What's new
By:

A rose, by a different name, smells less sweetly

One Brow said:
https://www.psmag.com/navigation/he...-distinctions-african-americans-blacks-94554/

Using "black" has more negative connotations than "African American".
Click to expand...

OK, first of all, on the surface, this makes a bit of sense. Terms such as "Black power" and "Black pride" have traditionally been used in more of a "political" connotation which may make the description "black" seem more threatening to "white" folk than the description "African-American"

(expecting One Brow to nit-pick my semantics, but hopefully anyone else who reads this knows what I mean)


seondly, what are "good" traits and what are "bad" traits in the list of words that the panelists were choosing from - and how were the traits assigned to be good, bad, neutral etc?

In the first, 106 white Americans were given a list of 75 traits such as “athletic,” “aggressive,” and “bold,” and asked to choose the 10 they felt were most descriptive of a specific group of people they were randomly assigned to evaluate. One-quarter of them selected the best traits for blacks, while others did the same for Africans-Americans, whites, and Caucasians.
Click to expand...

Anyhow, maybe this is a reason to go back to using the term "colored" - - which is less of a mouthful to say than "person of color" or "African-American" - - and it is perhaps a bit more honest, since there are so many shades of "Black" anyhow (at least as far as skin color is concerned)

I thought perhaps minority might be a useful alternative phrase as well, but I'm not sure who or what is in the minority any more. I believe we (as a country) are getting closer to the point that whites, while a plurality, may no longer be a majority.
 
moevillini said:
OK, first of all, on the surface, this makes a bit of sense. Terms such as "Black power" and "Black pride" have traditionally been used in more of a "political" connotation which may make the description "black" seem more threatening to "white" folk than the description "African-American"

(expecting One Brow to nit-pick my semantics, but hopefully anyone else who reads this knows what I mean)


seondly, what are "good" traits and what are "bad" traits in the list of words that the panelists were choosing from - and how were the traits assigned to be good, bad, neutral etc?



Anyhow, maybe this is a reason to go back to using the term "colored" - - which is less of a mouthful to say than "person of color" or "African-American" - - and it is perhaps a bit more honest, since there are so many shades of "Black" anyhow (at least as far as skin color is concerned)

I thought perhaps minority might be a useful alternative phrase as well, but I'm not sure who or what is in the minority any more. I believe we (as a country) are getting closer to the point that whites, while a plurality, may no longer be a majority.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of using any racial designations as I think the very existence of the concept of race primitive and inherently divisive. That being said, "colored" is just about the worst term one can use to describe people, in my view. It is basically the view that there are two types of people in the world; whites and non-whites, and that white is the default. Consider if it was done the other way around, we have brown (because everyone is pretty much brown) and colorless. That doesn't sound as open minded now, does it? At least [Geographic Origin][Nationality] categorization pretends not to be grouping people based on the concentration of melanin in their skin.
 
I see where Moe is trying to go but "colored" is a horrendous choice. I could clearly see how that would be offensive.

@ Siro

If race is a primitive and divisive concept than what are your thoughts on identification based on nationality? Instead of white and black we use American, Russian, Iranian and Brazilian... regardless of the skin tone of the individual person? Is that primitive and divisive to you? (not a trap, genuinely curious)
 
Stoked said:
I see where Moe is trying to go but "colored" is a horrendous choice. I could clearly see how that would be offensive.

@ Siro

If race is a primitive and divisive concept than what are your thoughts on identification based on nationality? Instead of white and black we use American, Russian, Iranian and Brazilian... regardless of the skin tone of the individual person? Is that primitive and divisive to you? (not a trap, genuinely curious)
Click to expand...

I don't see the issue with nationality. For example, me being an American gives you a lot of information about me. I am subject to American laws, I am very likely to speak English, and much more. But what does me being "brown" tell you? That my skin color is probably darker than the average "white" person, but lighter than the average "black" person. It is utterly useless information that continues being used because we can't get past ingrained racial prejudices (even if most people are not intentionally racist).

I do recognize that some racial designations carry real cultural differences. But I also think that these cultural differences are enabled by our embrace of racial designations. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. In a perfect world, the only categories we should acknowledge are those of choice. Cultures should be analogous to clubs that accept all who want to be part of said culture. For example, I consider myself a Westerner because I like Western culture and ideals, and I made the choice to be part of that culture. I have no problem with people designating me as such since it was my choice.

And I mean all of the above as a general guideline. An ideal to strive for. Not an absolute truth.
 
