NationStates Jolt Archive

Former student says UMDNJ discriminated against him (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Former_student_says_UMDNJ_discriminated_against_him.html)

MOUNT LAUREL — A former student is claiming in a lawsuit that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey discriminated against him for discussing his background.

Paulo Serodio says he was harassed, his car was vandalized and he was eventually suspended.

He says the trouble began during a cultural diversity class in 2006 when he identified himself as "white, African, American."

The light-skinned Serodio was born in Mozambique but later became a U.S. citizen.

But he says his description offended some black classmates and staff members and that he was eventually suspended for conduct unbecoming.

More Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/UMDNJ_student_sues_saying_he_is_white_and_African.html), Courthouse News Service (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/12/Med_School_Accused_of_Harassing_Student_Who_Is_White_African_American_.htm)

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:

So what do you say, NSG?

Did they spraypaint "Wigger" on his car? Did they play Vanilla Ice music every time he was around?

what is this I don't even



They're offended by the truth? born in Africa=African

I have a nasty feeling that he'll lose his case because of the unspoken assumption some people seem to have that discrimination only happens against non-whites (or the belief that it doesn't matter if its against whites). I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

Actually, screw law suits. Vandalism is a crime. If he has any information about who did that he should have them arrested.

The fact that people were offended by him stating the truth (That he is a white African-American) is sad.

I am curious what the conduct unbecoming was.

I'm very confused by this story. I don't understand what the issue with how he identifies himself is. He is clearly a white, African American, just as someone from Italy might be a white Italian American.

I'm very confused by this story. I don't understand what the issue with how he identifies himself is. He is clearly a white, African American, just as someone from Italy might be a white Italian American.

In the states, African American means black. We call African American black because it's the PC word for blacks. Even though blacks don't really have a problem with blacks. It's just whitey overreacting to about 400 years of mistreatment and acts of violence and cruelty towards blacks. However, what some Whiteys don't understand is that blacks don't want to be put on a pedestal, they just want to be equal. So really, whities are just making asses of themselves with the whole "African American" crap, when really, black is an acceptable term for black people.

Hope that helps.

So what do you say, NSG?

New Jersey - a frequent butt of jokes made by Americans, though I've no idea what they do to become such a high profile target.

I say its a racist overreaction by people who are used to being treated differently based on their own skin color.

It's somewhat ridiculous and I think illustrates how people often forget there are a significant minority of white Africans who settled there as colonists several hundred years ago and as such have as much right to call themselves African as most Americans have to say they're American.

Frankly, it shows quite a bigoted attitidue that only dark-skinned people can come from Africa (despite North Africans are actually Caucasian technically). It would be like objecting to someone calling themselves black European-American because only white people can come from Europe!

It's somewhat ridiculous and I think illustrates how people often forget there are a significant minority of white Africans who settled there as colonists several hundred years ago and as such have as much right to call themselves African as most Americans have to say they're American.

Frankly, it shows quite a bigoted attitidue that only dark-skinned people can come from Africa (despite North Africans are actually Caucasian technically). It would be like objecting to someone calling themselves black European-American because only white people can come from Europe!
And the Afrikaners too are white.

Strange reaction to a statement of truth - the people who persecuted him for it should be ashamed of themselves... bloody muppets.

Former student says UMDNJ discriminated against him (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Former_student_says_UMDNJ_discriminated_against_him.html)



More Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/UMDNJ_student_sues_saying_he_is_white_and_African.html), Courthouse News Service (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/12/Med_School_Accused_of_Harassing_Student_Who_Is_White_African_American_.htm)

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:

So what do you say, NSG?

African Americans are only black people and if you are white and from Africa, you have to go back so as not to screw up the NAACP's monopoly.

I am curious what the conduct unbecoming was.

Same here.

Same here.

Probably asserting there are white people in Africa.

Former student says UMDNJ discriminated against him (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Former_student_says_UMDNJ_discriminated_against_him.html)



More Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/UMDNJ_student_sues_saying_he_is_white_and_African.html), Courthouse News Service (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/12/Med_School_Accused_of_Harassing_Student_Who_Is_White_African_American_.htm)

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:

So what do you say, NSG?
That's the problem with euphemisms... They aren't all that accurate.

It's somewhat ridiculous and I think illustrates how people often forget there are a significant minority of white Africans who settled there as colonists several hundred years ago and as such have as much right to call themselves African as most Americans have to say they're American.

Frankly, it shows quite a bigoted attitidue that only dark-skinned people can come from Africa (despite North Africans are actually Caucasian technically). It would be like objecting to someone calling themselves black European-American because only white people can come from Europe!
And of course the corollary to that is black Americans only come from Africa -- hence the African-American moniker...

And of course the corollary to that is black Americans only come from Africa -- hence the African-American moniker...

Do they? What about Jamaican Americans? Or from other carribean islands? Or indeed those who may be descended from Africans who emigrated to Europe before they then emigrated to the US. Ok yes, you could say if you trace it back far enough then yes they did all come from Africa. But then if you trace a lot of 'Irish-Americans' ancestry back, they may be Scots or English-Americans or even Norwegian-Americans if you go back far enough (Viking invasions and all).

I think it shows where the current uses of x-American falls apart. You either need to use it define a cultural background or an ethnicity, using it for both causes significant issues.

Hasn't Michael Jackson already done the whole white-black guy thing?

New Jersey - a frequent butt of jokes made by Americans, though I've no idea what they do to become such a high profile target.

Try driving through NJ with the windows down.

Try driving through NJ with the windows down.

My uncle lives in NJ. I would say it seemed quite a pleasant place when i went to visit... but that would be a lie.

i think i'd like to hear from more than just the guy suing and his lawyer...

i think i'd like to hear from more than just the guy suing and his lawyer...

No, no, no. We can simply assume that the white guy is telling the truth, and the students and faculty, who have yet to comment, are just PC thugs.

i think i'd like to hear from more than just the guy suing and his lawyer...

I wonder what the conduct unbecoming was. Perhaps he got in a fight and is trying to justify it by saying these other events lead up to the fight.

No, no, no. We can simply assume that the white guy is telling the truth, and the students and faculty, who have yet to comment, are just PC thugs.

Well, he is white so he must be trustworthy :)

Well, he is white so he must be trustworthy :)

I don't know the African part makes me want to doubt him.

I wonder what the conduct unbecoming was. Perhaps he got in a fight and is trying to justify it by saying these other events lead up to the fight.

i want to read the essay he apparently sent to the student paper. no luck finding it yet, though.

i want to read the essay he apparently sent to the student paper. no luck finding it yet, though.

In fact I haven't had any lcuk finding anything other than the same few paragraphs repeated in a variety of different wordings.

Mah, we shall see. It does raise an interesting question however about the use of hyphenated - Americans and it's relation to ethnicity.

i want to read the essay he apparently sent to the student paper. no luck finding it yet, though.

That might have increased his issued, but I rarely find opinion articles to be grounds for suspension from school.
My guess is it did not get published.

Won't somebody please think of the white males?!?!

Former student says UMDNJ discriminated against him (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Former_student_says_UMDNJ_discriminated_against_him.html)



More Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/UMDNJ_student_sues_saying_he_is_white_and_African.html), Courthouse News Service (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/12/Med_School_Accused_of_Harassing_Student_Who_Is_White_African_American_.htm)

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:

So what do you say, NSG?
he is not african american he is mozambiquean american.

duh

he is not african american he is mozambiquean american.

duh

I'm pretty sure Mozambique is in Africa.


And wiki tells me its Mozambican.

Won't somebody please think of the white males?!?!

I try to, but then I get called a racist AND selfish (and if Bill Cosby tries it, he gets booed out of the NAACP).

Won't somebody please think of the white males?!?!

