K
Kenpomachine
Guest
A question out of curiosity here. When you refer to African Americans, does it only apply to negroes and moroccans and the like, or only to negroes?
OP
Kenpomachine
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #2
How can it be a "cultural/historical/ethnic " term when there's so many cultural/historical/ethnic differencecs in Africa. It's as you think of the continent named America (including both, north and south America) and pretending they're all the same.
In the north of Africa you have semitic people, of the same ethnic group as arabs and jews; while in the north you have black people of many different groups, and not necessarily related to each other ethnically.
So the question still remains, do you address americans of moroccan descent as well as blacks as African American?
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #3
No. Just blacks, regardless of where they came from.
Incidentally, none of my friends of color like the term "African
American". I can't speak for the black community, but I'm of
the opinion that the new "politically correct" term right now, is
just black, plain and simple.
OP
Kenpomachine
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #4
Hey, I like the new politically correct term. I have friends who are black, but from spanish american ascent, so it's a whole different thing. They've never have this African American thing 
Hollywood1340
2nd Black Belt
I just say I'm American
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #6
O for ahura-mazda's sake.
It's a, "cultural/historical/ethnic," term because a) it exists, it is in fact used, check the affirmative action form you fill out; b) it is a product of certain cultural events, c) its use appears in the US at a certain point in history, d) it is used to reflect a certain ethnic identity.
OF COURSE strictly speaking the term doesn't reflect biological reality. OF COURSE there's an enormous diversity of peoples lumped together under such a term.
It's just as silly, on one level, as terms such as, "white," or "Caucasian," or "Indian." But it does exist, it is used in the US, and the use has had consequences.
Sheesh. I ain't postin' on this one again.
It's a, "cultural/historical/ethnic," term because a) it exists, it is in fact used, check the affirmative action form you fill out; b) it is a product of certain cultural events, c) its use appears in the US at a certain point in history, d) it is used to reflect a certain ethnic identity.
OF COURSE strictly speaking the term doesn't reflect biological reality. OF COURSE there's an enormous diversity of peoples lumped together under such a term.
It's just as silly, on one level, as terms such as, "white," or "Caucasian," or "Indian." But it does exist, it is used in the US, and the use has had consequences.
Sheesh. I ain't postin' on this one again.
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #7
Of course not. Political correctness was invented where you're
from. Be brave, discuss it. Hopefully we'll hear from people that
the term DIRECTLY effect, and we'll all be enlightened. But don't
run from it.
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #8
And that's all you are to me. But you did say in the thread that
spawned this, "As an African American...".
Let me ask you this .... lets say you came into town, and hung
out with me for a day or two. And lets say that during this time,
you and I are sitting in a restaurant, having some burgers or
something (Fudruckers is the bomb), and a group of my friends
comes up to say hi. One person in this group of, say 3 people
is black. We all chat for a little bit, laugh, and they take off.
Hours later, I'm telling you a funny story that happened with one
of those friends. It happens to be the black friend, but you don't
know this yet. I say, "remember Paul, at Fudd's the other day?"
and you don't remember which name went with who. You say,
"Which one is Paul again?"
A couple questions here, which I doubt many out in your area
would like to see asked, and would severely sweat if they had
to answer.
1) By even using his race as the identifier, some would call that
racist ... would you?
2) Since I would use race to identify Paul to you, would you rather
I say "He's the African American guy" or "He's the black guy".
3) Bringing up this subject at all ... does it make you uncomfortable in any way, other than the fact that you're being
singled out right now?
Hollywood1340
2nd Black Belt
Okay, cool. Yes there are times I'll speak in context of my race, and other times I condsider it a moot point. There are times I speak in context of being male, oh wait, that's all the time I live in a pretty un-diverse community, and I'm used to being "The black guy in glasses that walks with a limp and likes to kick things". I mean most people are rather suprised when they meet me This is one of those intersting things I get by being raised by a high school teacher. I speak well, hold myself well, and do things as they "Should be done". That is to say the only thing that makes me black, is my skin color, even thought right now it's taken on a slightly yellowish tint, stupid winter color anyway. My point is the "Sterotypical" black guy I ain't. And because of that, I'm normaly the last person in the room to notice "Hey, I'm the only person of color here" You just get used to it afer awhile. So yes, I'm black, but as they say "we're more then then sum of our parts" and I think some people forget that.