Siro said:
I am not a fan of using any racial designations as I think the very existence of the concept of race primitive and inherently divisive.
Click to expand...

definitely agree 100%

That being said, "colored" is just about the worst term one can use to describe people, in my view. It is basically the view that there are two types of people in the world; whites and non-whites, and that white is the default. Consider if it was done the other way around, we have brown (because everyone is pretty much brown) and colorless. That doesn't sound as open minded now, does it?
Click to expand...

Agree again.

I am not sure what would be a good answer. For the most part, I'd like to see far less focus on race in general. But there are situations where it might be helpful or necessary to make some distinctions because cultural differences are derived in part from differing experiences due to differences of skin color.
 
Siro said:
I am not a fan of using any racial designations as I think the very existence of the concept of race primitive and inherently divisive. That being said, "colored" is just about the worst term one can use to describe people, in my view. It is basically the view that there are two types of people in the world; whites and non-whites, and that white is the default. Consider if it was done the other way around, we have brown (because everyone is pretty much brown) and colorless. That doesn't sound as open minded now, does it? At least [Geographic Origin][Nationality] categorization pretends not to be grouping people based on the concentration of melanin in their skin.
Click to expand...

When I read this I say to my self they are including all colored into black? Because if you ask American whites if they think Arabic is rich or poor you know what answer will be. But if you ask African black male they will answer much more richer because black male implies very strong and sturdy man who can provide.

Same problem if soft science "study" says blacks or black male or black female. Blacks is derogatory connotation but black male and black female do not carry same because they weren't negative connotation to describe entire group in 1960's.

I don't know if I am clear I get banned every time I speak of race.
 
moevillini said:
OK, first of all, on the surface, this makes a bit of sense. Terms such as "Black power" and "Black pride" have traditionally been used in more of a "political" connotation which may make the description "black" seem more threatening to "white" folk than the description "African-American"

(expecting One Brow to nit-pick my semantics, but hopefully anyone else who reads this knows what I mean)
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't disagree at all. I'm sure those phrases are contributing factors.

Did you realize you were basically saying white people are scared of black people getting social power and not being ashamed of themselves?
 
One Brow said:
Actually, I don't disagree at all. I'm sure those phrases are contributing factors.

Did you realize you were basically saying white people are scared of black people getting social power and not being ashamed of themselves?
Click to expand...

Except that "white power" and "white pride" are considered emblems of vicious hate. I think racial unity slogans are naturally confrontational and inherently alienating.
 
Siro said:
Except that "white power" and "white pride" are considered emblems of vicious hate. I think racial unity slogans are naturally confrontational and inherently alienating.
Click to expand...

Since whites already have cultural power disproportionate to other groups, and there are no cultural messages aimed at shaming whiles, those to phrases are not, in context, calls for equality, but additional superiority.
 
One Brow said:
Since whites already have cultural power disproportionate to other groups, and there are no cultural messages aimed at shaming whiles, those to phrases are not, in context, calls for equality, but additional superiority.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But that is beside the point. Discomfort with racial slogans have nothing to do with whites being afraid of whichever group gaining social equality. The mainstream naturally prefers assimilation of outside groups, while calls for racial unity reinforce cultural divisions. I'm not white, and I seriously dislike "black power" groups. But then again, I'm not burdened by the bizarre phenomenon people refer to as white guilt.
 
One Brow said:
Did you realize you were basically saying white people are scared of black people getting social power and not being ashamed of themselves?
Click to expand...



Nice way to selectively re-quote (/not) - - at any rate, however you chose to interpret my statement, I did not say that ALL whites feel that way - - and I certainly would not deny that some probably might.

Also, as an aside, I was thinking (though not stated in my comment) more of the 1960's and 70's when those terms seemed to me to be more in "vogue" - - and while the fear probably still exists in the minds of some "white" people, I think it's different from what it was a generation or two ago.
 
Siro said:
I don't disagree. But that is beside the point. Discomfort with racial slogans have nothing to do with whites being afraid of whichever group gaining social equality. The mainstream naturally prefers assimilation of outside groups, while calls for racial unity reinforce cultural divisions. I'm not white, and I seriously dislike "black power" groups. But then again, I'm not burdened by the bizarre phenomenon people refer to as white guilt.
Click to expand...

What do you consider a "black power" group? Some are deranged, some not.
 
moevillini said:
- - at any rate, however you chose to interpret my statement, I did not say that ALL whites feel that way - - and I certainly would not deny that some probably might.

Also, as an aside, I was thinking (though not stated in my comment) more of the 1960's and 70's when those terms seemed to me to be more in "vogue" - - and while the fear probably still exists in the minds of some "white" people, I think it's different from what it was a generation or two ago.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top