Well as I understand it white African males are an endangered species. Seesm When colonialism ended they had no home.

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:


Of course, only black people can be african. :rolleyes: Bunch of racists.

So really, whities are just making asses of themselves with the whole "African American" crap, when really, black is an acceptable term for black people.


Yeah. I don't understand why we should call a blonde-haired person a "blonde", a beige/rose-skinned person a "white", but we shouldn't call a dark-brown-skinned person a "black". It's like implicitly saying that "black" is an offensive, derogatory term, and not just one of the possible skin colours of human individuals.

Yeah. I don't understand why we should call a blonde-haired person a "blonde", a beige/rose-skinned person a "white", but we shouldn't call a dark-brown-skinned person a "black". It's like implicitly saying that "black" is an offensive, derogatory term, and not just one of the possible skin colours of human individuals.

We have an interesting situation in the US. Some blacks do not like to be referred to as African American. It makes feeling out what word to use very difficult.

And of course the corollary to that is black Americans only come from Africa -- hence the African-American moniker...

And of course there's still the issue with the non-black non-white Africans, like Northern Africans (mostly ethnically Arab and Berber).

We have an interesting situation in the US. Some blacks do not like to be referred to as African American. It makes feeling out what word to use very difficult.

I understand that, still I think it's time to change and make again "black" a word describing just a colour. Plain and simple.
Or, even better, let's be accurate and talk of "blonde-haired person", "black-skinned person", "person of African origin", "green-eyed person" etc.

And of course there's still the issue with the non-black non-white Africans, like Northern Africans (mostly ethnically Arab and Berber).

Actually, for racial purposes they are white. What we in the us call white is more correctly termed "caucasian" which comes from the actual biological race (caucasoid) that includes all Europeans, Arabs, and some Asians (specifically most of India, Afghanistan, etc). We check the box labelled "white" on the American census (except the Indians who are entitled to check Asian for reasons I cannot comprehend).

Then we have "black or African American" with the "or" statement being completely stupid. But basically, anyone who is of the Negroid (true black) or Capoid (lighter skinned blacks) races would check that box.

American Indian or Alaska Native is essentially no longer based on actual race membership. Technically Native Americans (of all types) are some form of Mongloid. But at any rate, anyone who maintains tribal affiliation is entitled to check this box (The local NAACP president for my area actually checks this box because he is a member of the Eastern Cherokee tribe).

Asian: Asians would be members of the Mongloid race (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc). Interesting to note that the inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent are NOT mongloids but are considered Asian instead of "white" for US census purposes and Native Americans (especially Alaskan inuits) who are Mongloids aren't "asian" even though it would be the biologically correct lable.

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander: See American Indian above for the general uselessness of this classification (the people of the Pacific Islands of the US are Mongoloid. There are some pacific islands that are people by the Austroloid race, however).

Anyway, my point for going into all that was basically:

1. This entire racial classification system is pointless really. You're American or you're not. Where you came from doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean anything at all.

2. I've yet to come up with any good reason for the government to even ask this information, especially in such a convoluted fashion.

3. Dude used the term in a perfectly literal sense, even if the term itself is stupid (I guess I might be a touch xenophobic but if he wants to be "african" anything he is welcome to head back to Africa).

In the states, African American means black. We call African American black because it's the PC word for blacks. Even though blacks don't really have a problem with blacks. It's just whitey overreacting to about 400 years of mistreatment and acts of violence and cruelty towards blacks. However, what some Whiteys don't understand is that blacks don't want to be put on a pedestal, they just want to be equal. So really, whities are just making asses of themselves with the whole "African American" crap, when really, black is an acceptable term for black people.

Hope that helps.

yeah, no. 'african-american' was mainly a jesse jackson and friends thing, to fit with the standard USian practice of being 'german-americans' and 'irish-americans' and 'martian-americans'. black was an older term with negative connotations that was adopted as a badge of honor by the black power movement a few decades earlier.

in any case, while most don't care one way or the other, more that do care prefer african american
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28816/Black-African-American.aspx

Actually, for racial purposes they are white. What we in the us call white is more correctly termed "caucasian" which comes from the actual biological race (caucasoid) that includes all Europeans, Arabs, and some Asians (specifically most of India, Afghanistan, etc). We check the box labelled "white" on the American census (except the Indians who are entitled to check Asian for reasons I cannot comprehend).


Too bad that:
1.there are NO "actual biological races"
2.the "caucasian race" merges quite different ethnical/cultural groups: semites (arabs, jews...), indoeuropeans (many indians, most europeans, iranians,afghanis...), uralo-altaic populations (turks, hungarians, estonians, sami, finns...), mediterranean (sardinians etc...).
3.the overwhelming majority of ethnical groups are quite mixed.


1. This entire racial classification system is pointless really. You're American or you're not. Where you came from doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean anything at all.
2. I've yet to come up with any good reason for the government to even ask this information, especially in such a convoluted fashion.
3. Dude used the term in a perfectly literal sense, even if the term itself is stupid (I guess I might be a touch xenophobic but if he wants to be "african" anything he is welcome to head back to Africa).
I agree with 1 and 2.
About 3, yes, you're being a xenophobe. If he was born in Africa and he's a citizen of the US, he's African American just as, don't know, an american citizen whose family name is Giuliani, or Schmidt, or Yaeger, is an European (or Italian or German) American. That is, an American citizen of European descent.

This is why I always check the "other" box when filling out company diversity surveys during the interview process...that way, I'm not affected by diversity quotas and if anybody tries to tell me I'm white, they're discriminating and racist and I don't need to stand for them imposing their arbitrary classification on my identity.

Never, ever disclose yourself as white if you can get around it.

1. This entire racial classification system is pointless really. You're American or you're not. Where you came from doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean anything at all.

african americans are an USian ethnic group rather than a race

This is why I always check the "other" box when filling out company diversity surveys during the interview process...that way, I'm not affected by diversity quotas and if anybody tries to tell me I'm white, they're discriminating and racist and I don't need to stand for them imposing their arbitrary classification on my identity.

Never, ever disclose yourself as white if you can get around it.

I fill in African American so I can make the company look more diverse.

I understand that, still I think it's time to change and make again "black" a word describing just a colour. Plain and simple.
Or, even better, let's be accurate and talk of "blonde-haired person", "black-skinned person", "person of African origin", "green-eyed person" etc.

Heh move to the UK, we have no problems with calling a black man a black man nor a white man a white man here.

I fill in African American so I can make the company look more diverse.

I would, but 12% of the US population is black. How many "other"s are there?

And of course there's still the issue with the non-black non-white Africans, like Northern Africans (mostly ethnically Arab and Berber).

Here's another poser for you - what about Australian aborigines, they are dark-skinned but their ancestry is no more African than most European's is (in that we can all say we ultimately came from there). Would they then have to classify themselves as African American?

I would, but 12% of the US population is black. How many "other"s are there?

Unless you fill something in with other they just ignore it. African American is normally the one companies need the most help on.

Unless you fill something in with other they just ignore it. African American is normally the one companies need the most help on.

The weird thing is that a few of them didn't have a fill-in-the-blank and just accepted "other". I figure the accounting departments at Sherwin-Williams and Scotts MiracleGro are willing to take anything different and don't care too much.

black was an older term with negative connotations

Which is ridiculous, as there is nothing inherently negative about being black. The only people who would find it negative are not going to find 'African American' less negative.

yeah, no. 'african-american' was mainly a jesse jackson and friends thing, to fit with the standard USian practice of being 'german-americans' and 'irish-americans' and 'martian-americans'. black was an older term with negative connotations that was adopted as a badge of honor by the black power movement a few decades earlier.

in any case, while most don't care one way or the other, more that do care prefer african american
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28816/Black-African-American.aspx

I wouldn't say black has negative connotations. Though the older words Negro and Colored most certainly do.

