I think the very thing I wanted to get it is that it does imply something different about the interaction if you pick out a detail about a person (i.e. skin color, flamboyant gestures) and then name that person as belonging to a particular group on the basis of that (African American, gay) than if you were just doing rich description. I usually can't tell at a glance if someone is African American, Afro-Cuban, or Black Bahamanian (as I was recently reminded, to my embarassment). I can tell if they have dark skin, and it's worth bringing up when it's important. For me, though, I need to be reflexive about how I'm thinking about people when I realize that I'm taking note of their skin color. I can't speak for people of color but all white people have attitudes regarding race which in most cases go unexamined. One clue to these attitudes is when people mention race and what they don't say about it directly.
As far as my comment being politically correct, there is a pretty well-established viewpoint on these boards about that term, which can be found here. I advise you to read it as soon as you can, and as thoroughly as you can, because it will come up every time you assert that someone is being "politically correct" on the boards. Regardless, whether you think of something as politically correct has no bearing on whether it is valid or important.
As far as gender— I think some people would agree that it's also an assumption about someone's gender if you don't know them and you assign them a gendered pronoun. In theory I agree, but in practice I feel that enough people express their preferred gender identity and role in the way they dress that I can get away with referring to people by gendered pronouns in most cases. I made the decision to only take on race there.
In any case, this is a topic for another thread. *ambles over to the Barbelith pager* |