Just my $0.02
I live in a pretty un-diverse community, and I'm used to being "The black guy in glasses that walks with a limp and likes to kick things". I mean most people are rather suprised when they meet me This is one of those intersting things I get by being raised by a high school teacher. I speak well, hold myself well, and do things as they "Should be done". That is to say the only thing that makes me black, is my skin color, even thought right now it's taken on a slightly yellowish tint, stupid winter color anyway. My point is the "Sterotypical" black guy I ain't. And because of that, I'm normaly the last person in the room to notice "Hey, I'm the only person of color here" You just get used to it afer awhile. So yes, I'm black, but as they say "we're more then then sum of our parts" and I think some people forget that.Just my $0.02
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #10
First off, this has zip to do with political correctness--though I realize that many people find it politically convenient to throw that as an accusation when they don't want to look at reality. Just for next time, the very term "political correctness," pc, did indeed evolve in some of the places I came from. Ya know why? So LEFT-wingers--yes, Virginia, left-wingers invented the term--could make fun of holier-than-thou left wingers. In the late 80s and early 90s, it got picked up by RIGHT-wingers and talk show hosts. Ya know why? so they could portray anybody who didn't conform to their political ideals as silly wackos.
But of course right wing and conservative types don't say this. They say that theirs is the right, the true, the only normative viewpoint and everybody else is a fool. This serves as a good example of how ideology works: it operates best when it can be claimed, "Nope, no ideology here, folks. Just us rational, right-thinkin' down-home folks." Mine is the only reasonable way to see this question, and the world...because there is no right-wing pc.
In counterpoint, I simply try and understand why people think the screwy things they think, try to trace down the history of such ideas, try to get them to look at consequences, try to get them to look for repeated patterns in the way they construct the world. Of course, this is difficult. It requires knowledge, it requires patience, it takes time. It ain't sexy, and it meets a lot of resistance. Howard Sternisme is far easier, and the pay's better.
For example, in kenpo I might ask a student why they're doing what they're doing. I might ask whether or not it matches the form, tech or whatever. I might ask them where they got the variation they're using from; I might ask whether or not it'll work; I might ask them about other techs/forms/sets/sparrings where they're carrying out the same pattern.
I'm not going to get into the ethnicity identifier thing again. I will note this: the anecdotes/possibilities you cite have relatively little to do with the reasons for the adoption of such terms as, "African-American," and it's best not to trivialize history that way. Again, I recommend doing the reading I suggested. Look particularly at Gates' foreword, and Kimberly W. Benston's essay. You might add, say, Cornel West's "Race Matters," as a useful critique of "right," and "left" wing approaches to the discussion of race in current American society.
I really am gonna shut up now on this topic. This should draw all the insults I need this week.
But of course right wing and conservative types don't say this. They say that theirs is the right, the true, the only normative viewpoint and everybody else is a fool. This serves as a good example of how ideology works: it operates best when it can be claimed, "Nope, no ideology here, folks. Just us rational, right-thinkin' down-home folks." Mine is the only reasonable way to see this question, and the world...because there is no right-wing pc.
In counterpoint, I simply try and understand why people think the screwy things they think, try to trace down the history of such ideas, try to get them to look at consequences, try to get them to look for repeated patterns in the way they construct the world. Of course, this is difficult. It requires knowledge, it requires patience, it takes time. It ain't sexy, and it meets a lot of resistance. Howard Sternisme is far easier, and the pay's better.
For example, in kenpo I might ask a student why they're doing what they're doing. I might ask whether or not it matches the form, tech or whatever. I might ask them where they got the variation they're using from; I might ask whether or not it'll work; I might ask them about other techs/forms/sets/sparrings where they're carrying out the same pattern.
I'm not going to get into the ethnicity identifier thing again. I will note this: the anecdotes/possibilities you cite have relatively little to do with the reasons for the adoption of such terms as, "African-American," and it's best not to trivialize history that way. Again, I recommend doing the reading I suggested. Look particularly at Gates' foreword, and Kimberly W. Benston's essay. You might add, say, Cornel West's "Race Matters," as a useful critique of "right," and "left" wing approaches to the discussion of race in current American society.
I really am gonna shut up now on this topic. This should draw all the insults I need this week.
OP
TKDman
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #11
Sounds like something out of a grade B Martial Arts movie.
I knew a guy from South Africa.
He was so white and blonde hair and blue eyes he had problems with the Michigan Sun.