Here's another poser for you - what about Australian aborigines, they are dark-skinned but their ancestry is no more African than most European's is (in that we can all say we ultimately came from there). Would they then have to classify themselves as African American?

Umm do they live in America or have American citersen status?

Umm do they live in America or have American citersen status?

If they moved to the US and became american citizens I mean.

Too bad that:
1.there are NO "actual biological races"
2.the "caucasian race" merges quite different ethnical/cultural groups: semites (arabs, jews...), indoeuropeans (many indians, most europeans, iranians,afghanis...), uralo-altaic populations (turks, hungarians, estonians, sami, finns...), mediterranean (sardinians etc...).
3.the overwhelming majority of ethnical groups are quite mixed.

I'm afraid point 1 is FLAT WRONG:


race
1. (in biology) A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of individuals within a species that are geographically, ecologically, physiologically, or chromosomally distinct from other members of the species. The term is frequently used in the same sense as subspecies. Physiological races, for example, are identical in appearance but differ in function. They include strains of fungi adapted to infect different varieties of the same crop species.

2. (in anthropology) A distinct human type possessing several characteristics that are genetically inherited. The major races are Mongoloid, Caucasian, Negroid, and Australoid.


I find that the anthropological definition expresses things in better terms for what we're talking about (hence why I chose to include it) but it would follow anyway from the purely biological definition if we chose to apply it to humans. On that note too, I must note that my Genetics text provides more groupings that the Encyclopedia of Biology I dragged out (didn't want to quote the Genetics book. It's a full page or so without a real solid definition talking about chromosomal differences, F1 charts and a few other things).

2&3. First off, your third point has nothing to do with race. Ethnicity is another concept entirely which has nothing to do with biology. Ethnicity is generally defined as a group of human beings who identify with each other on the basis of a common heritage (perceived or real) and includes such markers as culture, language, religion, behavior, etc that have nothing to do with race. Essentially, you have confused the objective (race, which is absolutely uncontrollable) with the subjective (ethnicity, which as a purely human contruct we are free to change). Hence, my race is caucasoid, but my ethnicity is american.

Thus for your point 2: see above. The semmites are a different ethnicity from say the Italians, but that is NOT a racial difference.



I agree with 1 and 2.
About 3, yes, you're being a xenophobe. If he was born in Africa and he's a citizen of the US, he's African American just as, don't know, an american citizen whose family name is Giuliani, or Schmidt, or Yaeger, is an European (or Italian or German) American. That is, an American citizen of European descent.

In a very literal sense, you are correct. He is an "african" American. However, my point (and I'll accept the xenophobic lable with pride if you insist on it) is that he chose to become part of the US, and by becoming part of our melting pot, tacitly agreed to give up the distinct African tradition that finds no place in it, and has thus really ceased being African in any sense.


african americans are an USian ethnic group rather than a race


Not quite. The official policy of the US government calls "African American" a race and we have the NAACP poofs who whine about the "state of the African American race" and so forth. Thus is modern parlance, the phrase is used in the context of being the name of a distinct race (which black americans certainly are). I might agree that it makes no sense, but since when did government and society decide logic was helpful?

I think the whole issue is that the black students thought he was making fun of/patronizing the black students by saying that he's African American while being white.

That's my guess anyway.

Sad stuff and all that. Racism will never die in this country.

Fucking ridiculous. He's white, he's African, and he's American. Therefore white African-American. Is it really that hard to understand?

Won't somebody please think of the white males?!?!

Obvious troll is obvious

What other factors could we consider, because clearly white males have everything in the motherfucking world handed to them on a silver platter. No, it's not relevant that he's from the most disadvantaged group--immigrants, no only that he can be distilled down to a white male, the bringers of all evil and oppressors of all poor women and blacks.

If they moved to the US and became american citizens I mean.

Then maybe Austraian American!:D

Heh move to the UK, we have no problems with calling a black man a black man nor a white man a white man here.

Actually, you're officially supposed to call black people Afro-Caribbean.

Fucking ridiculous. He's white, he's African, and he's American. Therefore white African-American. Is it really that hard to understand?

Apparently it is.

I'm pretty sure Mozambique is in Africa.


And wiki tells me its Mozambican.
yes it sure is.

but you are still wrong in your assumption that being from an african country makes you african american.

african americans are AFRICAN americans because their origins in africa are unknown. they were rounded up here and there in various places in africa and sold as slaves then mixed together in the new world regardless of origins--a far different thing than coming from....nigeria and moving into a nigerian neighborhood the same way that italians come to this country and associate with other italian immigrants.

a 20th century immigrant from an african country (of which we have many) and their children know exactly where they are from and what their culture was like in the old country. they are "mozambiquean americans", "nigerian americans", "kenyan americans" etc, in the same way that european immigrants and their families are "irish americans", "italian americans" "lithuanian americans" etc.

Actually, you're officially supposed to call black people Afro-Caribbean.

No, you call them black.

No, you call them black.

That's what everyone does, but according to the government we're supposed to say Afro-Caribbean.

of course we DO have "white" african americans in this country. its a matter of descent eh?

Actually, you're officially supposed to call black people Afro-Caribbean.

Meh! I live in one of these poor, underdeveloped and mainly populated by black people, eares of London, and all of my black mates just don't seem to mind. In fact when talking to people(black or white or other) and discussing what mutual freinds have been up to the following is normaly the way such a conversation runs:

Me: Oi baz, have you heard wot Derick got up to last night?

Black friend: Wot, white Derick or black Derick?

Me: Naaaa man, black Derick!

Actually, you're officially supposed to call black people Afro-Caribbean.

Nope, the official categories are:
Black (British) Afro-Caribbean - the Black is however often left off in common parlance

or

Black (British) African

(addition of British is to personal taste)

This is on the principle that a significant number of black individuals in the UK are not of Afro-Caribbean descent at all, being from Nigeria and similar ex-British African colonies. Black is the superordinate ethnic group, Afro-Caribbean is the sub-group, in the same way that Asian is the superordinate ethnic group and Indian or Pakinstani or Bangladeshi is the sub-group. Both are correct, however you will often see the government and the news making distinctions between these groups (in all cases) because they tend to differ a lot on educational, criminal and socio-economic statistics.

Can't we just call them American?

I was born in America. My mom and dad were both born in America. I'm an American. Sometimes you can go regional. Like 'Texan' or 'Alaskan'. In my case, since my mom was from Puerto Rico and I have a considerable amount of knowledge and respect for the history of Puerto Rico, I identify myself as Puerto Rican.

What strikes me as odd is that not all states do that. You can be Texan, Alaskan or even Virginian, but you rarely see people identify themselves as Massachusettsians or Connecticutters or Utahians. Probably because nobody knows how to pronounce em. :tongue:

I'd kinda like to hear the rest of the story, like why he was actually suspended.

What strikes me as odd is that not all states do that. You can be Texan, Alaskan or even Virginian, but you rarely see people identify themselves as Massachusettsians or Connecticutters or Utahians. Probably because nobody knows how to pronounce em. :tongue:

more likely because no one wants to be from those states.

That's what everyone does, but according to the government we're supposed to say Afro-Caribbean.

Fuck the government and Political Correctness.

They're black.

I fail to see how that's offensive.

and all of my black mates just don't seem to mind.

I know. I don't have a problem with it either. Apparently the government does.

more likely because no one wants to be from those states.

Then explain Alaskans. :p

That's what everyone does, but according to the government we're supposed to say Afro-Caribbean.
When did HMG say this?

Then explain Alaskans. :p

They have oil and guns. They are a proud people.

I dated a girl a while ago that was a white South African. She came over here for school, and ended up staying and becoming a citizen. She used to occasionally tell people she was African-American just to watch the smoke come out of their ears as they froze up.

Small patience with PC bullshit was only one of her many attractive qualities.

They have oil and guns. They are a proud people.

Don't we usually bomb people that have oil and guns? :confused:

Don't we usually bomb people that have oil and guns? :confused:

Yeah the Arabs are very proud too.

I dated a girl a while ago that was a white South African. She came over here for school, and ended up staying and becoming a citizen. She used to occasionally tell people she was African-American just to watch the smoke come out of their ears as they froze up.

Small patience with PC bullshit was only one of her many attractive qualities.

I don't get this. Presumably this girl you dated had an accent that could be identified as not-from-here, right? If some white person with an accent said to me that they were African-American, I would immediately assume, and ask, if they were from South Africa. It seems like the obvious first conclusion to me.

I don't get this. Presumably this girl you dated had an accent that could be identified as not-from-here, right? If some white person with an accent said to me that they were African-American, I would immediately assume, and ask, if they were from South Africa. It seems like the obvious first conclusion to me.

Remember though, while you may have common sense, people, overall, don't.

I don't get this. Presumably this girl you dated had an accent that could be identified as not-from-here, right? If some white person with an accent said to me that they were African-American, I would immediately assume, and ask, if they were from South Africa. It seems like the obvious first conclusion to me.
Hindsight in abstract is pretty darned good, huh?

Most South Africans that I've known sound British. I would have expected them to sound German, but no.

And that reminds me of a story... I was watching the news one afternoon. Probably not the real news, but one of those entertainment news shows, like the Daily Show. I saw this actress that was determined to tell her story of how blacks in Africa were oppressed (usually by other black Africans, but that wasn't relevant). She started to call them black Africans, but realized that wasn't the PC phrase she wanted. She stuttered out something about African-American and realized that was wrong, too. Finally, she settled on African-American Africans because that sounded like the right way to say black African.

Just as an intellectual exercise, y'all should read Walter E. Williams (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/05/13/race_talk) this week.

Especially toward the end... "Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else."

You should read his column every Wednesday, but today is a good start.

I thought it became incorrect to describe black people as African American because they are not necessarily African or American.

I thought it became incorrect to describe black people as African American because they are not necessarily African or American.

US citizen = American, very simple.

Just as an intellectual exercise, y'all should read Walter E. Williams (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/05/13/race_talk) this week.

Especially toward the end... "Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else."

You should read his column every Wednesday, but today is a good start.
i dont know about anywhere else but the people of slaveholding times were rather stupidly convinced that neither society nor former slaves could possibly adjust to freedom. they werent particularly good at predicting the future and the rate of societal change anyway.

Just as an intellectual exercise, y'all should read Walter E. Williams (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/05/13/race_talk) this week.

Especially toward the end... "Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

well, for sufficiently broad definitions of 'middle class'. and given that the actual point is how disproportionately many of them are still in poverty, williams is just obfuscating. par for the course, really, given his role in conservative politics.

well, for sufficiently broad definitions of 'middle class'. and given that the actual point is how disproportionately many of them are still in poverty, williams is just obfuscating. par for the course, really, given his role in conservative politics.

Fortunately the government has plans to address your counterpoint by increasing the supply of poor people.

Hindsight in abstract is pretty darned good, huh?

Most South Africans that I've known sound British. I would have expected them to sound German, but no.

And that reminds me of a story... I was watching the news one afternoon. Probably not the real news, but one of those entertainment news shows, like the Daily Show. I saw this actress that was determined to tell her story of how blacks in Africa were oppressed (usually by other black Africans, but that wasn't relevant). She started to call them black Africans, but realized that wasn't the PC phrase she wanted. She stuttered out something about African-American and realized that was wrong, too. Finally, she settled on African-American Africans because that sounded like the right way to say black African.


The South Africans you met then are English South Africans, the descendants of English settlers. JRR Tolkien is a famous one.

Of South Africans, you are more likely to meet an English South African since after Apartheid ended they left the country in exodus. Or they were coincidentally simply the ones you met.

The Dutch/German/Belgian descended Afrikaners who bled, fought and suffered for their nation in the Boer War amongst others are apparently more hesitant to leave. They view South Africa as their country, the empty wild land they settled and formed into a modern nation. Not that many haven't left. But nowhere in the numbers of the English South African community. Even the new SA President in a recent speech called the Afrikaaners an integral part and a tribe of it's own right of the South African nation that won't/shouldn't leave and has it's home in South Africa.

Trust me. When you hear an Afrikaner speak, it won't sound anything like an English accent. Dutch is a more guttural dialect (very removed though) of German, Afrikaans is a more guttural dialect of Dutch. Meaning Afrikaners sound more guttural and have a stronger accented English than Germans do.

...They view South Africa as their country, the empty wild land they settled and formed into a modern nation.....

South Africa was neither empty nor wild when the Boer arrived. If the modern Boer believe that, then they are ignorant of their own history.

South Africa was neither empty nor wild when the Boer arrived. If the modern Boer believe that, then they are ignorant of their own history.

The parts the Boers settled for the most part were both empty and wild. Study the history of the country. The Boers went deep into the regions not settled by English settlers. There they also tended to till lands which the inhabitants of the land did not till or agriculture. Simply since the terrain was very unfit for farming, and it even took the soul and blood of the more technologically advanced Boers decades to get any decent produce off the lands.

So yes. They built up an empty (Considering the population density of SA at the time of settlement, do you have any idea on how friggin large South Africa is? The local African population until the advent of modern medicine and decrease in newborn deaths and childbirth deaths also wasn't very large until the advent of Western medicine brought by the English and Boers) and wild land into a modern first world nation. No amount of political convenience can erase that fact. Does this give them the right to oppress and create an apartheid system? Heavens no. But they were the ones that built cities, roads and the infrastructure that is modern SA.

Let's see here.

We have some of the same people who complain about the "race card" and belittle the ACLU and NAACP expressing outrage based on the story of one individual who claims to have been discriminated against. Never mind that discrimination occurs on a massive scale against minorities on a daily basis. One white male claims racism -- he must be believed.

Even taking Mr. Serodio allegations at face value (something few of you would normally do in a discrimination case), the details are pretty fucking sketchy as to what exactly happened and why.

I certainly would object to Mr. Serodio or anyone being harrassed, threatened, disciplined, etc, for their ethnic self-identification. (And, even though there is more to the story by Mr. Serodio's own admission, none of what he did justifies his being mistreated.) As for why exactly he was suspended, the record is unclear.

As for the "correctness" of various racial or ethnic titles, lets be clear: race is primarily a socio-political construct with little or no basis in biology or genetics. The labels used for various "races" or ethnic groups have evolved over time and have historical roots that can't simply be ignored because you claim they are illogical or inaccurate. The whole fucking thing is illogical and inaccurate, but racism and discrimination still exist.

People love to bitch and moan about "African-American." Next St. Patrick's Day, please protest in Boston against the Irish-Americans.

We have an interesting situation in the US. Some blacks do not like to be referred to as African American. It makes feeling out what word to use very difficult.

Most of my black friends use the word "black". They're not from Africa any more recently than I'm from Europe--less, usually.

US citizen = American, very simple.

No kidding.
But not every black person you see is a US citizen.

No kidding.
But not every black person you see is a US citizen.
no but a large percentage of the black people *I* see are african americans. the rest can correct me if i use the wrong term when referring to them.

no but a large percentage of the black people *I* see are african americans. the rest can correct me if i use the wrong term when referring to them.
But why use a term that's going to be inaccurate in the first place?

But why use a term that's going to be inaccurate in the first place?
because its correct 99% of the time.

its like suggesting that i dont use the term irish because i might mistakenly suggest that YOU are irish.

because its correct 99% of the time...
...in a specific area.

It just seems odd to use it as a standard term for people with a certain kind of pigmentation in their skin. Most of the white folks I meet on a day-to-day basis are Scottish, but I'm not going to use the term 'Scot' to describe white people.

its like suggesting that i dont use the term irish because i might mistakenly suggest that YOU are irish.
Nope, it's like using the term 'Irish' to describe white people, simply because you live in Ireland.

Former student says UMDNJ discriminated against him (http://www.northjersey.com/education/Former_student_says_UMDNJ_discriminated_against_him.html)



More Sources: Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/UMDNJ_student_sues_saying_he_is_white_and_African.html), Courthouse News Service (http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/05/12/Med_School_Accused_of_Harassing_Student_Who_Is_White_African_American_.htm)

Well, he is Caucasian, he was from Africa, and he is now American. What's wrong with a white African American? I don't see what's offensive there. :confused:

So what do you say, NSG?
Are they offended by Charlize Theron?

...in a specific area.

It just seems odd to use it as a standard term for people with a certain kind of pigmentation in their skin. Most of the white folks I meet on a day-to-day basis are Scottish, but I'm not going to use the term 'Scot' to describe white people.


Nope, it's like using the term 'Irish' to describe white people, simply because you live in Ireland.
whatever.

i dont have a big call to refer to anyone by their race but when i do i like to use the most acceptable term. if african americans want to be called african american, who am i to say otherwise? if the consensus suddenly returns to "colored" or "negro" i will use that term.

whatever.

i dont have a big call to refer to anyone by their race but when i do i like to use the most acceptable term. if african americans want to be called african american, who am i to say otherwise? if the consensus suddenly returns to "colored" or "negro" i will use that term.

But the thing is, a lot of black Americans don't want to be called African-American, because they aren't. I try to use whatever terms people use for themselves, but it also takes an assumption on their part that I'm acting in good faith and not TRYING to be insulting if I use a term they don't like. Generally reasonable people can say, "Actually, I prefer _____" without being offended or in a snit.

We have an interesting situation in the US. Some blacks do not like to be referred to as African American. It makes feeling out what word to use very difficult.

Call them "coloured" :D

Just as an intellectual exercise, y'all should read Walter E. Williams (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/05/13/race_talk) this week.

Especially toward the end... "Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else."

You should read his column every Wednesday, but today is a good start.

I think I'll pass. The absurdly willful ignorance he spews forth every week makes my skin crawl. I'm not sure if he's actually stupid or just grasping at straws and cherry picking data to justify his very weak arguments. My partner, ototh, reads him religiously and occasionally circles certain columns for me to read. It almost always ends with me rolling my eyes in disbelief at both William's astoundingly convoluted logic and my partners faith in it.

No, no, no. We can simply assume that the white guy is telling the truth, and the students and faculty, who have yet to comment, are just PC thugs.

I've been called a Greasy thug before too. So here's what I'll do--I'll grease myself up real good and smash that place with a baseball bat.

The parts the Boers settled for the most part were both empty and wild. Study the history of the country. The Boers went deep into the regions not settled by English settlers.

This only makes sense if we completely ignore the Natal conflicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Trek#Natal_conflicts) against the Zulu, which started over Boer claims to Zulu land.

There they also tended to till lands which the inhabitants of the land did not till or agriculture. Simply since the terrain was very unfit for farming, and it even took the soul and blood of the more technologically advanced Boers decades to get any decent produce off the lands.

And thereby make it difficult for the Zulu to use it for cattle grazing, i.e their (more intelligent) use of the land.

So yes. They built up an empty (Considering the population density of SA at the time of settlement, do you have any idea on how friggin large South Africa is? The local African population until the advent of modern medicine and decrease in newborn deaths and childbirth deaths also wasn't very large until the advent of Western medicine brought by the English and Boers)

I would imagine that it was about as densely populated as European regions that supported a pastoralist lifestyle. But these people were not white, so they don't count.

and wild land into a modern first world nation.

Communally owned grazing land for cattle, occupied by an existing civilisation, does not really count as wild, does it?

And I am not certain that this modern first world nation, with apartheid, was such a boon to black South Africans.

No amount of political convenience can erase that fact. Does this give them the right to oppress and create an apartheid system? Heavens no. But they were the ones that built cities, roads and the infrastructure that is modern SA.

They did? All by themselves, while the black people sat around doing nothing?

I had been under the silly impression that they took the inventions of other people from other parts of the world and then forced the black people to build the infrastructure for their own benefit. But now that you tell me that they did it with their own blood, sweat, tears, and Rugged Individualism™, I must admit I was foolish in believing such things.

Heh move to the UK, we have no problems with calling a black man a black man nor a white man a white man here.

Here in Italy we use a broader grouping still: "extracomunitario" for everyone who's not a national of the EU... though most people use that as a PC variant of "nero" (black), and they don't think of the Swiss.

Here's another poser for you - what about Australian aborigines, they are dark-skinned but their ancestry is no more African than most European's is (in that we can all say we ultimately came from there). Would they then have to classify themselves as African American?

Of course not. They're Oceanian Americans, duh.

I'm afraid point 1 is FLAT WRONG:
...
I find that the anthropological definition expresses things in better terms for what we're talking about
...
It's a full page or so without a real solid definition talking about chromosomal differences, F1 charts and a few other things).
That's because there IS NO SOLID DEFINITION of race, of course. Hence, "race" isn't a sound scientifical term and should be discarded as useless.


2&3. First off, your third point has nothing to do with race. Ethnicity is another concept entirely which has nothing to do with biology.

Actually, looks like you're quite wrong.
wiki: human genome diversity project

The Archaeological Institute of America (Archaeology, May/June 2006, Volume 59, Number 3, page 48) reports on a representative world distribution of genetic ancestry, 52 distinct ethnic groups,


Ethnicity is generally defined as a group of human beings who identify with each other on the basis of a common heritage (perceived or real) and includes such markers as culture, language, religion, behavior, etc that have nothing to do with race. Essentially, you have confused the objective (race, which is absolutely uncontrollable) with the subjective (ethnicity, which as a purely human contruct we are free to change). Hence, my race is caucasoid, but my ethnicity is american.

You're mixing ethnicity with nationality here (which is not citizenship, of course).


Thus for your point 2: see above. The semmites are a different ethnicity from say the Italians, but that is NOT a racial difference.

Of course: there is no race, only ethnicities. Btw, Italian isn't an ethnicity, it's a nationality (if you're speaking of Italian culture) or a citizenship (if you're speaking of having a passport granted by the Italian Republic). And it's "Semites", btw.



In a very literal sense, you are correct. He is an "african" American. However, my point (and I'll accept the xenophobic lable with pride if you insist on it)
I do. Anyone who wants to send the "foreigners" away is literally a xenophobe (literlly, "fearful of the foreigner"). Of course xenophobia, within some limits, is an istinct common to most humans.

is that he chose to become part of the US, and by becoming part of our melting pot, tacitly agreed to give up the distinct African tradition that finds no place in it, and has thus really ceased being African in any sense.

Questionable. The African tradition (which I guess can vary a lot between different African nationalities, of course: I don't think that a Bantu would like to be mistaken for a Hutu, or that a Senegalese would like to be mistaken for a Somali, etc) has clearly a place in the "American melting pot". Just as any other ethnical/national tradition.
If it weren't so, you wouldn't have associations of Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Cuban-Americans, American Jews, Native Reservations etc. Or nobody would have noticed that O'Bama isn't an Irishman.

We have an interesting situation in the US. Some blacks do not like to be referred to as African American. It makes feeling out what word to use very difficult.

How about the person's name?

How about the person's name?

All well and good, but as in my example what if you are discussing a friend with another friend. You both know two people with the same name one is black one is white, how do you differentiate between them?

All well and good, but as in my example what if you are discussing a friend with another friend. You both know two people with the same name one is black one is white, how do you differentiate between them?

Surname? Middle name? Clothing? Is it really that hard?

Surname? Middle name? Clothing? Is it really that hard?

No that is not hard at all, nor is it hard to say 'Black pete' or 'White Pete' it really makes no differance, and people just don't mind. *shrug*

No that is not hard at all, nor is it hard to say 'Black pete' or 'White Pete' it really makes no differance, and people just don't mind. *shrug*

Well, when it's between friends, it's different. My friends don't care when I make fun of their ethnicity, but they would care if a stranger did it.

No that is not hard at all, nor is it hard to say 'Black pete' or 'White Pete' it really makes no differance, and people just don't mind. *shrug*

Well, I suppose that depends on the context, and where you are in the world. For those with intelligence, you're right. How much of THAT is there, overall, with people in groups?

Of course not. They're Oceanian Americans, duh.

Which somewhat illustrates my point of using African American to apply to all black-skinned americans.

Of course, it's entirely up to an individual ethnic groups to self-define as they wish, I just wonder whether confounding a cultural grouping and an ethnic grouping may actually be doing more to reinforce concepts that black individuals are a single homogenous group in such a way that would rarely be applied to people from other ethnic backgrounds.

They're offended by the truth? born in Africa=African

Does being born in Australia make you an Aborigine?

Well, when it's between friends, it's different. My friends don't care when I make fun of their ethnicity, but they would care if a stranger did it.

Freinds or not it really does not matter, I have never seen a black men take offence at being labeled a black man. Do you take offence if somebody refers to you as that white bloke?

What exactly is offensive in mentioning the colour of a person?

Well, I suppose that depends on the context, and where you are in the world. For those with intelligence, you're right. How much of THAT is there, overall, with people in groups?

Loads really.

Freinds or not it really does not matter, I have never seen a black men take offence at being labeled a black man. Do you take offence if somebody refers to you as that white bloke?

What exactly is offensive in mentioning the colour of a person?

Your personal experience is irrelevant. Because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've seen it, but then again, I was raised in the 70s, when it seemed the entire race was trying to figure out what to be offended by and what to be called.

Your personal experience is irrelevant. Because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've seen it, but then again, I was raised in the 70s, when it seemed the entire race was trying to figure out what to be offended by and what to be called.

I still think it's ridiculous to get offended by it. As I said, being black is not inherently negative, it only has negative connotations to people who would also view being 'African American' as equally negative.

Which somewhat illustrates my point of using African American to apply to all black-skinned americans.

Of course, it's entirely up to an individual ethnic groups to self-define as they wish,

As long as they take care to use the proper wording. If they chose (stupidly) to call themselves "African Americans' Association" (or something equivalent) and not "Black-Skinned-Only African Americans' Association", well, their fault.

Your personal experience is irrelevant. Because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've seen it, but then again, I was raised in the 70s, when it seemed the entire race was trying to figure out what to be offended by and what to be called.

That's a load of crap though really innit? I mean of course ones personal experiance is relevant. My experiances, or what I experiance tells me how things are, how else should I gain knowledge.

I was born in 1968, so I also grew up in times of racial tension, and you know even then it was fine to call a black man a black man. What is wrong in describing somebody by his colour?

Shit even black men I know do the same. I have a freind Moses by name, it is often said of him that he is so dark he is almost blue.

Does being born in Australia make you an Aborigine?

No, and not sure what your getting at here Rhyno...

I still think it's ridiculous to get offended by it. As I said, being black is not inherently negative, it only has negative connotations to people who would also view being 'African American' as equally negative.

The term "black" has been used pejoratively in English for a long, long time. I'm no fan of hyphenates, either. I think it's a stretch to be offended by "black", but not a long one.

That's a load of crap though really innit? I mean of course ones personal experiance is relevant. My experiances, or what I experiance tells me how things are, how else should I gain knowledge.

I was born in 1968, so I also grew up in times of racial tension, and you know even then it was fine to call a black man a black man. What is wrong in describing somebody by his colour?

Shit even black men I know do the same. I have a freind Moses by name, it is often said of him that he is so dark he is almost blue.

Does your friend Moses represent every black man, then? 'Cause that assumption's dodgy at best. Your assumption that what you've experienced is the way it is everywhere is what's shaky.

No, and not sure what your getting at here Rhyno...

That being born in Africa doesn't necessarily make you African, depending on what definition you're using. Part of being African-American means dealing with the legacy of slavery and prejudice, as well as the prejudice still alive today. Being Caucasian means you can avoid the prejudice inherent in having a minority status because you don't look like a minority, but you would still get all the benefits of that minority that obvious, dark-skinned individuals had to earn by fighting generations of racism.
Remember, many African-Americans felt that Obama wasn't black enough to truly say that a black person was elected president and therefore that institutional racism has been ultimately defeated.
Black is not merely a colour, it's a culture. Even those of African descent who are light enough to pass and do are often rejected by the black community.

The term "black" has been used pejoratively in English for a long, long time. I'm no fan of hyphenates, either. I think it's a stretch to be offended by "black", but not a long one.
Agreed
Your assumption that what you've experienced is the way it is everywhere is what's shaky.
It is however a natural assumption to make, at least until confronted with evidence that your assumption is not accurate.

It is however a natural assumption to make, at least until confronted with evidence that your assumption is not accurate.

Fair enough.

That being born in Africa doesn't necessarily make you African, depending on what definition you're using. Part of being African-American means dealing with the legacy of slavery and prejudice, as well as the prejudice still alive today. Being Caucasian means you can avoid the prejudice inherent in having a minority status because you don't look like a minority, but you would still get all the benefits of that minority that obvious, dark-skinned individuals had to earn by fighting generations of racism.
Remember, many African-Americans felt that Obama wasn't black enough to truly say that a black person was elected president and therefore that institutional racism has been ultimately defeated.
Black is not merely a colour, it's a culture. Even those of African descent who are light enough to pass and do are often rejected by the black community.

Ahh, okay. I see now what you mean. I don't agree with you. I'd say that being born in Africa does indeed make you African, assuming that that is how you wish to identify yourself.
For example, my sister in law is African in the sense that she was born in Africa, she does not self-identify as African though, she self-identifies as Moroccan.

Ahh, okay. I see now what you mean. I don't agree with you. I'd say that being born in Africa does indeed make you African, assuming that that is how you wish to identify yourself.
For example, my sister in law is African in the sense that she was born in Africa, she does not self-identify as African though, she self-identifies as Moroccan.

The problem here isn't just African, it's African-American, which actually has very little to do with Africa. And ultimately, the ones with the authority to decide what to include in the African-American community is the African-American community, in the same way that countries control citizenship.

The problem here isn't just African, it's African-American, which actually has very little to do with Africa. And ultimately, the ones with the authority to decide what to include in the African-American community is the African-American community, in the same way that countries control citizenship.

Meh, it's a ridiculous label anyways...

Would you say that this guy is an African-American?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_COOI9BZJyyA/SZkZBb4HlkI/AAAAAAAAAE8/-MRz933tFWY/s320/ejiofor.jpg

The problem here isn't just African, it's African-American, which actually has very little to do with Africa. And ultimately, the ones with the authority to decide what to include in the African-American community is the African-American community, in the same way that countries control citizenship.

True, but in some ways I think this comes back to the issue of confounding a community, bound by a shared culture (oppression, slavery, civil rights etc...) with an ethnicity. Which is where you get arguments about individuals not being 'black enough' if they don't share that cultural background (for example descendants of recent immigrants from Africa).

I think emphasising this distinction more and moving it away from just skin colour and towards the shared history and culture may do a lot to combat certain aspects of racism, as it will avoid people perceiving black individuals as a homogenous group to which you can assign characteristics based on skin pigmentation. Of course that may just move the prejudice from skin pigmentation onto 'background'...

But the thing is, a lot of black Americans don't want to be called African-American, because they aren't. I try to use whatever terms people use for themselves, but it also takes an assumption on their part that I'm acting in good faith and not TRYING to be insulting if I use a term they don't like. Generally reasonable people can say, "Actually, I prefer _____" without being offended or in a snit.
yeah.

not, as i said, i have much call to refer to anyone by their race/ethnicity but it does annoy me when someone uses a term in a good faith effort to be repectful and ends up treated as if they used the N-word. if "black" or "african american" isnt the right term for a particular person, its best that they correct the user of the wrong term and only take offense if a person knowingly uses a term that they dont like.

True, but in some ways I think this comes back to the issue of confounding a community, bound by a shared culture (oppression, slavery, civil rights etc...) with an ethnicity. Which is where you get arguments about individuals not being 'black enough' if they don't share that cultural background (for example descendants of recent immigrants from Africa).

I think emphasising this distinction more and moving it away from just skin colour and towards the shared history and culture may do a lot to combat certain aspects of racism, as it will avoid people perceiving black individuals as a homogenous group to which you can assign characteristics based on skin pigmentation. Of course that may just move the prejudice from skin pigmentation onto 'background'...

The problem is that a white person can never share that history, especially any white person in the US. Colour is too easily noted: that's why it's used for prejudice. In the US colour carries a particularly strong history that is very difficult to escape. To the black community, to be white, regardless of your history, is to be privileged over other skin colours; with that assumption, it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.

Meh, it's a ridiculous label anyways...

Most racial labels are. What the hell does Caucasian mean, anyways?

Would you say that this guy is an African-American?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_COOI9BZJyyA/SZkZBb4HlkI/AAAAAAAAAE8/-MRz933tFWY/s320/ejiofor.jpg

That would depend on what country he identifies with. He can't very well be an African-American if he's an Aussie.

The problem is that a white person can never share that history, especially any white person in the US. Colour is too easily noted: that's why it's used for prejudice. In the US colour carries a particularly strong history that is very difficult to escape. To the black community, to be white, regardless of your history, is to be privileged over other skin colours; with that assumption, it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.

I'm not arguing they could - I'm arguing that using the term African-American, a term that is associated with this history of oppression and under privilege, interchangably with black is in most ways making it over-inclusive, not under-inclusive, because it means it encompasses individuals who don't have that history. Hence why there can be arguments that someone isn't 'black enough' if they are second generation immigrant from, say, Kenya. If you are going to use the term to encompass all the history you talk about (and I think it should), then it should be used only to refer to those who share than history (ie American descendants of African slaves) rather than to all those who share that skin colour.

I think in some ways it's why in this country you do use the term black when you are just talking in terms of skin colour, because to use Afro-Caribbean (which no, the government hasn't told us to use) would be to give an incorrect label to the Black African immigrants, who have a distinctly different history and distinctly different immigration experience to the Afro-Caribbean community.

Edit: I don't like the term Caucasian either for similar reasons, it's over-inclusive and groups together people of vastly different cultural background and, for that matter, gradients of skin tone meaning it fails on the descriptive level too.

Most racial labels are. What the hell does Caucasian mean, anyways?

The term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) race has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone. In common use, the term is sometimes restricted to Europeans and other lighter-skinned populations within these areas, and may be considered equivalent to the varying definitions of white people.

That would depend on what country he identifies with. He can't very well be an African-American if he's an Aussie.
Which is really my point as I have heard him referred to as an african-american, which is ridiculous since he's british.

The term "black" has been used pejoratively in English for a long, long time.

So has 'Jew'.

So has 'Jew'.

Oh really? So there are phrases in common use like "black hearted", "black mark", "blackguard", "black mood", "Black Friday", "things are looking black" that all use the word Jew? Come on.

I mean common use now, not in use at Stormfront.

Oh really? So there are phrases in common use like "black hearted", "black mark", "blackguard", "black mood", "Black Friday", "things are looking black" that all use the word Jew? Come on.

I mean common use now, not in use at Stormfront.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNA_dFXYqc

New Jersey - a frequent butt of jokes made by Americans, though I've no idea what they do to become such a high profile target.

"Kiss her where it smells, take her to New Jersey" -George Carlin

Oh really? So there are phrases in common use like "black hearted", "black mark", "blackguard", "black mood", "Black Friday", "things are looking black" that all use the word Jew? Come on.

I mean common use now, not in use at Stormfront.

Oh come now. You don't actually expect me to take it at face value that every negative term with the word "black" in it has a racist origin do you?

I don't get this. Presumably this girl you dated had an accent that could be identified as not-from-here, right? If some white person with an accent said to me that they were African-American, I would immediately assume, and ask, if they were from South Africa. It seems like the obvious first conclusion to me.

Apparently your PC filter has malfunctioned and let in some common sense, then. Every time she pulled it, people did eventually get around to asking if she was S. African, but usually only after a interval in which they tiptoed around and poked at the question from the edges.

Oh really? So there are phrases in common use like "black hearted", "black mark", "blackguard", "black mood", "Black Friday", "things are looking black" that all use the word Jew? Come on.

I mean common use now, not in use at Stormfront.

That's jewrific.

Oh really? So there are phrases in common use like "black hearted", "black mark", "blackguard", "black mood", "Black Friday", "things are looking black" that all use the word Jew? Come on.

I mean common use now, not in use at Stormfront.

Black guard is a D&D 3.5 class.

well, for sufficiently broad definitions of 'middle class'. and given that the actual point is how disproportionately many of them are still in poverty, williams is just obfuscating. par for the course, really, given his role in conservative politics.

Nonsense. Most black people aren't currently imprisoned, therefore there is no real inequality.

I had been under the silly impression that they took the inventions of other people from other parts of the world and then forced the black people to build the infrastructure for their own benefit. But now that you tell me that they did it with their own blood, sweat, tears, and Rugged Individualism™, I must admit I was foolish in believing such things.

I think that was in the same chapter as the discussion about the end of slavery and the civil rights movement, and how blacks won their freedom with polite entreaties.

Freinds or not it really does not matter, I have never seen a black men take offence at being labeled a black man. Do you take offence if somebody refers to you as that white bloke?

What exactly is offensive in mentioning the colour of a person?

I teach kindergarten. When we draw pictures of ourselves, the kids will often look through the various skin-colored crayons and try to decide which one to use. They will look at their arms and say, "I'm brown," "I'm light brown,", "I'm kind of peach and orange and brown and I have spots! (freckles)." Those are descriptions. For them, the color of their skin does few if any implications at this age--it's just another unique part of them.

If you really wanted to use skin color as a description, you would rarely use "white" or "black", since hardly anyone ever is.

I still think it's ridiculous to get offended by it. As I said, being black is not inherently negative, it only has negative connotations to people who would also view being 'African American' as equally negative.

Thank god we have a member of the ruling class to straighten it out for us.

Apparently your PC filter has malfunctioned and let in some common sense, then. Every time she pulled it, people did eventually get around to asking if she was S. African, but usually only after a interval in which they tiptoed around and poked at the question from the edges.

Then the people you hung around are not very worldly. I had an ethnically Chinese friend who was African-American. No one ever gave her weird looks.

Then the people you hung around are not very worldly. I had an ethnically Chinese friend who was African-American. No one ever gave her weird looks.

You might be right there, I don't know. The people she generally pulled it on weren't friends of mine, or people I even knew real well. If a white girl with a smirk and a vaguely Germanic-sounding accent told she was African-American, 'S. African' would be my first guess.

Does your friend Moses represent every black man, then? 'Cause that assumption's dodgy at best. Your assumption that what you've experienced is the way it is everywhere is what's shaky.


Ahh well I think that is your good self assumeing there. I just did not say I think that this is the way it is everywhere. All I asert is that for the whole of my life, in my experiance using the colour of the skin as a description to diferntiate between two people has not caused offence.

Mose's is now an old fellow, ito his 70's by now, I have known him for most of my life, he has never taken offence to being called black, niether have any of my younger black mates. Why would they? Again I'll ask if you are offended by being called white? Why would you, it is merley a description of the colour of your skin.

...... it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.

Bwhahah that is clearly bullshit though innit!

To the black community, to be white, regardless of your history, is to be privileged over other skin colours; with that assumption, it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.
If this is true, then they are racists too. Racist against themselves, to boot.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
The term Caucasian (or Caucasoid) race has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.

"Caucasian" is quite a stupid definition. The phenotypes typical of those areas are vastly different.
Some examples:


Bulgarian
http://z.about.com/d/goeasteurope/1/5/d/2/-/-/BulgariaDress.jpg

Kurd
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0711/barzani_1102.jpg

Indian
http://ontheroadphotos.com/Dalit03.jpg

Kazakh
http://www.le.ac.uk/geology/wdc2/Kazakh%20ladies.jpg

Afghani
http://arkivi.peshkupauje.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/green-eye-afghan.jpg

Ethiopian
http://www.abugidainfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dc_man_logan2.gif

Israeli
http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ap_orthodox_gaza_protest_090107_ssv.jpg

Turkman (that is from Turkmenistan)
http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Turkman_girl_in_national_dress.jpg

Sri Lankan
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2646287961_5a5bdd484d.jpg

Oh come now. You don't actually expect me to take it at face value that every negative term with the word "black" in it has a racist origin do you?

I don't expect you to believe what I never said. For fuck's sake READ.

I said:

The term "black" has been used pejoratively in English for a long, long time. I'm no fan of hyphenates, either. I think it's a stretch to be offended by "black", but not a long one.

Where does that say "racist origin"? Good Lord, man, it's bad enough to get pilloried for stuff I actually write without people making shit up, too. The word had a long history of being negatively associated before most English speakers had even SEEN a black person! That's the point. These English speakers then see a person whose skin is as close to black in their experience as makes no odds, and they're predisposed to think that this person must be somehow inferior.

Once again, in this century, it would take a stretch to be offended by "black", but not a great one.

Once again, in this century, it would take a stretch to be offended by "black", but not a great one.

yeah, the reclamation of blackness has been rather successful, but it took some high profile work to get there (black is beautiful, say it loud..., etc.)

If this is true, then they are racists too. Racist against themselves, to boot.

I would not disagree.

Bwhahah that is clearly bullshit though innit!

NO U!

NO U!

No man you must be joking? You realy belive that the colour of a persons skin is what makes them underprivliged or not? There are no poor underprivliged white people?

No man you must be joking? You realy belive that the colour of a persons skin is what makes them underprivliged or not? There are no poor underprivliged white people?

I never said it was the only thing that makes them underprivileged, or that blacks are the only underprivileged race.

I'm also pretty sure I was very careful with my words and said only that many blacks (and others) feel that being black underprivileges blacks and as a result will not accept a white person, regardless of their origins, into the black community because of it.
Whether or not I'm black, live in the US, and/or feel that way is undetermined.

I never said it was the only thing that makes them underprivileged, or that blacks are the only underprivileged race.

I'm also pretty sure I was very careful with my words and said only that many blacks (and others) feel that being black underprivileges blacks and as a result will not accept a white person, regardless of their origins, into the black community because of it.
Whether or not I'm black, live in the US, and/or feel that way is undetermined.

What you actualy said was this:

'...... it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.'

...

are you claiming that there is precisely one type of underprivilegedness?

are you claiming that there is precisely one type of underprivilegedness?

Huh! Where you get that from?

What you actualy said was this:

'...... it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.'

Reading comprehension fail.

To the black community, to be white, regardless of your history, is to be privileged over other skin colours; with that assumption, it's impossible for a white person to share the identity of blacks because they can never know what it is to be underprivileged like a black person.

Try again.

Reading comprehension fail.

Try again.

Yeah, this.

When will you people learn how careful I am with my choice of words?

Yeah, this.

When will you people learn how careful I am with my choice of words?

You aren't usually, but you were in this case.

Yeah, this.

When will you people learn how careful I am with my choice of words?

Ahhhh yes I see, you and Galloism are right that was my fuck up.

Ahhhh yes I see, you and Galloism are right that was my fuck up.

It happens.

Here, have some chocolate.

It happens.

Here, have some chocolate.

Sweeet! But virtual chocee, not so nice.

Huh! Where you get that from?

because even your misreading of R's statement relies on reading it as just 'underprivileged', full stop, rather than 'underprivileged like a black person'

because even your misreading of R's statement relies on reading it as just 'underprivileged', full stop, rather than 'underprivileged like a black person'

Maybe, I guess that is why I posted my bullshit comment. Underprivalige comes in many guises, I guess you could construe my comments as only allueding to one, but then you could also not.

You aren't usually...

I call bullshit.

I call bullshit.

I'm razzin' ya. Relax.

I'm razzin' ya. Relax.

Or am I razzin' you?
Boo-wee-oop!

Yeah, this.

When will you people learn how careful I am with my choice of words?

Seems to be a rash of that....

Do they? What about Jamaican Americans? Or from other carribean islands? Or indeed those who may be descended from Africans who emigrated to Europe before they then emigrated to the US. Ok yes, you could say if you trace it back far enough then yes they did all come from Africa. But then if you trace a lot of 'Irish-Americans' ancestry back, they may be Scots or English-Americans or even Norwegian-Americans if you go back far enough (Viking invasions and all).

I think it shows where the current uses of x-American falls apart. You either need to use it define a cultural background or an ethnicity, using it for both causes significant issues.

Stupid Ideas (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=your_stupid_ideas)

Yeah, couldn't agree more. People really should stop using such terms. Sadly.. With the current state of things, that's never going to happen.

Seems to be a rash of that....

Of people choosing their words very carefully? Or people not realizing that I do?

It's somewhat ridiculous and I think illustrates how people often forget there are a significant minority of white Africans who settled there as colonists several hundred years ago and as such have as much right to call themselves African as most Americans have to say they're American.

Frankly, it shows quite a bigoted attitidue that only dark-skinned people can come from Africa (despite North Africans are actually Caucasian technically). It would be like objecting to someone calling themselves black European-American because only white people can come from Europe!
This^^^


I have a nasty feeling that he'll lose his case because of the unspoken assumption some people seem to have that discrimination only happens against non-whites (or the belief that it doesn't matter if its against whites). I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

Actually, screw law suits. Vandalism is a crime. If he has any information about who did that he should have them arrested.

and, ^^^This as well...

Political Correctness is the dark underbelly of Liberalism that prevents me from calling myself one...

Of people choosing their words very carefully? Or people not realizing that I do?

The latter...

[JOLT autocensor is an afro-american?], kike, slanteye, boche, frog, clogwog, clogfrog, hun, redneck, yankee, tommy, sheepshagger, towelhead, whore, [...] should all be replaced with 'Fag'.

It promotes equality
It pisses off gay swedes
Clearly, no downside whatsoever.

Of course, according to mainstream anthropologists, if you go back far enough then everybody's ancestors were 'African'... ;)

The latter...

Hmm. It's what I'm good at. Among other things.