdities that can arise out of employing PC terms.

AS

[Rob Lister]

OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) -- Officials disciplined students who papered their nearly all-white high school with posters advocating a white student from South Africa for the school's "Distinguished African American Student Award."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/22/king.controversy.ap/

[pgwenthold]

This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that white people in the US have tended to put black people in a different category from them? It generally wasn't the black people who were fighting desparately to keep themselves segregated from the rest of society.

I certainly don't blame black people for being considered a separate American population distinct from other parts of society. They aren't responsible for that sociology. And I don't think it is unreasonable for them, as a community, to prefer labels that do not carry negative connotations with them.

[AmateurScientist]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/22/king.controversy.ap/

That's rich, and sad.

No, no, we didn't really mean "African-American" literally. We meant "black."

What did the kid who got suspended do wrong, anyway?

AS

[Dragonrock]

During army re-education, er, I mean, Required Sensitivity training the instructor kept using the term "euro-american" to refer to whites. This annoyed me no end and the only reason I didn't say anything about it to the trainer was that an officer overhead me grumbling about it to someone sitting next to me and told me to keep quiet about it.

The part that almost sent me over the edge was when she refered to someone in my unit as "african-american" even though he was from Puerto Rico and has ancestors probably don't touch africa unless you go back about 10,000 years.

[ImaginalDisc]

During army re-education, er, I mean, Required Sensitivity training the instructor kept using the term "euro-american" to refer to whites. This annoyed me no end and the only reason I didn't say anything about it to the trainer was that an officer overhead me grumbling about it to someone sitting next to me and told me to keep quiet about it.

The part that almost sent me over the edge was when she refered to someone in my unit as "african-american" even though he was from Puerto Rico and has ancestors probably don't touch africa unless you go back about 10,000 years.

I suppose it didn't occur to her to ask the person what they prefered to be called.

[Ladewig]

It was white academic eggheads, primarily at Eastern U.S. elite universities and newspapers and magazines, who founded and pushed the Politically Correct movement. I don't know who coined the term "African-American," but it arose out of the PC movement in the late 80s/early 90s. The movement was about raising awareness of the overt and subtle effects of our choice of words to convey meaning, intended or not, and how they had the potential to cause others offense. It then progressed to effectively place certain terms and phrases off limits in terms of being socially acceptable, and to replace them with pre-approved, politically correct terms. In many respects, the replacement terms were simply thinly veiled euphemisms that were no less offensive than the terms they were meant to replace. In other instances, the PC terms were simply absurd bastardizations. Much of it got to be instances of finding offense where there was none. In other words, much of PC was a solution in search of a problem.

You say that, "In many respects, the replacement terms were simply thinly veiled euphemisms that were no less offensive than the terms they were meant to replace." But in some instances the replacement terms were better. Calling a person who cannot speak a mute is better than calling the person dumb. However, I will agree that many PC terms and phrases are not an improvement.

In the case of African-American, selecting it to replace "black" as the preferred term is nonsense.

AS

I consider it a bad idea because of the confusion that other readers have cited.

[AmateurScientist]

Calling a person who cannot speak a mute is better than calling the person dumb.


I agree, although in the past, "deaf and dumb" didn't necessarily refer to intelligence. Words and their connotations do morph over time, however.


I consider it a bad idea because of the confusion that other readers have cited.

I consider it a bad idea because of the confusion, and also because of the arbitrariness of self-selecting the term "black" as the preferred term from the 1960s and throughout the 1980s, but having someone, black, white, or other, decide circa 1990 that "black" is now oppressive. I'll go so far as to declare it a stupid contention in the context of how "black" was selected in the first place.

AS

[Mr. Stick]

I've always found it funny that Americans used terms like Irish-American or Italian-American for Americans of European ancestry, but when it came to black Americans, they were all African-Americans, not Ghanese-Americans or Nigerian-Americans. It's like saying: "You guys all look the same to me, I couldn't tell one from the other".
It's already been established that white South Africans don't count as African-Americans, but what about Algerians or Moroccans? I guess they don't count either, so African-American doesn't mean American of African ancestry, it simply means black! :rolleyes:

[money]

I consider it a bad idea because of the confusion, and also because of the arbitrariness of self-selecting the term "black" as the preferred term from the 1960s and throughout the 1980s, but having someone, black, white, or other, decide circa 1990 that "black" is now oppressive. I'll go so far as to declare it a stupid contention in the context of how "black" was selected in the first place.

AS

Well, words and their connotations do morph over time...

[AmateurScientist]

I've always found it funny that Americans used terms like Irish-American or Italian-American for Americans of European ancestry, but when it came to black Americans, they were all African-Americans, not Ghanese-Americans or Nigerian-Americans. It's like saying: "You guys all look the same to me, I couldn't tell one from the other".
It's already been established that white South Africans don't count as African-Americans, but what about Algerians or Moroccans? I guess they don't count either, so African-American doesn't mean American of African ancestry, it simply means black! :rolleyes:

Actually, the primary reason is a sad one. It's because for nearly all black Americans who are descendants of slaves brought from Africa, they cannot trace their ancestry to any particular country or place. Most likely, they came from somewhere in West Africa, but nailing down exactly where becomes nearly impossible. You also have to remember that some black Africans engaged in the slave trade with white European and American traders, so it's possible that they came from some inland areas as well.

Unfortunately, there aren't many, if any at all, records naming who was kidnapped or rounded up and traded into slavery and when for much of that period. Assuming one could find those, tracing those persons to their eventual destinations and owners, and subsequent owners, and following those lineages through emancipation and beyond simply cannot be done in most cases.

Of course, not all black Americans are the ancestors of slaves, so I suppose there are some who do in fact know from where they or their ancestors originally emigrated.

AS

[Tmy]

In certain areas of the country (northeast for example) many people still have close ties to their backgrounds. So its not unncommon to ask the question "Whats your nationality" and get answers like "Irish" "Itailon" "Russian" ect... Even though the people answering were born in America and are as american as anyone. Most blacks cant follow their heritage back cause that was cut off by slavery. Although you may meet a Jamacian or someone who is aware of thier background.

Many whites in the US have been here for generations and no longer have that ancestor tie. Or they may be so mixed with different nationalities that just one name wont fit.

I really dont see anything wrong with it. Just descriptive terms.

[AmateurScientist]

Well, words and their connotations do morph over time...

Yes, and I did say that with respect to "deaf and dumb," but if you wish to make an argument that "black" somehow became offensive in the 1980s or early 1990s and explain why (other than the arbitrary declaration of the founders and early adherents of PC), I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise, it sounds like you're simply being contrarian without any real point. Pardon me if that's not the case.

AS

[Tony]

This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American? To some, yes, it is a cultural term and used in a way that expresses pride, but when I say it, and most of the other people say it, it is just another word for black people. And if we did, have to call them something other than blacks, why are they African American? Why arnt they like me? like you? Arn't they just Americans? And you do infact believe that they are African American, what are you? Where did your great great grandparents come from, and then we can call you a German-American, or Russian-American, or English-American. Blacks should not be specified with a name while we are just called American. I am pretty sure that they got here just around the same time as us (+or- 50 years) and that not even everyone of the blacks we call today are African American. Some of them have come from other countries and or been born from a black mother and diff. ethnicity of a mother. Again, arn't they just like us, just AMERICANS!

I used to think the same way until I realized that there is a tradition in America of hyphenating racial/ethnic labels. We've had people who identified as German-Americans, we still have people who self-identify as Irish or Italian-Americans. We've had Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese-Americans. In light of that, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with "African-American". That said, I never use the term and have never met any black people who self-identify as "African-American" or who insist that I use the term.

[Tony]

As for the distinctions between "negro," "black," "African-American," -- and the most awkward of them all -- "person of color,"


Personally. I like "person of color". Not because I find it accurate or sensitive or whatever, but because it sounds so damn campy. It's the "Snakes on a Plane" of phrases used to identify race.

[Tony]

It was white academic eggheads, primarily at Eastern U.S. elite universities and newspapers and magazines, who founded and pushed the Politically Correct movement.

Huh? There is no such thing as a "politically correct movement". "Politically correct" is a meaningless term used by racist, exclusionist and generally unamerican people to demonize ideas with which they disagree. You're none of those things so it's unbecoming of you to use said term.

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/22/king.controversy.ap/

Thanks for posting that. I remembered when that went on and was going to bring it up but I couldn't remember the precise details.

[Earthborn]

I'll leave it to you to figure out what that means, and whether Karenga is a peace loving promoter of unity, like Dr. King, or a purveyor of vengence, hatred, and divisiveness like Malcolm X. That's a false dichotomy. It is also entirely irrelevant. Whether Karenga is a "peace loving promotor of unity" or "a purveyor of vengence hatred and divisiveness" makes no difference to whether "Kwanzaa assumes Christmas is a racist holiday" or whether "Kwanzaa is sold to black persons as a traditional African celebration." Whatever Karenga is, your claims are still false.

Pay particular attention to the logo for his organizationI can't make out what it is supposed to be, apart from a sad looking face in a triangle.

If he's not an Angry Black Man in America, then I don't know who is.You didn't explain why that is relevant.

Furthermore, as far as feeling connected to African culture, I suspect that most Americans as a whole couldn't name even a third of the countries on the continent of Africa, and I doubt black Americans as a subset would fare any better in naming them than Americans in toto would.That does not disprove that they feel connected with African culture.

The whole African cultural roots thing, in the context of Kwanzaa, is a sham.Are the people who celebrate it allowed to make that judgement for themselves, or are you the person who has to decide such things for them?

Meanwhile, millions of black Americans feel comfortable pursuing the "American dream" and taking part in being part of its middle class.And some of them happily celebrating Kwanzaa...

That's much closer to what Dr. King had in mind, not a separate black nation within the US, or some sort of black disapora or repatriation.Allowing black people to have a few traditions of their own does not necessarily lead to a separate black nation, so this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The colorblind society ideal is evident in King's famous 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech (of which you are no doubt aware, so please don't play coy -- I consider it intellectually dishonest).Of course I am aware of it. I just don't see where he says that black people shouldn't have their own traditions, should not celebrate their cultural heritage and instead should assimilate into the "dominant society" by acting no differently from white people.

If that's not envisioning a colorblind society with respect to assimilation, then I don't know what is.Maybe you should read it/listen to it in its entirety (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/Ihaveadream.htm) and ask yourself: "Is he preaching freedom or assimilation?"

Remedial measures and separatism are very different concepts. You seem to be conflating the two, as does the article you cited.No, I am not. I am saying that the remedial measures King advocated are just not "colourblind". If you think a society that is not colourblind must necessarily be separatist and vice versa, then you just present a false dichotomy.

[fuelair]

The preferred term was "negro" a few generations ago. Then, in the 1960s, activists asserted that "black" was the neutral, non-offensive term, as "negro" still carried with it racist overtones.

"Black" worked just fine until the early 1990s, when some white professors at elite Eastern universities and other activists of the Politically Correct movement arbitrarily decided that "black" was offensive as well, so they coined the unwieldy and inappropriate term "African-American" as a substitute. They claimed it helped black persons (I won't take part in the silliness, as the term "black" is nothing but neutral, and no less offensive than "white") reclaim part of their ancient heritage, something of which they were encouraged to be proud.

This was also an outgrowth of a black separatist movement that began in the 1960s, and reached a new level of absurdity when a black American invented out of whole cloth the "tradition" of Kwanzaa in the 1970s as a black alternative to celebrating the "white" Christmas. One hundred percent of the tradition associated with it is made up.

Black Americans who are the descendants by several generations of former slaves are no more African than anyone else in the US who did not immigrate from Africa, or grow up with African parents. They have little in common with any random group of Africans -- take your pick of any mostly black African country and compare. The black persons who live in the US and are second, third, and higher generation Americans are just as American as any non-black second, third, and higher generation American.

AS Pure disinterested note re:Kwanzaa. I was teaching media production at a school 90% (app) AA/Black. For our "winter holiday" newscasts, we wanted symbols for Kwanzaa, Hannukah, Christmas and Festival of Lights. In a large community, black majority area of 5+ square miles, guess which of these I could not find symbols of/for sale in any of the large number of stores I visited and called. Worse, almost none of my students (black or otherwise) recognized the holiday or its' symbols when I asked for help in finding said symbols.

[LostAngeles]

So I just want to make a quick suggestion here.

For the very small population here that isn't already aware of it, I'm tri-racial. I'm a mutt. My solution to the whole ethnicity thing...

...is to try not to care. It bugs me when people try to decide what ethnicity I am or what race I am, but other than that... don't care.

That's my suggestion. To stop giving two monkey butts about ethnicity and race. They're people. They're human. They're pretty much a lot like you. You don't have to let the history of racial relations in the U.S. influence your interactions with other people. Easier said, then done, yes, and there are those who will insist that you do factor in the history of prejudice and racism when dealing with hem, but you don't have to. You can try to approach them as a person, rather than a black or a white or an Asian or one of them there Ay-rabs or Mexi-cans.

So if the terminology bothers you, then just say screw it. Treat them like an American or Canadian or just a person.

[Katana]

If you refer to "black" people, everyone knows what you mean. You're talking about people whose skin color, hair, etc cause them in some way to experience "blackness" for all of its good and bad in this society. It does not matter if you were born in Chicago or Kenya. It is the outward appearance that is relevant. It is why people from Morocco and Egypt, though both African countries, would not be identified as African Americans. The term African-American is silly and inaccurate.

[AmateurScientist]

Huh? There is no such thing as a "politically correct movement". "Politically correct" is a meaningless term used by racist, exclusionist and generally unamerican people to demonize ideas with which they disagree. You're none of those things so it's unbecoming of you to use said term.

Thanks again, Tony, but I suspect an age difference between us may account for my belief in a PC movement, and you're not noticing one, as by the time you got to university, it was already there and firmly entrenched. It was the status quo, but not in my day. That's just my opinion, of course, but I hardly think PC is merely an empty term coined to demonize ideas with which one does not agree. Those employing it correctly are recognizing that there is/was an insidious movement on college campuses, in newspaper and magazine editors' rooms, in television studios, and elsewhere, the effect of which is to inhibit our words, ideas, and even thoughts, and to banish "unacceptable" ones from public discourse. This is anathema to individual freedom. It's the tyranny of groupthink.

Here's a link to a thoughtful article on the subject. There are hundreds of others out there describing the same phenomena. It seems that no one will admit to being an adherent of political correctness, and everyone seems to deride it, yet its pressures to conform and to self-censor are very real. The quote from it comes from the end. If you have the time and inclination, the entire article is well written and argued.

http://members.aol.com/williefank/pc-essay.htm


The public may laugh off the lethal effects of political correctness on culture, but PC conditioning has the character of altering modes of perception, as when the habit of inquiry is snuffed out by repeated demands that we not offend the exquisite sensitivities of minorities. Like Orwellian thought control, PC censorship creates a penumbra of guilt, fear and intimidation around human discourse that stifles spontaneity and, with it, all creativity. Kurtz is lured from his sickbed to the jungle by the tribal drumbeat. A distinctive feature of collectivism is the repetition of slogans and inspirational chanting, the mesmerizing effect of propaganda and the numbing of the critical faculty by euphemism, where thought and sound merge, and worldview is directed through the auditory sense. It is the hypnotic voice of Kurtz that Marlow remembers most vividly. Political propaganda and censorship are central to the totalitarian regime, for human thought processes are inextricably bound to human speech, and to inhibit one is to inhibit the other. We are talking about nothing less than the life of the human spirit. If human society cannot survive without moral restraint, the effect of restraint on human consciousness is always stupification. The mind is a private theater where we may simulate, rehearse and re-enact reality in order to know it and ourselves better; a laboratory wherein to experiment with ideas, test theories, and walk through doctrine and dogma to sort out fallacies, and to perceive the interrelations of disparate phenomena, following arguments fearlessly wherever they lead.

Spinoza said: 'Every man is by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts.' The great fallacy of monolithic tyrannies like political correctness is that they seek to eliminate an important step in human cognition: the dialogue with the self, the act of dialectical mastication that allows us to absorb and process experience, to direct and enable our own moral lives. Only in the inviolable sanctuary of the soul, in the sacred act of self-communion, can man realize his own transcendence and salvation. Politically correct speech and thought provide us with the predigested morality of self-appointed ideologues, the profane consensus of mediocre minds, in lieu of our own common sense and the collective wisdom of the ages. It is the manager's insolent cabin boy, not Marlow, who finally announces the demise of Kurtz: 'Mistah Kurtz—he dead.' But reports of Mr. Kurtz's death are much exaggerated. He is alive and well in the minds and hearts of all those who ask us to abdicate our individuality, and upset the precarious balance between moral restraint and human freedom, in the name of a more perfect world.


PC is essentially cultural Marxism. It is an attack on freedom of speech and thought, and against the existing order. It seeks to control us by manipulation of thought and punishment of dissent. It's all about indoctrination into a cultural ideology based on the politics of victimhood and oppression by a powerful bogeyman -- mostly, the white male. We're all used to hearing it so much and for so long, that many of us no longer notice the White Elephant in the living room.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

So I just want to make a quick suggestion here.

For the very small population here that isn't already aware of it, I'm tri-racial. I'm a mutt. My solution to the whole ethnicity thing...

...is to try not to care. It bugs me when people try to decide what ethnicity I am or what race I am, but other than that... don't care.

That's my suggestion. To stop giving two monkey butts about ethnicity and race. They're people. They're human. They're pretty much a lot like you. You don't have to let the history of racial relations in the U.S. influence your interactions with other people. Easier said, then done, yes, and there are those who will insist that you do factor in the history of prejudice and racism when dealing with hem, but you don't have to. You can try to approach them as a person, rather than a black or a white or an Asian or one of them there Ay-rabs or Mexi-cans.

So if the terminology bothers you, then just say screw it. Treat them like an American or Canadian or just a person.

Sounds great, LA. If only it were that easy. Just as a counter-example, try telling some of the American businesses Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton shake down to just ignore race relations. I'm sure that will put them at ease.

Unfortunately, it's not always a matter of how you treat others. Sometimes, it's how some loud-mouthed and pissed off minorities demand you treat them.

Personally, I'd love to ignore race. Unfortunately, my government and my culture won't let me.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

Unfortunately, it's not always a matter of how you treat others. Sometimes, it's how some loud-mouthed and pissed off minorities demand you treat them.

You know, if someone asks you, to your face, to please not call them "X," but "Y," it would be mannerly to do so, whatever your opinion about the "loudmouthed and pissed off minority." If you called me a "spic" I'd certainly set you straight.

[AmateurScientist]

Of course I am aware of it. I just don't see where he says that black people shouldn't have their own traditions, should not celebrate their cultural heritage and instead should assimilate into the "dominant society" by acting no differently from white people.


I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote. One, I'm fatigued from this discussion and simply don't feel up to responding point by point. Two, I suspect we will simply talk past each other, as I believe we are probably doing now.

I will respond to this paragraph, however, as it probably encapsulates most of our debate as well as any other.

OK, first, I'll call straw man. I certainly didn't argue that black people shouldn't have their own traditions. What I argued was that Kwanzaa was made up recently, and that it was created on the premise that Christmas is a racist holiday. Context is very important. I made it clear in my response to you earlier that Karenga created Kwanzaa as a black alternative to Christmas. In the context of the black separatist movement of which Karenga was a part at the time, and in light of his remarks about Kwanzaa's creation, Karenga implies that Christmas is for white persons. If Karenga had merely created Kwanzaa as an opportunity for black persons to celebrate their common heritage as black persons, then it wouldn't necessarily be based on that premise. The key factor here, however, is that he created it as an alternative celebration for black persons. Implicit in that purpose is Karenga's rejection of the white Christmas. I'm sorry you fail to see that, but I stand by that as my contention.

Also, as I said earlier, Kwanzaa is not an example of an African tradition. It is merely dressed up to look like one. Nothing in my posts indicates that I think black persons shouldn't be allowed to celebrate it if they wish. I noted merely that it's based on a couple of lies, one of which is that Christmas is racist, the other of which is that Kwanzaa has anything of substance to do with African tradition.

"Assimilation" was a poor choice of words on my part. I probably should have said "inclusion." King and his colleagues struggled for blacks to have the same opportunities as whites. That implies that blacks be afforded the same chances as whites to be included in the American mainstream. You can take issue with whether that is assimilation or inclusion if you like, but looking at the larger picture that is splitting hairs. I didn't mean to imply that black persons should "act white." Frankly, I think that is a defeatist way of looking at the matter. It sounds very much like the black critics of persons like Colin Powell and Shelby Steele and Condoleeza Rice. Those persons are sometimes derided by other black persons as selling out and acting white. How shameful and sad that success in something other than sports or the arts is regarded as a white thing. That's what the civil rights movement was supposed to promise -- the opportunity for success, just like white persons enjoyed. Now, success is selling out. That turns racism on its head and makes a mockery of the efforts of persons like Rosa Parks and Dr. King.

It's sad that to far too many young black persons in the US, role models are found almost exclusively on the basketball court, the football field, the baseball diamond, or in the recording studio. Few of them have heard of Shelby Steele, for instance, but they should. He has a lot of important and highly relevant things to say to them. He's no apologist and he's not at all ashamed of who he is, but he dislikes seeing other black persons use their blackness as a crutch or as a get out of jail free card. He also regards affirmative action as undermining the genuine accomplishments of minorities, whose merits will always be suspect as long as affirmative action exists to give them preferential treatment, or even the mere appearance of preferential treatment.

I'm also disappointed that you fail to grasp the relevance of black separatist movements vis-a-vis King's vision of opportunity and inclusion, and how they are at odds with each other. As long as there exist a black America and a white America, it is impossible for black Americans to have the same opportunities as whites.

OK, back to your paragraph. "Dominant society?" That's not my term. That's the term Karenga used to refer euphemistically to what he regarded as a racist white majority.

I think we've argued on this point enough. It was quite a tangent, anyway.

AS

[Katana]

You know, if someone asks you, to your face, to please not call them "X," but "Y," it would be mannerly to do so, whatever your opinion about the "loudmouthed and pissed off minority." If you called me a "spic" I'd certainly set you straight.
I have neither had a black person request that I refer to black people as African-Americans nor have I heard a black person refer to him/herself or any other black person as African-American. If a black person asked me to refer to black people as African-Americans, I certainly would out of respect for that person's preferences (even though African-American is silly and inaccurate).

[AmateurScientist]

You know, if someone asks you, to your face, to please not call them "X," but "Y," it would be mannerly to do so, whatever your opinion about the "loudmouthed and pissed off minority." If you called me a "spic" I'd certainly set you straight.

You know, if you take anyone's words out of context, you can make them fit whatever it is you think they were saying.

Hint: I wasn't referring to what anyone calls anyone else. I'll let you figure out the rest.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, if you take anyone's words out of context, you can make them fit whatever it is you think they were saying.

Hint: I wasn't referring to what anyone calls anyone else. I'll let you figure out the rest.

AS

Oh, so you were taling about some vauge and ephemeral "loudmouthed minorities" who happen to exclude the people involved in this thread.

[AmateurScientist]

Oh, so you were taling about some vauge and ephemeral "loudmouthed minorities" who happen to exclude the people involved in this thread.

Sorry to be so oblique. No, I was referrring to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton specifically. My comment has nothing to do with anyone involved in this thread, unless Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton happen to be here.

Oh, and I would never call you a "spic." I've never used the term. Now that you've made a big deal out of nothing, and imputed ill motives to me without justification, however, I can think of another word I might use to refer to how you are behaving by getting offended by my posts in this thread. It rhymes with the word you used.

AS

[Earthborn]

I suspect an age difference between us may account for my belief in a PC movementThe problem is the term "PC movement" itself. It assumes that like the "civil rights movement" or "black separatist movement" there is a group of people delibrately trying to redesign language to fit their own personal agenda. I think the reality is rather more mondain: all people, regardless of their political views, influence language through their use. All cultures have taboo words, because they refer to things that are considered shameful or their use is considered shameful. And it is true for all cultures that people come up with alternative words to refer to those things, and eventually those words are likely to become taboo themselves.

Suppose a society has a group of people who are very often discriminated. People feel the need to have a word to refer to them, but most don't want to insult them because most people try to be polite. Unfortunately the people who do want to insult this group will use the same word in a derogatory context which means that the word gets a derogatory connotation. Polite people will then try to avoid that word. The insultors will deride that as "Political Correctness" and use the same term in a derogatory way, repeating the cycle.

If there was a "PC Movement" deliberately trying to alter language, you would expect that if they are successful one word eventually becoming acceptable. In reality however we see that taboo words are changing continueously, there is great confusion and disagreement over which words are the taboo words and which ones are the polite substitutions.

It seems that no one will admit to being an adherent of political correctness, and everyone seems to deride it, yet its pressures to conform and to self-censor are very real.Of course it is real. It is just that it is the inevitable result of having a language among people who want to be seen as polite. The phenomenon is neither good nor bad; it is just the way language is, and nothing can change that.

the entire article is well written and argued.No, it isn't. It is just one big "fallacy from adverse consequences" coupled meaningless accusations of propaganda and totalitarianism.

PC is essentially cultural Marxism.The only people I have ever heard using that term were White Nationalists. You may want to use a more "politically correct" term. :)

Can you explain what you mean by the term? Or did you just hope that throwing the word "Marxism" into the discussion will make people shiver and think: "Anything to do with Marxism, must be bad!"
It seeks to control us by manipulation of thought and punishment of dissent.Just because you can put it in scary words does not make it necessarily a bad thing. It is true that people try to influence eachother, including their thoughts. Call it manipulation all you want, as long as you realise that you are doing it yourself everytime you try to convince another of your views. It is also true that people experience social penalties for expressions others consider impolite. Telling a child that he should not call someone names is "punishment of dissent" in a way, but that does not make it a bad thing.

I certainly didn't argue that black people shouldn't have their own traditions.It sure looked like it. Or at the very least that black people shouldn't have traditions you disapprove.

What I argued was that Kwanzaa was made up recentlyWhich is not something that anyone disputes.

and that it was created on the premise that Christmas is a racist holiday.That's a rather different claim than that celebrating Kwanzaa assumes that Christmas is a racist holiday. It may very well have been created by someone who believed Christmas is a racist holiday, but the origins of the tradition are fairly irrelevant.

It is merely dressed up to look like one.And you try to make it sound like that is somehow a bad thing, even though the people involved find great pleasure in dressing it up to look like an African tradition.

I noted merely that it's based on a couple of liesNo, it is based on a couple of perceptions you do not share.

Those persons are sometimes derided by other black persons as selling out and acting white. How shameful and sad that success in something other than sports or the arts is regarded as a white thing.I am rather skeptical that anyone regards success as a white thing. I find it more likely that these black critics accuse some successful black people that they became successful by "selling out". That does not mean they consider "success" is equal to "selling out".

I'm also disappointed that you fail to grasp the relevance of black separatist movements vis-a-vis King's vision of opportunity and inclusionI don't understand this sentence.

and how they are at odds with each other.I realise very well how they are at odds with each other. I think it is fairly obvious.

As long as there exist a black America and a white America,There will always be black Americans identifying themselves with black culture, and white Americans identifying themselves with white culture. Is that what you mean?

While both (and many other) subcultures can be part of the larger American superculture, I don't think there is any chance that the boundaries between subcultures are ever going to disappear. I also don't believe they should.

I think we've argued on this point enough.Evidence? :)

[Skeptic]

Why compare to other mammals? That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are genetic differences among the different human "races." Apparently, on average, there are, regardless of how large or small they are compared to those within other mammalian species.
AS

But that's not the point. It was--I think--Richard Dawkins (perhaps someone else) who noted why race endures as a concept. It is simply useful from the information point of view. When you say someone is "black", you give quite a bit of information about how they look: you know that they are dark-skinned AND with relatively less body hair AND more pronounced lips AND flatter nose AND brown or black eyes AND curlier hair, etc. (on average, of course). Thus, saying someone is "black" tells you a lot about how they look--just like saying someone is "Asian" or "White" is.

It is this "clustering" that makes race a useful concept. If such "clustering" didn't exist--if you were as likely to see someone with yellow-toned skin, curly hair, and blue eyes as to see a "white", "black", or "oriental" person--then the concept of race would be useless and would probably not be used at all.

This says nothing about whether the concept of race is IMPORTANT or not, or whether it signifies some "deep" difference between people. The answer to that is almosty certainly not, but that's true of 99.99% of all other concepts as well.

"Breakfast cereal", you would all agree, is even a less important concept than "race", but we don't use the fact that many breakfast cereals are more different from each other than some of them are from other breakdast foods, or the fact that it is hard to find an "essential" property that is common to all and only breakfast cereals, as reason to think "breakfast cereals" is a useless concept that designates something that doesn't really exist, do we?

In addition, I think the search for the "real reason" for the difference between races in slightly different DNA is misguided, because it's really a return to essentialism: the belief that if two things LOOK different, the reason for that must be in some sort of different "essence".

It is no doubt true that the visible differences between races are due to DNA differences. Duh! The problem is in thinking of DNA as the the modern replacement for the Platonic "essences" or "forms", as if the "essential" differences in DNA proves blacks and whites are REALLY different, while the "superficial" differences in skin color or hair curliness don't count.

But that's nonsense: why should the slightly different DNA be considered any more important than the difference in skin color they cause? The DNA difference merely shows is that the difference between races exists, but this adds nothing to our knowledge--we knew that already by looking at people of different races!

It tells us nothing about whether those differences are important or superficial. Just because the difference is in the DNA doesn't mean it's any more important than if it's on the skin. It doesn't mean blacks and whites are "essentially" different any more than skin color does.

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry to be so oblique. No, I was referrring to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton specifically. My comment has nothing to do with anyone involved in this thread, unless Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton happen to be here.

Oh, and I would never call you a "spic." I've never used the term. Now that you've made a big deal out of nothing, and imputed ill motives to me without justification, however, I can think of another word I might use to refer to how you are behaving by getting offended by my posts in this thread. It rhymes with the word you used.

AS

Your behavior in this thread is at least as offensive. Why can't you simply accept that appropriate language changes over time? There is no conspiracy run by a secret cabal of minorities seeking to make you pariah because you used "black" instead of "african-american."

[NeilC]

One of the things I admired about America was my impression that they integrated people well - so that people coming to the countries considered themselves American and were proud to do so. Was that ever true? Has it changed now?

I've see the multicultural thing pushed here in the UK over the last 10/15 years and I've disliked it. I think culture pulls people together within it pulls them apart from those outside it. Seems to me a goal of creating a single culture makes more sense. But integration has been a dirty word with the media and polititicians and people seem to be encouraged to "celebrate their ethnic identity". What I can't work out is why promoting tribalism, ethnism and racism is better than the old nationalism.

[ImaginalDisc]

One of the things I admired about America was my impression that they integrated people well - so that people coming to the countries considered themselves American and were proud to do so. Was that ever true? Has it changed now?

I've see the multicultural thing pushed here in the UK over the last 10/15 years and I've disliked it. I think culture pulls people together within it pulls them apart from those outside it. Seems to me a goal of creating a single culture makes more sense. But integration has been a dirty word with the media and polititicians and people seem to be encouraged to "celebrate their ethnic identity". What I can't work out is why promoting tribalism, ethnism and racism is better than the old nationalism.

Well, there is something to be said for "integration." My grandfather never learned to speak English fluently and never did buisiness outside of a little cuban exile enclave. Consequentally, despite having been well educated and experienced financier in Cuba, he spent the better part of fourty years here doing other people's taxes (a fine job, but he was qualified for more). His brother in law however, who was a doctor in Cuba, went to medical school again when he got here (U.S. requirements for medical doctors being what they are), he learned to speak English fluently, and was more concerned about providing for his large family than he was about preserving his cultural identity.

However, we've never faced the sort of vile and hateful racism that caused, for example, the murder and destruction in Rosewood, Florida. Perhaps if we'd had a history of racially modivated violence perpretated against us, and entire towns of us wiped out, we might be more concerned with "identity," and we might take umbrage when people sneer at the term we've chosen to describe ourselves with.

[AmateurScientist]

But that's not the point.

[snip]

Just because the difference is in the DNA doesn't mean it's any more important than if it's on the skin. It doesn't mean blacks and whites are "essentially" different any more than skin color does.

Skeptic,

That was never my point. I made a very narrow claim that many scientists claim that race is a meaningless concept. I countered with another very narrow claim that two diseases with genetic causes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, apparently occur almost exclusively in two respective "races." I used those counterexamples solely to illustrate that perhaps "race" isn't quite as meaningless in some contexts as some scientists seem to claim.

I'm certain that to researchers and clinicians treating the unfortunate few among us who happen to battle those diseases, that those "racial" characteristics are helpful in identifying those at risk, and also in comparing data about patients. I happen to be familiar with CF in particular because I have a childhood friend who died from it and I worked very closely for years with a CF company who sold products and services to CF patients and their families. I know for a fact that CF is found almost exlcusively in white Caucasian populations. I also know that it is caused by a genetic defect. Using that information, I conclude that "race" isn't exactly meaningless to those persons, their families, and the medical persons who treat them.

Other than that narrow observation and conclusion, I had no other broader implication (other than later how I noted that on average, Caucasian persons tended to be taller than Asians, and suggested that that must be due to DNA).

AS

[NeilC]

In the UK, the government has announced a committee to investigate where and why multiculturalism has failed. Apparantly they've woken up to the idea that their housing policy, faith schools, promotion of diversity, a huge race relation industry and so on has caused communities to seperate culturally and therefore become suspicious and intolerant of each other.

Well KNOCK ME DOWN with a feather! I AMAZED! Who would have thought that encouraging people to seperate off according to their race/religion/ethnicity would cause any problems?

But no need to worry because the very government who caused all these problems has formed a committee that will produce a report in a year's time.

One only needs to consider the function of culture in a wider evolutionary sense to have predicted, as I have done since it started, that this type of multiculturalism is a terrible idea and would have exactly the results it's had.

I'll bet they are waking up to it because they can't quite explain why British muslims and blacks are feeling so disenfranchised, why the BNP has gained ground and maybe just a little bit of concern about recent terrorism.

On radio 4 just now there was a lady called Professor Mirza of some university giving the most lucid and common sense view on all this and why if the government shad just left everyone to their own devices we wouldn't have such problems.

[AmateurScientist]

Your behavior in this thread is at least as offensive. Why can't you simply accept that appropriate language changes over time? There is no conspiracy run by a secret cabal of minorities seeking to make you pariah because you used "black" instead of "african-american."

Like I mentioned to you earlier, if you simply project onto my posts what you think I'm saying, rather than read them at face value, then you can take whatever offense from them you wish. That's a really fun game, I suppose, and anyone can do it in any thread. I suspect that is what you have been doing all along, as I have said nothing offensive here, except to you (I suggested you were behaving like something that rhymes with "chick"), and to Messers Jackson and Sharpton. The main thrust of my arguments in this thread has been the very simple notion that I think replacing the self-selected term "black" with "African-American" and determining that "black" is offensive is silly when taken into account the historical circumstances of how both terms achieved currency in common usage.

If you find that offensive, then I suggest you turn up your threshold for being offended. Otherwise, just don't respond to my posts. We'll both be happier.

Oh, and you are further demonstrating your failure to follow the thread by claiming I suggested a secret cabal of minorities is behind political correctness. I have made it very clear that PC originated with mostly white persons on college campuses in the Eastern US. I never claimed it was driven by minorities. Discussions in this thread about topics like Kwanzaa, etc., are all tangents.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

Oh, and you are further demonstrating your failure to follow the thread by claiming I suggested a secret cabal of minorities is behind political correctness. I have made it very clear that PC originated with mostly white persons on college campuses in the Eastern US. I never claimed it was driven by minorities. Discussions in this thread about topics like Kwanzaa, etc., are all tangents.

AS


You made it clear that your assertion is that mostly white "eltists" are behind some nefarious P.C. plot. What you have failed to do is provide evidence.

[AmateurScientist]

One of the things I admired about America was my impression that they integrated people well - so that people coming to the countries considered themselves American and were proud to do so. Was that ever true? Has it changed now?


It was probably somewhat true, and also something of a myth. Has it changed somewhat over the past 10-15 years? Surely. As you noted, the multiculturalism movement does seem to be moving exactly in the opposite direction of integration. I mentioned in this thread black separatists movements that began in the 1960s. Collectively, there are also sometimes called "black nationalism." The foremost example of a leader of one such movement is Malcolm X. Those movements were countermovements against integration.

Multiculturalism is an outgrowth of, or a cousin to, Political Correctness, whether some in this thread wish to deny the existence of PC or not. I suppose it has some benefits, but it also has negative consequences, as you have apparently noted. Primarily, it has the effect of divisiveness within a nation. I don't think that's a good thing.


I've see the multicultural thing pushed here in the UK over the last 10/15 years and I've disliked it. I think culture pulls people together within it pulls them apart from those outside it. Seems to me a goal of creating a single culture makes more sense. But integration has been a dirty word with the media and polititicians and people seem to be encouraged to "celebrate their ethnic identity". What I can't work out is why promoting tribalism, ethnism and racism is better than the old nationalism.

I agree. I can understand recent immigrants wanting to hold onto some of their former culture, and that's fine. Ultimately, however, there often comes a time when cultures clash and conflict results. Sometimes those recent immigrants have to choose between following the path of integration and that of retaining a separate ethnic or cultural identity. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can cause friction.

I think multiculturalism is largely a myth in that it seems to promote the idea that mainstreaming into a larger society, or maintaining a harmonious diverse nation and culture, is compatible with maintaining enclaves of diverse groups of persons who celebrate their differences from other groups, especially from the mainstream, whatever that happens to be.

It's hard to gauge as it is still ongoing, but enthusiasm for multiculturalism as an ideal seems to be waning in the US.

AS

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,

That was never my point.

I certainly don't think it was; I was just pointing out the conceptual danger of mixing "DNA" with "Essence", that some--not you--seem to do. In one way, though, you fell for this concept, unintentionally:

I used those counterexamples solely to illustrate that perhaps "race" isn't quite as meaningless in some contexts as some scientists seem to claim.

I don't think the scientists who claim race is "meaningless" mean to say that skin color is not determined by DNA, or that black people don't have a higher incident of sickle-cell anemia. I think they mean to say precisely that there is no such thing as an "essence" of race--that humanity is not divided into subspecies of white, black, and oriental people. This is, of course, perfectly compatible with whites and blacks having (slightly) different DNA.

[Dave1001]

Race persists in the year 2006 primarily for marketing purposes. Sort of like religious holidays, gender, and the concept of generations. One can sell more versions of products such as presents, the more niche markets exist. Instead of buying holiday cards and presents in bulk, the social obligations increase to buy higher price niched products for one's associates. A very merry Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanzaa/Birthday for your Father/Friend/Daughter indeed.

[LostAngeles]

Sounds great, LA. If only it were that easy. Just as a counter-example, try telling some of the American businesses Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton shake down to just ignore race relations. I'm sure that will put them at ease.

Unfortunately, it's not always a matter of how you treat others. Sometimes, it's how some loud-mouthed and pissed off minorities demand you treat them.

Personally, I'd love to ignore race. Unfortunately, my government and my culture won't let me.

AS

I do believe, at least from my standpoint, I covered that.

...
That's my suggestion. To stop giving two monkey butts about ethnicity and race. They're people. They're human. They're pretty much a lot like you. You don't have to let the history of racial relations in the U.S. influence your interactions with other people. Easier said, then done, yes, and there are those who will insist that you do factor in the history of prejudice and racism when dealing with hem, but you don't have to. You can try to approach them as a person, rather than a black or a white or an Asian or one of them there Ay-rabs or Mexi-cans.
...

[ImaginalDisc]

I do believe, at least from my standpoint, I covered that.

LA, hush. Don't you know that Amatuer Scientist has declared race to be a non-issue, and that anyone who brings it up is part of the problem?

[AmateurScientist]

I do believe, at least from my standpoint, I covered that.

Yes, you did, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. On the other hand, I'm afraid the reality for many persons and businesses is not quite as easy as simply ignoring the issue. Like I hinted, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have apparently made whole careers out of extorting donations from businesses. Unfortunately, those businesses who cave in to their demands apparently believe that Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to create public relations and/or marketing disasters for the businesses, whether that is in fact true or not. If they didn't believe that were true, then Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton probably wouldn't live as well as they do. I don't believe they are living so well solely on charitable donations, do you?

Also, there are thousands of Title VII charges and suits filed every year alleging unlawful racial discrimination. Some have merit, and some do not. In either event, those employers on the business end of those charges and suits have to deal with the issue of race. They cannot simply ignore it.

That's the reality. Outside of a business and/or political context, on a more personal level, you are probably more right than not.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, you did, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. On the other hand, I'm afraid the reality for many persons and businesses is not quite as easy as simply ignoring the issue. Like I hinted, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have apparently made whole careers out of extorting donations from businesses. Unfortunately, those businesses who cave in to their demands apparently believe that Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to create public relations and/or marketing disasters for the businesses, whether that is in fact true or not. If they didn't believe that were true, then Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton probably wouldn't live as well as they do. I don't believe they are living so well solely on charitable donations, do you?

Also, there are thousands of Title VII charges and suits filed every year alleging unlawful racial discrimination. Some have merit, and some do not. In either event, those employers on the business end of those charges and suits have to deal with the issue of race. They cannot simply ignore it.

That's the reality. Outside of a business and/or political context, on a more personal level, you are probably more right than not.

AS

Clearly, I misjudged you and misunderstood what you were trying to say. My apologies.

[MilwaukeeMike]

This term has bothered me alot. Why are blacks called African American? Why arn't they just called American? To some, yes, it is a cultural term and used in a way that expresses pride, but when I say it, and most of the other people say it, it is just another word for black people. And if we did, have to call them something other than blacks, why are they African American? Why arnt they like me? like you? Arn't they just Americans? And you do infact believe that they are African American, what are you? Where did your great great grandparents come from, and then we can call you a German-American, or Russian-American, or English-American. Blacks should not be specified with a name while we are just called American. I am pretty sure that they got here just around the same time as us (+or- 50 years) and that not even everyone of the blacks we call today are African American. Some of them have come from other countries and or been born from a black mother and diff. ethnicity of a mother. Again, arn't they just like us, just AMERICANS!

If you are born in America, then you are an American of African heritage. They should be called Americans like the rest of us. It is just the P.C. term that people used after the Civil Rights movement that should be retired now. I mean, we are all just Americans. :)

[pgwenthold]

Regarding "America integrated people well"

It was probably somewhat true, and also something of a myth.


"Somewhat of a myth"? Far from doing it well, America throughout its history has integrated people kicking-and-screamingly!

Yeah, eventually white groups could melt in, but even then it still took a while. But if you look different? Shoot, it took almost 200 years before we even could get rid of the laws enforcing segregation based on race.

[Katana]

If you are born in America, then you are an American of African heritage. They should be called Americans like the rest of us. It is just the P.C. term that people used after the Civil Rights movement that should be retired now. I mean, we are all just Americans. :)

Technically, don't we all have African roots (if you go back far enough)?

That is unless you're a Creationist-American.

[Mycroft]

Technically, don't we all have African roots (if you go back far enough)?

That is unless you're a Creationist-American.

I believe in evolution.

We evolved in the Garden of Eden, and when our ancestors were kicked out, they were sprinkled all over the Earth. After time, genetic drift gave rise to all the different "races."






























Okay, kidding!

[AmateurScientist]

Nevermind.

[AmateurScientist]

Clearly, I misjudged you and misunderstood what you were trying to say. My apologies.

No sweat, ID. Sorry for any testiness on my part. We're cool.

AS

[ImaginalDisc]

No sweat, ID. Sorry for any testiness on my part. We're cool.

AS

I thought you were saying, which I am sad to say, I hear too often, that race issues were all settled in the 60's and anyone who says that they need to be addressed now is some sort of chisler.

[AmateurScientist]

I thought you were saying, which I am sad to say, I hear too often, that race issues were all settled in the 60's and anyone who says that they need to be addressed now is some sort of chisler.

It's just a simple misunderstanding in communication between us, which happens on this forum far too often between posters. Ed knows it's not the first time someone has misunderstood me, or that I have misunderstood someone else.

Anyway, I certainly would never contend that race issues were all settled in the 60s. I grew up in the 60s and 70s in Alabama, and continue to live here. I have seen many positive social changes with regard to race relations, and that's a very good thing, but to claim that race is no longer an issue would be dishonest.

Earlier in this thread, on the first page, I mentioned that I see and hear tales from some of my clients about being mistreated and unfairly discriminated against by police officers simply because they live in "high crime areas," which is a common police euphemism for "black neighborhood." From their accounts, it's hard to conclude anything other than the fact that many persons are stopped, questioned, and generally harassed in their own neighborhoods for no reason other than they are black.

Race remains an issue, and will continue to be one for a long time, in my opinion. That doesn't have anything to do with my opinion about the term African-American.

AS

[LostAngeles]

That's fine, AS. Frankly, my hope (and I'm too young to be crochety yet) is that if we can get the hell over it in our personal lives, then maybe we can get over it economically and politcally.

But, I's young.