When he applied for the school and for loans and or grants he put down African American. He had become a citizen when he was a child/teenager. He would photocopy his birth certifacte and other documents. Many people, just said ok and processed the paperwork. Why? Was he of African Descent? The answer was Yes. Is he an American now? Yes he is.
I do not like the term for it does not truly describe anyone other than the fact that they have a descendant from Africa and are now Americans.
He was so white and blonde hair and blue eyes he had problems with the Michigan Sun.
When he applied for the school and for loans and or grants he put down African American. He had become a citizen when he was a child/teenager. He would photocopy his birth certifacte and other documents. Many people, just said ok and processed the paperwork. Why? Was he of African Descent? The answer was Yes. Is he an American now? Yes he is.
I do not like the term for it does not truly describe anyone other than the fact that they have a descendant from Africa and are now Americans.
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #13
Left/Right Wings
Well first off Mr McRoberston, I'm not going there with you, ever
again. Whenever it happens you refuse to address any issues
or facts that I bring up, and you resort to name calling. Usually
calling into question the character of those I quote to introduce
my facts, or my own character. I'm tired of it, totally.
Define "Howard Sternism". If you mean actually having the
courage to discuss things that you and your counterparts are
afraid to bring up? Then I proudly stand guilty. Nothing has ever
come of sweeping issues under the rug.
I don't buy that for a second. Although someone of white skin
can claim African American if in fact from Africa, the term has an
identifier attached to it just as much as master does. The NAACP
was one group who made it WELL known that "colored" was a
derogatory term, as well as "negroe" and "negroid". And that
they, as a group, demanded to be called African American. I have
friends that are black and hate that term. If necessary to refer to
their race, they prefer either just black, or black american, and
that's what I will use whenever/ifever the need arises.
Well first off Mr McRoberston, I'm not going there with you, ever
again. Whenever it happens you refuse to address any issues
or facts that I bring up, and you resort to name calling. Usually
calling into question the character of those I quote to introduce
my facts, or my own character. I'm tired of it, totally.
Define "Howard Sternism". If you mean actually having the
courage to discuss things that you and your counterparts are
afraid to bring up? Then I proudly stand guilty. Nothing has ever
come of sweeping issues under the rug.
I don't buy that for a second. Although someone of white skin
can claim African American if in fact from Africa, the term has an
identifier attached to it just as much as master does. The NAACP
was one group who made it WELL known that "colored" was a
derogatory term, as well as "negroe" and "negroid". And that
they, as a group, demanded to be called African American. I have
friends that are black and hate that term. If necessary to refer to
their race, they prefer either just black, or black american, and
that's what I will use whenever/ifever the need arises.
OP
rmcrobertson
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #14
"The courage to discuss things that you and your counterparts are afraid to bring up," eh?
Leaving aside the utter lack of basic good manners that this reflects, I'll simply note that I've had exactly this discussion before. Over and over and over. Starting, roughly, around 1977. And far from never threshing through this stuff, Kirk, it's been done to death. In academic circles. Among so-called left-wingers. Over and over. And over and over. I could cite chapter and verse, but what's the point? You've got a certain notion of what folks like me are all about, and it seems that you don't want to do the reading or listening and find out different.
You are operating off a set of notions that, roughly speaking, may be traced to an ideological attack launched, more or less consciously but really very successfully, starting sometime in the 1980s. It may be traced, insofar as writers and intellectuals are concerned, to such folks as Dinesh d'Souza, Roger Shattuck, George Gilder, Kate Roiphe, William Bennett. It may be traced through "National Review," Buckley's mag, and on into the pages of "American Spectator." You may read all about it in the pages put out by think-tanks like the Heritage Founfdation and the American Enterprise Institute. You may find such talk popularized via talk radio and TV: see the Rush, to be sure, and the Stern, but also some of the others.
I recommend looking at that stuff. If it were me, I would ask why it is that a flamin' liberal left-winger without the courage to confront their opposition would be able to cite this stuff while I do not seem to know anything about where their arguments are coming from, but hey. That's just me.
My apologies, though. In theory, I'm enough of a grown up to recognize those moments when there's absolutely no point in getting into an argument. In practice, apparently not.
I will drop this, at this point, since clearly it's of no use.
Leaving aside the utter lack of basic good manners that this reflects, I'll simply note that I've had exactly this discussion before. Over and over and over. Starting, roughly, around 1977. And far from never threshing through this stuff, Kirk, it's been done to death. In academic circles. Among so-called left-wingers. Over and over. And over and over. I could cite chapter and verse, but what's the point? You've got a certain notion of what folks like me are all about, and it seems that you don't want to do the reading or listening and find out different.
You are operating off a set of notions that, roughly speaking, may be traced to an ideological attack launched, more or less consciously but really very successfully, starting sometime in the 1980s. It may be traced, insofar as writers and intellectuals are concerned, to such folks as Dinesh d'Souza, Roger Shattuck, George Gilder, Kate Roiphe, William Bennett. It may be traced through "National Review," Buckley's mag, and on into the pages of "American Spectator." You may read all about it in the pages put out by think-tanks like the Heritage Founfdation and the American Enterprise Institute. You may find such talk popularized via talk radio and TV: see the Rush, to be sure, and the Stern, but also some of the others.
I recommend looking at that stuff. If it were me, I would ask why it is that a flamin' liberal left-winger without the courage to confront their opposition would be able to cite this stuff while I do not seem to know anything about where their arguments are coming from, but hey. That's just me.
My apologies, though. In theory, I'm enough of a grown up to recognize those moments when there's absolutely no point in getting into an argument. In practice, apparently not.
I will drop this, at this point, since clearly it's of no use.
OP
Kirk
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #15
Don't presume to know what I have and have not read. I've
had my dealings with you, and intellectuals like you. I don't
discuss such things anymore. I'm too impatient to go through
the personal attacks. Not that you've done that here, this time.
had my dealings with you, and intellectuals like you. I don't
discuss such things anymore. I'm too impatient to go through
the personal attacks. Not that you've done that here, this time.
OP
Kenpomachine
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #16
Well, if you've llooked under my handle, it says I'm from Spain, so I've never hd to fill that form. I guess I will check both hispanic and caucasic and let them sort it out themselves.
OP
Kenpomachine
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #17
We have a mate at class which is black. When we have to clarify someone who he is (he's not the only one with his name), we first refer to him by rank and then by his skin color as it's the second best thing to diferentiate him from the other guy. But we also refer to an orange belt to the girl with pink hair, 'coz she has tainted her hair pink, and that's her outstanding feature. So there's no deal in it.
OP
Kenpomachine
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #18
OK, then it can be used like the spanish american, to refer just to people from a given geographical area, or descending from people of that area. Great!
Have to ask now why you say american refering only to people from the USA, which, as a matter of fact, is not the only United States of the continent named America.
Robert and Kirk, there's no need to heat up with political correctedness. You'd better go for personal correctedness and leave the political one to politicians....
Hollywood1340
2nd Black Belt
You've not seen some of the stuffage I've been in. Speaks volumes, eh? Oh the joys of the MT Indy film industry. Nyuk, nyuk.
Kenpo Machine,
As my Friends from Canada will tell you, they are NOT Americans, but CANADIENS! And they are DAMN Proud of it!.
As for my Friends in Mexico, refer to them selves as Mexicans. And they are as proud of it as the Canadians are.
As for the rest of South America I cannot speak from friends as well, with the exception of a Brazilian or two and once again they are proud of the fact that they are Brazilian.
Now, when my mother traveled to Europe in late 50's and early 60's, "American's" all said that they were from the 'States'.
In My life traveling to New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, and the Caribbean, if I say I am from the States of for the USA, Everyone else in the other countries called me an American. Now is it safe to safe that the 'American' Media may have an influence on this, I would have to agree, yet I do not believe that the USA media has 'That' much influence. Otherwise, people would like us (* Americans *). Oh did I say that most of the people were not thrilled to find out I was an American. The world prefers Canadians, Australians, even the English over the casual loud mouth American.
The last time in Japan, I was wondering around looking for a local bar or place to eat at night. They would not let me in certain bars or clubs or diners. Why?? Not sure, but I did find a real nice Mexican Bar that was owned by some Australians in Hamamatsu Japan that catered to the Canadians who traveled over their for the GM Canada and Isuzu Joint Venture. Nice place I had lots of fun.
So, when I say American I say it as a description of where I come from. Yet the last time I checked on census and other legal documents it is listed as Caucasian for the race I would fit best into and not Americans. Now, I do have Native American Indian Heritage, yet I do not have enough nor do I have tribal sponsorship, therefore I cannot legally claim to be a Native American Indian on any government document. So therefore I choose to select Caucasian versus Native American Indian. Now, if someone as to say I am South African or from South African Heritage, I have no problems.
Just some of my data points. I am sure not everyone in the world believes that way
Sorry to ramble
:asian:
