BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Colored -> Black -> African-American -> Person of Color

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
ibis the being
19:11 / 27.04.04
No, I'm sorry Mr Tricks, I think you're being a bit ridiculous and either derailing the discussion to no discernible purpose, or simply repeating me as though the wrongness of my words were self-evident (and perhaps it is, but that's still a faulty way to argue against them).

Now,
What kind of story would need that specification and not be about race?

What do you mean to say? Unless once again I'm failing to catch your drift, this is like asking, How could we have a talk about walruses and not mention walruses? Well, I never said mentioning someone is black is not at all "about" race.

But you seem to be implying that any talk including the mention of race is participating in racism, and thus what difference does it make whether I offend passer (or whomever) since I'm already being racist by mentioning it? Which I do not accept. We can have a discussion about walruses that is about walruses but is not anti-walrus, can we not?
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:49 / 27.04.04
O-kaaaaaaaay Ibis,

how about this...

Passer says:
If you must label, it's only polite to ask the folks you're labeling.

I agree.

YOU said:
in practice I don't see how it works
and then proceeded to site an example of how the previously mentioned method would not work.

I disagree, and have been trying to get a more accurate illustration of how your example would or wouldn't work (this is where the walrus comes in, but it's not a clean switch replacing walrus for "black (or person of color) man").
It seems, in my trying to get this illustration from you, you're getting annoyed and in being annoyed your becoming patronizing... your words no?

Soooo, I'm asking you, why would you not check with the someone (walrus --perhaps they prefer sea-mamal or "tusken raider") who may be subjected to labeling? You've said that doing so would place them in position of otherness.
To this, I'm saying that NOT doing so, would place them equally in a position of Otherness.

If that particular detail on your story is important enough to merrit inclusion then why is it not important to reference the relative appropiateness of that detail?

Let's say the story is about a hate crime. A "gay bashing."
Would the story take different tones with the use the terms, gay, gay-man, homo or queer?
 
 
passer
22:25 / 27.04.04
I will try to get back with a more thought out return to the discussion, but my initial reaction is to state from lived experience that any time I am the only black person in a group and race is mentioned at all 80% (yes, I have counted) of the room will look to me out of reflex. However, this isn't a "black/white" thing exclusively. Any minority becomes a focus when discussed amongst a majority group. It's what the label does.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:27 / 28.04.04
Mr Tricks, seeing as you were replying to a point made about me replying to Nalyd's belief that skin tone didn't matter, I rather assumed you were looking for an example of how the race of someone might actually matter in the case of being a perpetrator or victim of crime. Unfortunately this seems to have confused you. My talking about crime was not anything else to do with the anecdote thing.
 
 
i
14:49 / 28.04.04
Just a bit of anecdotal info. but hope some might find it interesting. In South Africa the 'blacks' and the 'coloureds' are seen by themselves and others as two very separate social groups, the coloureds being generally more affluent and considered socially superior. No real point, just an example of the two words used as descriptors of different groups and not as necessarily interchangeable.
 
 
Mr Tricks
17:08 / 28.04.04
lady

I'm not sure where you're coming from. But what's to be confused about when you're using "Mr Tricks" in an inaccurate charactorization about how "he" would relate to Officer Facist Oppressor?

My question regarding what difference a victim of crime's skin color would be, was in direct relation to telling a story to a room full of people, an anecdote that necessitates saying so-and-so was a black man. Which I believe is different than the scenerio you posted.
 
 
Tom Coates
19:31 / 29.04.04
I'm confused here - the argument seems to be whether or not asking someone about their self-labelling (or what they consider the way of approaching their ethnicity should be) in a public place would or wouldn't make that person feel more ostracised. To which the answer is probably, "well it depends how you say it". A lot of people I know use the word 'Gays'. When they say it, I take the piss out of them. It annoys me slightly, but hey. It's not a big deal. If they made some performance out of "oh let's not offend anyone here eh? let's play the PC game of pretending a spade's not a spade" - as you've phrased it, that's how it sounds to me - then er.. yeah that's pretty vile. Actually I'd say it would do you more of a disservice than them around nice-thinking people. But hey.

I think the reason this part of the argument is pissing me off a little is because the implication is that the person who would be asking that question has never really taken the issue seriously or considered appropriate language or the specific issues that might affect people of different ethnicities or races or genders particularly seriously. There will be cultural patterns, standards of acceptable behaviour and bits of knowledge that probably will be known to everyone in that social situation who is even slightly engaged with what's going on in the world. To have to ask any individual present to tell you how to behave seems like you'd pretty much decided it wasn't important enough to treat with respect and were only paying lip-service at this stage. Seems to me that race isn't only an issue for black people to care about, sexuality not only an issue for gay people to care about, gender-discrimination not only an issue that women should care about.

But then I could have misconstrued your post and you could in fact be arguing precisely this - that any decently engaged person can find out or use their common sense or ask discreetly about subjects that they don't understand that are genuinely important, and that correspondingly, individuals who self-identify in different ways will probably not be offended (although they may correct the people concerned) if you use language that they have problems with. I - for example - don't like homosexual. I think it's cold medicalised bullshit designed to identfy my sexuality as a biological or psychological defect. I personally like gay man or poof. I'm quite capable of communicating that to people and will take no offense whatsoever as long as I think it's clear that they're at least making an effort.
 
 
Mr Tricks
22:31 / 29.04.04
I agree.

I believe it's important to make such efforts; seeking reference (or context?) before labeling or generalizing.

In the case of this particular discussion that effort's being framed within the context of "while telling a story to a room full of people."
At least that's the point upon which I'm personally stuck. I don't understand how one would not take into account the relative appropriateness of any given label amongst a group.
I suppose one can't really expound upon what is or isn't appropriate with-in a hypothetical situation.

TOM
I can dig what you're saying here-- "If they made some performance out of "oh let's not offend anyone here eh? let's play the PC game of pretending a spade's not a spade" - as you've phrased it, that's how it sounds to me - then er.. yeah that's pretty vile."
---I'm just confused as to who's the "you" you're refering to?

I'm not argueing for stopping a room full of people just so one can clarify a label with one individual... that can be construed as rude no matter what the subject matter.
It becomes social entertainment at someone's expense.


any decently engaged person can find out or use their common sense or ask discreetly about subjects that they don't understand that are genuinely important, and that correspondingly, individuals who self-identify in different ways will probably not be offended (although they may correct the people concerned) if you use language that they have problems with.

ABSOLUTELY!


aside:
Am I the only one here NOT getting pissed by this discussion?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:37 / 30.04.04
(sigh) Before we proceed I would like to make it clear that just because I used Mr Trick's name in a previous post that was in no way supposed to imply that the person behind the name does not care about the skin tone of other people or would react in such an abrasive manner towards an officer of the law. I apologise for any offense caused.
 
 
astrojax69
22:01 / 24.05.04
i read this thread and wondered if, say, a ghana barbelith-equivalent would have a discussion on 'white folk' or 'caucasians' or 'european' or 'fair-skinned folk' or....

in describing a person to, say police for identification, we should be able to use terms that pretty well describe the person, ie black hair, deep brown skin, yellow teeth, light pink skin, olive skin, 'looked s.e asian', 'looked baltic/mediterranean', whatever works...

otherwise, why not just 'person'? and if nationality is a critical aspect, then say it - but there are two or three million 'australians' (of 20+ million), for instance, who 'look asian/african/eastern european/sth american/etc...' so what to do?

the best response is to say, when called a description you don't agree with, 'i would prefer to just be called ...... [insert nigga/pommy bastard/sub-continental - whatever! : ) ] thanks very much'


on a related point, does anyone else get irked when americans with dark skin and bling bling call one another 'nigga' but wanna shoot a person with different skin colour who mimics the term? i often wonder at political correctness when the 'beneficiary' is so fucking ignorant!

a few early morning 'when is coffee' thoughts on this intractable problem...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:07 / 24.05.04
On the use of the term "nigger" - here.

On the idea of whiteness - here.

Might be some interesting stuff in there...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:38 / 24.05.04
While you're at it, I'm afraid I don't understand this "political correctness" phrase. What is it? And what does it have to do with people calling each other niggers?
 
 
passer
23:58 / 24.05.04
I think my issue with the terminology as a whole is the fact that the instances where discussing race is truly necessary rather than a reflection of racist society are very few and far between. This is usually the case only when discussing racism overtly, at which point establishing terminology is crucial to an informed discussion.

I actually find the crime example a little insulting, since the idea of the criminal minorities is an established stereotype for most people. What picture does the word gang put in your head?

To give the personal example: My parents, delightful, well meaning people and hopelessly racist, still ask me the race of anyone I mention more than twice. Yes, they could just be trying to picture what they look like, but reality and experience say that they're asking to fit the details into their stereotypes about race.

On a related note:
Astrojax69, I pray to all that's holy that you're joking and will soon be clarifying your attempt at humor.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:46 / 25.05.04
on a related point, does anyone else get irked when americans with dark skin and bling bling call one another 'nigga' but wanna shoot a person with different skin colour who mimics the term? i often wonder at political correctness when the 'beneficiary' is so fucking ignorant!

Well, one very simple explanation for this would be that you are a racist, or rather (if we must) that you are basing your understanding of the situation on a combination of ignorance and actively racist assumptions. See below for more detail. And welcome to Barbelith.

[This post has been edited to be less personal and aggressive]
 
 
Cat Chant
08:51 / 25.05.04
we should be able to use terms that pretty well describe the person, ie black hair, deep brown skin,

I might have told this anecdote before, but it surprised me at the time and continues to do so.

I went to a British school in Bahrain for a few years, where there were students of many races, nationalities and skin colours. When I first arrived (from very-white Kent) I was a bit thrown when I was told to go and find someone I'd never met, and the person was described to me without reference to skin colour, thinking - as you imply, astrojax - that it was an important descriptor. By the time I'd been there a year, I suddenly noticed that I was leaving skin colour out of my descriptions.

Now, that didn't make the school a Utopia, obviously. I suspect part of the reason for that was that, being a British school, there was huge cultural homogeneity (and a uniform, just to increase that sameness), so that skin colour didn't fit into the patterns I had learned for it (didn't correspond to particular modes of dress, for example). But it did mean that I've lived in a context where skin colour actually wasn't a significant physical descriptor, so I tend to agree with passer that descriptions of people that refer specifically to their skin tone are usually referring to rather more than that - or to something that has nothing to do with skin colour.

And I wanted to say, about this fictitious example where you ask the only 'black' person in the room what term you should use to refer to the 'black' person in your story... unless you assume that every person of colour is "qualified"* to speak out on behalf of every other person of colour, then s/he will have no more idea than you what label that person will feel comfortable with. For example, say X had just met me for the first time, and ze was in a room full of straight people and Tom Coates. Ze says "Oh, I met this woman today. She has a girlfriend - she's... Tom, what should I call her? Homosexual? Same-sex oriented? Gay?" Tom chooses the term he feels most comfortable with - "Gay, or a poof" - and five miles away, my spider-sense tingles ("Queer, you bastards, queer!!").

*I think that word has actually been used in this context
 
 
Cat Chant
08:56 / 25.05.04
[wrings hands in manner of Willow Rosenberg] Flyboy, you're not doing the "I feel" statements!

...seriously, isn't it generally accepted usage on barbelith not to jump straight to "You are a..." without an intervening stage of "Your argument rests on the assumption that..."? I know you might feel like you've had this argument fifty thousand times, but maybe astrojax hasn't. I've been remembering lately - possibly inspired by Rage's apology thread in the Conversation - what a bigoted little shit I was when I was eighteen (compared to how great I am now), and feeling grateful to all the people who explained where I was going wrong. (Admittedly, sometimes they did it by calling me names, but more often not.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:14 / 25.05.04
I think we can agree that Flyboy's comment was a little over the top. Let's assume for the moment that Astrojax is not a racist piece of filth. What is it about the statement he made that suggested to Flyboy that he was? Flybs - what's the story on this one?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
09:25 / 25.05.04
well yes. but i do sympathise with Flyboy's frustration. As I've had my coffee, i'll have a go.

on a related point, does anyone else get irked when americans with dark skin and bling bling call one another 'nigga' but wanna shoot a person with different skin colour who mimics the term? i often wonder at political correctness when the 'beneficiary' is so fucking ignorant!

No, I don't. Because a - who are these homogenised 'americans with dark skin and bling bling'. If you mean African-American/Black, why not say so, with suitable caveats on using a term experimentally/not meaning to cause offence.

b - Are Hispanics dark skinned? South Asians? Some are, some aren't. Some A-A people are extremely light-skinned. It's not any kind of useful descriptor, all it does is confirm a whole load of racially-based stereotypes. and confirm the usefulness of those stereotypes. Which is bullshit.

Note, I'm not saying you're a racist. But I will say that from yr quote above, you certainly seem pretty happy to engage in pretty grotesque* racial generalisations.

*grotesque because of the 'they're all the same'/not worth my attention/thought implication.

To continue, this hypothetical group will express their displeasure by 'shooting'. Offensive stereotype no.2 God forbid that A-A people have other ways to express themselves.

And why on earth is it so hard to understand that taking and reclaiming a term of hate/abuse is something for individual members of the group therein to do, and then do amongst themselves within a comfort zone. It's about defusing/claiming power that's been aimed viciously/aggressively *at you*

If it hasn't been *aimed* at you, it ain't yours to use, unless for some other reason you're within that comfort zone(friends dynamic etc). You're taking on a history/dynamic that isn't yours.

But, and here's where it's perhaps a little complicated, as Deva says, individual people within supposedly homogenous minority cultures often, weirdly enough, have differing opions on these matters. He says 'poof', she says 'queer'. (They call the whole thing off...)

Oh, and 'beneficiary' is fucking insulting, as if the hypothetical 'nigga' is supposed to be grateful to the non-nigga. In what way does being called a 'nigga' by somone caucasian(is this what you mean?) neccessarily benefit that person? huh? in what way is that not an utterly patronising/demeaning assumption?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:46 / 25.05.04
All right, fine, let's do this, for appearances' sake if nothing else. Disclaimer: the outline below is fairly rough and may contain errors, even objectionable ones.

astrojax69:

Black Americans use the term "nigger" for many reasons, one important one being to reclaim and reappropriate an incredibly widespread term of abuse. It's a reaction to a situation in which language itself has become a tool of oppression - the meaning of language is being hijacked and (for once this word is appropriate) subverted into a tool of resistance to oppression. At times, the intention may be to rob any denigratory power from the word through familiarity, at other times, its power lies in the way it reverses language, and makes the worst thing you could possibly be called into a proud indicator of your own identity, or even a term of affection or respect.

Whilst codes of language tend to arise amongst all social, cultural, regional and economic groups, one could argue that the specific nature of this term (and certain others) provides additional solidarity in the face of historical and continuing oppression, inequality, discrimination, etc. The term is arguably often meant to be confrontational and unsettling for whites (see its use in art and particularly music). The exclusivity of who gets to use the term is arguably also part of the point: in a country where colour has always been the basis for the exclusion of non-whites, the existence of terms which are acceptable when used only by other, marginalised groups serves as a defence mechanism, a way of evening the odds. "I can say it. You can't."

Whilst there have been critiques of the use of the term based on, for example, alleged effects of negative self-image, these critiques when they contain any worth tend to come from leading black writers/thinkers/social commentators. Not from whiny-ass white kids who think they're being discriminated against because they can't say it too.

In addition to explaining what political correctness has to do with any of this, I would also be grateful if you could explain what "with bling bling" means in this context. Oh, and are you aware of the fact that you post seems to imply that black Americans are inherently violent and specifically prone to using guns? (I'm sure you are. Other people here may give you the benefit of the doubt but I'd like to make it clear that I was on to you from day one. Just for future reference.)
 
 
astrojax69
06:31 / 28.05.04
thanks folks (esp flyboy)... i was a bit pre-coffee! but while not being entirely humorous, i was being deliberately prevocative...

you see, i had a conversation a while ago (against my better judgement) with a relative (in-law) who is a dyed in the wool xenophobic (...rest of description deleted for purity's sake) who is otherwise supposedly very intelligent [topped vet science at her uni] who articulated some views along lines of those i posted above. i am intrigued she manages to maintain a practice, though it is in a pretty homogenous country australian town, near the one that spawned pauline hanson (australians will know her - the rest are lucky)

i tried [in vain] to make her see reason and yet had to admit that she had some compellingly argued points, even if her well-hidden premises (at the time) seemed a little dodgy... i thought i'd try to paraphrase some of her points (about 'bling bling' for example - i'd never really known the term well enough to use it, but was intrigued!) to see if i could get some solid barb-sense on the matter... i just thought she watched too much bad television...

the first part of my post - re decriptors - was also drawn in part from a previous life i had as a police officer and how common sense is often the best tool for quick action, where pc simply doesn't have an audience...

anyway, thanks deva for your anecdote - my point entirely about skin colour / nationality / etc not needing to be an integral part of a description. we all have enough individualism that it shouldn't be required, no..?

sorry if i caused any blood to boil - i didn't want to mindset anyone before they responded. am i bad?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:52 / 28.05.04
I asked above:

While you're at it, I'm afraid I don't understand this "political correctness" phrase. What is it? And what does it have to do with people calling each other niggers?

Care to have a crack? Only you've just used it again, and I still don't know what it means...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:24 / 28.05.04
I'd add that in particular, you're presenting "common sense" and "PC" as if the former is a naturally occuring, neutral way of relating to the world, and the latter is an artificial, politically-charged contrivance. I don't see why this should be the case. I find the idea that through "common sense" we will all have the same interpretation or reaction if someone describes a person by saying "they look Asian" especially unlikely and troubling. Maybe I should start by asking you to define what "common sense" means here, and we can go from there...
 
 
astrojax69
22:08 / 30.05.04
'common sense' as used above was indicative of my apprehension of the matter as a police officer with a prescribed role to play on behalf of the community, being able to extract from an interlocutor's communication the information i needed, irrespective of other baggage it may or may not contain that might tell me other things about them not pertinent to the matter at hand: so i could do my job...

pc is necessarily a considered usage of words in a paticular conversational setting that is in fact meant to convey those very aspects not at all relevant to my communications with witnesses to a villian's deeds...


interestingly, i think, there is here portrayed a gulf in language usage not often remarked upon in this thread, or elsewhere much, as to whether one talks about language (and here, particular phrases) as markers in society more broadly, to investigate the words as trends (so theoretical), that we can hypothesise something of the user's likely mindset if we hear such language, against the context of language used in practice, by practicioners trying to give something of their experience of the world at a particular moment and somehow [and isn't this the magical bit!] convey it through what we call communication, at its most brute and unadulterated.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:57 / 30.05.04
'common sense' as used above was indicative of my apprehension of the matter as a police officer with a prescribed role to play on behalf of the community, being able to extract from an interlocutor's communication the information i needed, irrespective of other baggage it may or may not contain that might tell me other things about them not pertinent to the matter at hand: so i could do my job...

So, not common at all, in fact, but rather tailored to a very specific set of circumstances, according to a very narrow set of demands?

Now, I'm afraid I'm still lost as to what you mean by pc. Could you tell me a bit about it? When it was invented, by whom, what politically correct organisations I could go to to learn a bit more about it? You seem to be arguing that it is somehow more useful for you as apoliceman to hear people saying the first thing that comes into their heads, but that doesn't tie in to anything I understand as "PC". Are you saying that law officers are likely to get confused if they are asked to deal with anything more linguistically complex than a rough approximation of the malefactor's skin colour? Do similar problems, say, occur, when discussion goes into the style rather than the colour of the clothes they were wearing? I'm confused...
 
 
Ex
09:16 / 31.05.04
astrojax69 - are there not all kinds of complex things going on when you communicate with members of the public - recognitions of their age, possible fears, upbringing and so forth? I would think that would be the case. I would image that 'pc' could just be one of these determining factors. (Although yes, being unsure how you're using 'pc', I can't tell.)

As to the idea that you'd get more info by common sense than 'pc' - I can think of instances when if you failed to take certain 'pc' factors into account (race, class, gender) you wouldn't get any bloody information out of the person concerned, or the information would be horrible askew. I mean, if someone describes someone else as 'looking asian' and it turns out that he's basing it on a lot of completely bizarre ideas of what an 'asian' appearance means, and you don't ask them to specify what they mean by that, then you've lost (rather than gained) a whole slew of information.

I'd also see a big difference between noting down whatever descriptors someone uses (rather than giving them a crash course in ethnicity and visuality) and possibly asking more questions to find out what the person means by 'looked Greek' (for example), and actually using those terms to prompt someone ('Did he look Greek?'). I'd find the former a plausible way of communicating around certain preconceptions people havewhich might not be useful, and the latter really dodgy.

And you may make communication difficult by being a pillock. To give a slightly different example from a column I read last year - when the author got threatening phone calls, she reported them to the police by phone. The officer asked her what race the person was. She said, how would I know, he was on the phone. Officer: Did he sound black or asian? She said: What do I sound like? Officer: Well, white. She said: Well, I'm black, actually. She was middle class and had no regional accents and the officer had translated that mentally as 'white'.
To say "someone sounds black" rather than "someone has a Jamaican/Carribean accent" are quite different things. The former assumes a connection that often isn't there at all and leads you off on a possibly totally false trail, and offends the fuck out of your interlocutor - not the best way of opening communiation. The latter is also based on perceptions that could be dodgy but less so.
I realise that visual appearance is a different facet of recognising 'race' or ethnicity, but I'd think a similar level of sensitivity applied. And I think that level of appropriate has changed over time - for example, I doubt the police these days would ask whether someone 'looked Jewish' because the connection between visual markers and Jewishness has been usefully troubled. Actually, what do I know, they might.
Anyway, my point is that if these things - what you ask, how you understand the best way to get information out of people - have changed hugely over even the last twenty years, it's hard to use the phrase 'common sense' to describe what kinds of assessments and adjustments we perform when we talk to people. It makes it sound as though we're not already making a load of calculations about the best way to talk to people (which I'm sure the police do constantly), and it makes it sound as though 'pc' considerations couldn't become part of those calculations without banjaxing the easy flow of communication. I think it could.
 
 
PatrickMM
02:36 / 06.12.04
Bringing this back, reading this, I got the impression that in an ideal world, you'd want to end the use of terms like Black or Latino, and just use person. And, this is something I'd agree with, I don't consider myself white, or Euro-American, I either go with just American or just person, and I feel like people who happen to be descended from Asians or Africans, but have lived in the country all their lives have an equal right to be called American, without a qualifier.

However, and I know this is bordering on dangerous territory, I feel like a lot of the time minority groups will isolate themselves and only associate with other members of the group, at least socially, and in the process, perpetuate the idea that they are somehow different from other groups. I don't think that the color of your skin determines your personality, and that's why this bothers me. It's almost a new racism, in which people will stick to their own kind, and that's unfortunate. This is one of the problems I have with the BET channel, which is the idea that somehow there's a sort of programming that will inherently appeal to black people.

I guess I notice this the most at college, because there's all kinds of organizations based on ethnic groups that seem to foster the idea that each of these groups is somehow different from both each other, and the "mainstream white society." I guess it comes down to the fact that what I want is a world where race/ethnicity is no longer the primary way that people judge each other, but these sort of organizations seem to reinforce the idea that you can view people in terms of ethnic divisions, rather than divisions based on who each individual person is.
 
 
PatrickMM
02:41 / 06.12.04
And just to clarify, the thing that bothers me is that it seems that only non-white ethnic groups create organizations. This is probably a legacy of racism in the past, but I think it just enforces the white/non-white dichotomy. There's a vast diversity within even just European white people, and the fact that there's no group for say French-Americans, but there's six different groups for Asian-Americans strikes me as something that's far removed from the ideal world, in which race is not even thought of at all.
 
 
Oblivion
07:43 / 06.12.04
For me PC means: Somebody who goes out of their way *not* to be offensive in any way, shape or form towards a multitude of different groups and/or creeds, normally in a manner taken to such a ludicrous extreme that it becomes self-parody and even a tad bit offensive and embarrassing for all concerned?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:43 / 06.12.04
And just to clarify, the thing that bothers me is that it seems that only non-white ethnic groups create organizations

I don't know... Skull and Bones?

I think you've answered your own question. Why do you need a white person's club when the US kind of *is* a white person's club, whether that white person is French-American, British-American or German-American. Likewise, you get to identify as simply a "person" partly because the mechanisms by which personhood are constructed are canted towards assuming that you are the default.

So, first up I would question your idea that in a perfect world race is not thought of at all, just because I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Race, and the differences between race, provide us with cultural diversity, and boiling everything down to a default "non-racial" mass may not be desirable. That is, somebody might actively enjoy the sense of attunement to a broader culture that they get from being an Asian-American, or from having been born to parents who grew up in a different country. Likewise their identity as Muslims, say, might be supplemented by their identity as Arabs or African-Americans. Question being, is this a good, positive thing, or is it culturally divisive? And if so, whose culture?

I would be suspicious of the idea of everyone just being "people", unless one could be absolutely sure that the metric being applied was not actually white, straight, normal people, which right now I don't think would necessarily be the case - that is, this may not be a reaction to "racism in the old days", but to racism going on right now. For example:

This is one of the problems I have with the BET channel, which is the idea that somehow there's a sort of programming that will inherently appeal to black people.

Might it not be that black people might want to watch black people on television? And, since the mainstream channels wnat to get the best possible value out of their advertising, and their advertisers tend not to want shows with a primarily black focus, because they are worried that a primarily black focusd means a primarily black audience, and black people are traditionally a lousy demographic for advertisers. BET started off as a channel playing music videos by black artists at a time when MTV basically didn't, remember. Again, if everyone was to watch "People TV", then the economic and social factors currently governing how television functions would have to change. I'm not sure ethnic minorities in the USA should make the first move by accepting uncritically media in which they are represented as supporting characters, on the grounds that, hey, everyone's just people and it just so happenes that the people who get the starring roles are a bit less tan than their wisecracking people chums...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:50 / 06.12.04
For me PC means: Somebody who goes out of their way *not* to be offensive in any way, shape or form towards a multitude of different groups and/or creeds, normally in a manner taken to such a ludicrous extreme that it becomes self-parody and even a tad bit offensive and embarrassing for all concerned?

I don't think what PC means "for me" or "for you" is massively important, except to demonstrate that the term has been constructed as a handy way to ridicule particular positions without the need for any substantive argument or evidence behind it. What I asked was:

Could you tell me a bit about it? When it was invented, by whom, what politically correct organisations I could go to to learn a bit more about it?

That is, why is that what "PC" means for you? In whose interest is it that there is a term "PC", and that it means that for you? Since the term did not just grow out of the Earth one day, who is it benefitting and why does it exist? There's a fair amount of discussion about this all over the place...
 
 
Oblivion
14:19 / 06.12.04
".....the term has been constructed as a handy way to ridicule particular positions without the need for any substantive argument or evidence behind it".

I'd agree with that - It is an offhand, flippant, easy way to sum-up a perceived entrenched position, and so it follows that it's often used because it's a way to avoid treading old ground and/or getting into futile us/them counterplay.

"Why is that what "PC" means for you?"

Because anyone who is being politically correct in the way I described probably has some insecurities about their own sense of other groups/creeds/sexualities/etc and should be concentrating on dealing with those issues - Unfortunately, it often follows that, in line with their own insecurities and the resultant benchmark they set for themselves, they arrogantly expect others to tow the same line, else these others are fair game for accusations of being racist/homophobic/etc. But that's just not fair, because 'hushing' the perceived problems of others in the way they do their own, isn't necessarily the best way to deal with these problems.

I know this isn't the case sometimes, but, personally, if I have to revert to dismissing somebody as PC, it's usually because I feel I've come accross their particular kind of worldviews before and I know, coming from a very different worldview, how I can't hope to have much impact on changing said worldviews - As they often come pre-packaged with connotations of 'righteousness' and 'the way things are in the modern 21st century'. And also, you know, because it's funny to label someone who makes out they are so *fervently* opposed to labelling, as they, ah, label you; The comedy in calling someone PC reinforces the main point behind the term itself. i.e. It's only a loaded term because they dropped the semantic bullets in.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:22 / 06.12.04
Because anyone who is being politically correct in the way I described.

Ah. That's an important feature. "In the way I described". So, how can somebody be politically correct in a way other than the way you described?

Honestly, I think you're a patsy. You've been thrown a term that allows you to write off concerns that you don't want to engage with by the right wing, and you have uncritically picked it up and started using it. Essentially, you've been fooled by a linguistic bait and switch.

Because anyone who is being politically correct in the way I described probably has some insecurities about their own sense of other groups/creeds/sexualities/etc and should be concentrating on dealing with those issues - Unfortunately, it often follows that, in line with their own insecurities and the resultant benchmark they set for themselves, they arrogantly expect others to tow the same line, else these others are fair game for accusations of being racist/homophobic/etc. But that's just not fair, because 'hushing' the perceived problems of others in the way they do their own, isn't necessarily the best way to deal with these problems.


What you have just said, essentially, is

If somebody calls an action I do not believe to be racist or homophobic racist or homophobic, they must be wrong, because I do not believe that action to be racist or homophobic. However, they cannot simply be, in my opinion, mistaken. They must be insecure about the fact that they are in fact secretly racist or homophobic. This insecurity is expressed through political correctness. So, anyone and anything that I call politically correct is in fact not just wrong, but also secretly racist or homophobic, and insecure about it. By calling them politically correct, I need not concern myself with them any more. And they are the ones with the entrenched and unreasonable position, by the way.

That's what we in the superhero spound effects business call a stre-e-e-ee-e-ee-e-e-ee-e-tch. Perhaps if you could tell me a bit more about when those semantic bullets went in, eh? Since I am prepared to bet my arsedollar that you have never heard somebody accuse somebody of being "politically incorrect", rather than, say, racist or homophobic, it strikes me that the term has not only not been loaded by the people you are using it against, but you have no evidence to support the contention that it was even forged by them.
 
 
HCE
16:24 / 15.12.04
A side note on the term black as used in the US: In the Chester Himes' 1954 novel 'The Third Generation', extensively illustrates the use of 'black' as a perjorative by a light-skinned woman against her darker-skinned husband -- it is one of the central themes of the novel. Spike Lee's 1988 film 'School Daze' also deals with the topic though I do not recall how the film treats the word black specifically.
 
 
HCE
16:42 / 15.12.04
" I guess it comes down to the fact that what I want is a world where race/ethnicity is no longer the primary way that people judge each other"

I agree that this is a desirable result, but I don't agree that the best way to get there is to strip nonwhite people of the things that others can take for granted. One of the reasons that people get together in any kind of group is because such groups provide for them a feeling of ease and acceptance they don't find elsewhere. Unlike, say, a white supremacist group, the focus of your local Korean American Student group is not to destroy all non-KA scum, so I don't see that they really are contributing to the downfall of society.
 
 
Peach Pie
20:30 / 27.12.04
Growing up I always thought referring to black people as 'colored' was in poor taste. The received wisdom was that it was euphemistic, although I don't think that this is entirely justified.

It's hard to really explain what the qualitative difference between 'colored person' and 'person of color' is.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply