Topic awaiting preservation: What is an African American?

I'm curious to see if we all give the same answer or not.

. . : slicePuzzle

A white man born in Johannesburg who has moved to the United States is an African American.

A black man born in Dublin who has moved to the United States is not an African American.

Using the term "African American" to refer to all blacks in general makes a huge assumption about a lot of people's heritage.

"Well at some point they came from Africa" you say? Okay, how far do you want to go back? Seeing as Africa is the Cradle of Civilization, wouldn't that make every U.S. citizen an African American?

I was going to give an answer. . . but wes did it for me. . . BTW I laughed pretty hard when I saw this topic.

So what do you two call American blacks who insist on being referred to as "African Americans"? Do you tell them what you just told me or comply with their wishes?

Hmmm...'African American' - a 'politically correct' label for Blacks in America.

Personally, if they wish to be so labeled, then agree...though I would just call them Americans...

What, then, does someone call an Aboriginal born in Austrailia who lives in America? A ' Native Austrailian American'?

From my standpoint (as a 'Native American'), you are all foreigners...hehe...

I personally like just being called 'American'. Suits me fine. Although 'Cherokee Indian' is also ok...sometimes I even go by 'Jackass'

Stupid labels...they only cause problems...*sigh* Maybe we should all just go by 'Human', hmmm?

Thats interesting - I'd always interpretted it to mean a black American who's origins were ultimately in Africa (as I am Anglo-Irish). I think in the UK census they differentiate between 'black - African' and 'black - Caribbean' as (at least in the UK) that would supply important information.

I would imagine an expat Voortrekker (imagine Eugene Terreblanche in downtown New York ) would object to be called an African American (they'd probably try and work Dutch in there somewhere).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I think referring to people according to their distant national heritage is absurd.

While we're at it, I will only be referred to as 'Celtic American' and not 'white' 'caucasian' or 'American' from this point forward.

I want my particular dialectic differences and grammatical errors noted as a new language, which I will refer to as 'ivoronics' as well.

Well, while we're at it... I'm german-czech-irish-scottish-english-cherokee... And those are just the most dominant ones...

However, back on topic... African-American to me means they have ancestors (within two generations of themselves) that were born in Africa and were African citizens.

Then technically anybody who lives in the states is African-American because didn't homo sapiens evolve from Africa?

I agree with what Wes said also.

Beyond that - I think the persistence in holding to the Hyphenated America is going to perpetuate the color barrier that exists between humans. People think in language. If you insist on seperating yourself from everyone else by naming yourself part of a different group, realize that there are going to be consequences for that. This isn't to say you shouldn't be proud of who your are or be proud of your heritage it just means that it doesn't necessarily make you special to the rest of us. We're all proud of our heritage and ourselves in our acomplishments. Holding on to a hyphenated name seems pointless to me. Sort of like living in america and not speaking american. It's awfully hard to fit into society if you can't interact with people.

In answer to Bugs' question about the American who wants to be called African American... I call them an American.
Can they really get pissed at me because I think they're a member of this country? I think that would be foolish. After their ancestors fought for their freedom and their neighbors and themselves are still fighting for equality, they want to be mad at me because I'm giving it to them?

Hmmm.....


GrythusDraconis

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-15-2002).]

Would you disagree with a native Australian Aboriginal if he/she didn't want to be called an Australian?

In which case? if the wanted to be called a Native Australian or if they wanted to be a Native Australian American or what?

If they live in Australia I'd call them Australian. Native or not they're Australian, right?

If they live in America and have joined/want to join the American way of life then they're American. Changing the place of origin doesn't change that fact. They can still be proud of being a Native Aboriginal Australian and be an American at the same time. It's just a title, a name. It doesn't make any difference except for the fact that it makes people think of GROUPS of people rather than A group of people. The best way to get people to relate to each other(IMHO) is to get them to realize they have something in common not dicing up the population into little groups that have their own interests pinned to their lapel. We need a national interest in our nation's well being and leave the personal things to our personal lives. As I said before, feel free to be proud of who you are. Feel free to speak about it. Just be aware that some people are going to think of you differently if you decide to portray yourself as a different sort of person. You won't BE any different but in their mind you will be because you choose to be called something special.

GrythusDraconis

The way I see it, if you want to start calling people by their national heritage, then you'd be calling me a Polish-African-German-Frenchman (in that order). And to be 100% honest - I'm not sure if it's African or Jamaican (deadbeat dad and all).

I see no sense in separating people by labels anymore. If you want to call me you can call me by name - I won't answer otherwise.

Just to answer Bug's question: If an American from Africa wants me to call him an African-American, that's fine. I was simply referring to the use of the term to apply to anyone who is black.

The news media badly suffer from that habit. It's a highly inaccurate term most often used to refer to all Americans who are black. It would be like referring to white people as Australian-Americans.

"If they live in Australia I'd call them Australian. Native or not they're Australian, right?"

No, not really.

The collective 'we' don't split people up into these differint groupes, they do it themselves. Just because you belong to a certain country doesn't mean they you should automatically call that person by their nationality before anything else.

Nationality is one thing, heritage in something else. Being called an Australian is mostly a nationality as it's still a fairly new country. On the other hand the term Aboriginal all heritage.

Having been living in Ausatralia for 22 years now I've met many people from many different backgrounds. All of them refer to themselves as their heritage background (Italian, British, Indian, Japanese, Canadian). Unless they were a decendant of the early fleets that setteled here over 200 years ago, those of whome are about the only people who think on 'themselves' as nothing but 'Australian'. For them being australain is their heritage and their nationality, for the others it's simply their nationality.

Just while we are on this I'd like to make mention of something else that bugs me. When you have some standardized test or survey or something and they ask for your race, why do they have more than three choices? Three races - Mongaloid, Negroid, Caucaziod. (forgive me if I didn't spell them all right)

Dracusis - Why should I call them by their Heritage before all else rather than their nationality? By calling them an Australian because they live there, work there, and are part of the Australian way of life, I'm not saying that they aren't whatever their heritage says they are. I'm just saying that they are part of the Australian culture. It's people who out and out live there and interact with the Australian way of life. I guess what I'm getting at is that heritage is/can be a personal thing. It doesn't have to be but I think it should be. Let your national interests show and be proud of that as well as your heritage. The things seem to work now(at least in the US) is that heritage is everthing and nationality gets thrown to the wayside. You need to show some national interest. It's what gives a nation a sense of itself.

Something thing the US lacks in a severe way if you ask me. I don't care what nationalities of people move here, live here, or anything else here so long as they try and fit into the American way of life. Which has nothing to do with making money, walking roads of gold, and swimming in rivers of milk and honey. It's about interacting with other people in American Society, not making your own subculture that excludes the rest of the nation. I don't want people to give up their culture but they do need to interact with and relate to mine. I'm tired of not being able to speak to 30% of the people here. Top to Bottom this country (the US) has no sense of itself because we don't have any continuity, no paths of communication between people of different sub cultures. There isn't any homogeny. Melting pot my @$$. We haven't melted anything. We haven't even started the fire yet.

A question for you, Drac. If I ask one of these people that you've met that refer to themselves by their heritage(I'm assuming they live in Australia) where they were from. A random E-mail out of the blue to one from Italy say... Would they say they were from Italy or Australia? I mean honestly. We need to identify with the places we call home. Be proud of where we live and who we live with. Heritage isn't something that goes away and it's different for most everyone. Nationality is what brings people of different heritages together, or it should anyway. If people don't/won't identify with their nationality, work towards a national goal, they're missing the point.

Spyx - Aren't you missing Native's? Besides that the fact that they ask is what bugs me not the number of choices. If it's standardized why does it matter? Sure for informational purposes but it just serves to piss people off when the numbers come out and show certain groups of people to score lower or higher. It just furthers the separations that exist between us humans.

GrythusDraconis

I think we all need to walk around wearing big name tags that declare all our preferred labels all in one spot, so we can avoid any potential confusion or offense.

LOL

GrythusDraconis

I totally agree with DL's first post.

It's funny how touchy the heritage-issue can be.

Lately there's been quite a debate about what to call immigrants (black people in particular) back here.

My take?
Well, if they're swedish citizens, they are swedish. If they're american citizens, they're american. You get the picture.

If I wnat to describe a certain person, it should not be any more sensitive to use "he's black" in that description than "he's got black hair". But somehow it apparantly is...

this planet is weird..



[This message has been edited by Nimraw (edited 08-16-2002).]

Well, DL has a good idea, but I'm not sure everyone will go for it, for a number of reasons which I won't get into here...

However, the one way I see that would work is to simply kill everyone. Really simple, and it would fix a lot of other problems as well

I'm not saying we ~should~ call people by x or y label... I'm just saying it how I see it here....

Actually no, I am saying we should call people by their labels in a way...

It also largly depends on the contxt of the statment as well. Sometimes the words that ~seem~ more acceptabul change when we're refering to an individual or a group of people.

For instance I'd say, "I get my shoes fixed by the turkish dude down the road", even if the turkish dude is an Australian - Most likely because the person I'm saying this to probably doen't know this person my name. Otherwise i'd use his name.

I wouldn't say, "I get my shoes fixed buy the australian down the road", `cause that would just sound silly living in australia and all. I'd say the same about a Aboriginal, but I doubt I'd ever say, "I get my shoes fixed by the african american down the road". It just seems more like a polotical classification to me.

Yet, to a polotical survey that turkish dude is an Australian citizin full stop. He might have a different religion or speak a different language at home but those details rarely factor into a bureacuy like enviroment.

Everybody labels everything. I call a circle a circle and a square a square. But there are times when a square is called a four sided shape (which isn't actually lying) just cause it makes that particular square happier to be called that.

Removing all the labels seems like a nice ideal but I think it would just make everything more confusing. I think the labels were created out of a need to address or refer to certain groupes of people, which includes different types of peoples within one country or nation, so they'll never really go away. Furthermore I think everyone wants to be seen as a completly unique individual (I know I do) but often that just isn't going to happen, so these labels serve as some kind of psudo individuality between the masses. Kind of like a second last name that will always remain if the rest get stripped off.

I agree with you 100% Drac.

I certainly would never suggest removing labels.

What I meant was a bit mroe sarcastic and cynical than it sounded....

labels have their purpose, and language would be obsolete without them.

What I find so funny is that so many people get so uptight about the particulars of a given label, and try so hard to 'pinpont' the exact wording of the label they'd prefer to be stamped with...and then will tell you not to stamp them with it.

I find anything 'PC' to be absurdly funny. And sad.

Are you any different a person if I call you 'black' 'colored' 'negro' 'african american' 'person of color' or any other play on words for the same?

Am I any different a person if you call me 'mick' 'limey' 'whitey' 'honkey' 'cracker' or any other play on words for the same?

Nope.

Do I gain any distinction for embracing a distant heritage that I have no *real* right to claim?

Nope.

And niether does a black man, some of whose distant ancestors came from Africa.

Well said.

It is well said, and it would be wonderful if the world worked that way, but it doesnt.

I'll preface this by saying I'm Hispanic(Cuban-And not some distant heritage,My mother is from Cuba as is my father.)

Yes, I am the same person no matter what you call me. And Ive been called almost every derogatory hispanic name that you can think of. Most of which actually refer to mexicans, but the people using these were not exactly intellectuals. These words, however, do have meaning.

By calling me a spic, beaner or some other name you(the person, I am not refering anyone in particular) demean me. These words are the users way of telling me where I fit in the society. That I am not equal. That I am an outsider and I have less value.

When people use terms like these they are usually in a position of power. Lets face it, I wiegh 280 lb., I played linebacker in high school and rugby for 10 years. Most people are going to think twice before calling me a spic one-on-one. When I have had problems the other person was in a group or they were in a postion of authority(I once heard a cop say "let's get all these spics out of here"). They are essentially saying- "I can disrespect you and there is nothing you can do about it."

Ive found these statements come from people who are not secure in their own identity, so they want to make sure I know my "place" even if they dont know theirs.

Me, I call people what they want to be called. I've found that most people will be pretty polite in correcting me if they don't like what I said. I have friends who say "I'm black, Ive never been to Africa" and others who say:"Black is derogatory, Im an African-American". Hey, to each his own.

Its basically about getting along with others. Ain't it?

-tiki, cell 478

p.s.
DL-44: I live in Augusta, Georgia. Its as Southern(American South) a city as your going to find. Words like "negro" are very loaded down here.



[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 08-17-2002).]

"By calling me a spic, beaner or some other name you(the person, I am not refering anyone in particular) demean me. These words are the users way of telling me where I fit in the society. That I am not equal. That I am an outsider and I have less value."

And then you say

"Me, I call people what they want to be called. I've found that most people will be pretty polite in correcting me if they don't like what I said. I have friends who say "I'm black, Ive never been to Africa" and others who say:"Black is derogatory, Im an African-American". Hey, to each his own."

Arr... yeah sure.

So you call people by their labels and you expect them to correct you if you get it wrong but you get up in arms about others who get it wrong about you?

Sounds like a rather hostile way to play it if you ask me.

C'mon Drac that is an oversimplification of what I said and not at all what I meant. In fact we may agree more than you think.

These "labels" you refer to are not all equal. They range from beining a discriptor of someones nationality or heritage to being derogatory and insulting. The latter are used usually in society to make minorities or women "know their place."

In your earlier post you write:

quote:

---

Removing all the labels seems like a nice ideal but I think it would just make everything more confusing. I think the labels were created out of a need to address or refer to certain groupes of people, which includes different types of peoples within one country or nation, so they'll never really go away. Furthermore I think everyone wants to be seen as a completly unique individual (I know I do) but often that just isn't going to happen, so these labels serve as some kind of psudo individuality between the masses. Kind of like a second last name that will always remain if the rest get stripped off.

---

This is about the first type of label, a way of describing individual groups among the masses. Nobody truly means offense to me When they call me a Hispanic, Cuban, Cuban-American or Latino. They are just trying to describe a group or subgroup that I belong to. I agree with you say that removing these is a nice ideal but not very likely.

The problem is in the US not everybody agrees on what labels are respectful or insulting. This is what gave rise to the "Political Correctness" movement in the US. With Hispanics its not too difficult but with other ethnic groups such as African-Americans/Blacks or Native-Americans/Indians/individual tribe name what the proper descriptive label often depends on the individual your talking to. Thats what WS is doing when he says:

quote:

---

From my standpoint (as a 'Native American'), you are all foreigners...hehe...

I personally like just being called 'American'. Suits me fine. Although 'Cherokee Indian' is also ok...

---

He's letting you know what which "labels" he finds appropriate. That is what im refering to when I said this:

quote:

---

Me, I call people what they want to be called. I've found that most people will be pretty polite in correcting me if they don't like what I said. I have friends who say "I'm black, Ive never been to Africa" and others who say:"Black is derogatory, Im an African-American". Hey, to each his own.

---

Since the appropriate descripitive label depends on the individual, I call people what they wish to be called. And I have found that most people are polite if they know you mean no harm.

Now that being said...There is a line you can cross. And in America, at least, its a big honking line with plenty of warning signs.

When DL-44 said(And DL-44 I am not saying you crossed that line, I am only using your post to facilitate my arguement):

quote:

---

Are you any different a person if I call you 'black' 'colored' 'negro' 'african american' 'person of color' or any other play on words for the same?

Am I any different a person if you call me 'mick' 'limey' 'whitey' 'honkey' 'cracker' or any other play on words for the same?

Nope.

---

He lumped derogatory terms in with descriptive terms. There is a difference.

Since I am not going to pretend to be black I used my own ethnicity and experiences as an example when I said the first statement you quoted. Like I said before these kinds of terms are intended to demean people. I will also add that beyond age 10 they are rarely used innocently or accidentally. If you consider my or any others reaction to these kinds of labels use "hostile" then so be it .

If you expect me to have the same reaction to being called a spic as being called a Cuban American or hispanic because I know deep down inside I'm a good person -You've got to be kidding.


-tiki, cell 478



[This message has been edited by tikigod (edited 08-18-2002).]

Yes, tiki, but for most people you are beating a dead horse...because they haven't had the experience of actually being a minority - I'll give an example of this.

My Half-sister is white (yup, with blue eyes and blonde hair...). She went to China to teach English for the University there in Peking. Now, before she went, she really hadn't had much experience as a 'minority'...most white Americans don't.

Imagine her surprise (and discomfort) at suddenly 'becoming' a minority. Her whole world came crashing down...after one year, she left. She was very grateful to be back in the States...where she 'fit in'.

Before this experience, it was hard to talk with her about discrimination, etc. Afterwards, her whole perspective had changed...because she had experienced the 'other' side of the coin. Now, it is easy to discuss such matters with her. She has also become more 'sensitive' to the issue (yahhh!).

The point of all this? Well, PC words are, for the most part, silly. That's true, but one must consider the other side for a moment. Many 'terms' for minorities are derogatory in nature, meant to 'put down' the person(s) in question. So what to do? For lack of something better, we are stuck with PC words...at least, something that we all can accept (even if they are mostly silly).

Some may disagree with me, that's ok. But I understand what tiki is saying. And yes, he does have a point.

I have read some bits of this thread and it seems it hard to meet and african-american in america.
So I guess I will never meet an african american in sweden. But...hmm if he is in sweden isn't he an
swedish african american. or...?

Tiki Said: "these kinds of terms are intended to demean people"

I never said they weren't. But I've always found it easier just to ingore them. If the people 'calling you names' see that you just don't give a shit chances are they'll stop... Even if they don't, at least your not getting all bent out of shape about it.

But your right, we do agree on more than we disagree on.

WebShaman Said: "Yes, tiki, but for most people you are beating a dead horse...because they haven't had the experience of actually being a minority"

I've had that experience. If any of you met me in real life the first words that would spring to your mind would be "Goth".

Personally, I hate that term but I understand why people use it and wouldn't actually bother correcting anyone unless I was having a conversation with them when it came up. I've also been called a lot of other things like gay, faggor, satanist, freak etc etc... (maily due to my clothing tastes) But Honestly I really couldn't give a shit. If those people aren't going to take the time to pay attention to "me" and not just my apperance then they just ain't worth my words or anger.

There are many ways to consider yourself/someone else a minority, it's not just skin color, as Drac said. Although most do deal with appearence. I have friends who are as 'goth' as anyone could be, but they don't look like it, so they aren't treated as such.

Aside from appearence, religion creates the most minorities. Or at least that's how it is here in this part of the Bible Belt. Believe me, I know. Growing up as an atheist surrounded by all the different varieties of Christians, I've heard every possible argument trying to 'convert' me. And almost everyone is always more than willing to put words in my mouth. And naturally, because I'm Atheist, for some reason I worship the devil, am an Anarchist, and hate everyone. Well, the last part is kinda true
But being a minority sucks, and you rarely have a chance to voice your opinion, much less convince others you know what you're talkng about...

OK, enough ranting for now...

This is a very interesting discussion you guys have going here. I think that the original issue really boils down to what that person is or is not comfortable being called. Some people are pretty lenient, while with others you'll find that it's almost impossible not to offend them.

As for being a minority, I definitely know about that. I've actually been spit at just for being white, although it hasn't gone beyond that physically. Mentally it tends to wear you down, though. Sometimes you just get tired of people staring at you all the time. As for what I like being called, well, I really don't care anymore. Little children on the street point at me and yell out "American!" or "Foreigner!" when I walk by. Sometimes I point at them and say "Korean!"--if I'm in a good mood. Usually I just sigh and keep walking. Not that this has anything to do with the subject, of course. WS's story just made me think of it.


Cell 270

Yes, I was also thinking of you as I typed it...I wanted to see how your 'culture shock' was doing...and some of the things that you have experienced.

Now that you 'know' what it is like being a minority, how has that changed you? And how would you 'explain' what you've experienced to someone who hasn't?

Heh, tough questions. As for my culture shock, I think by this time I'm pretty much through the "shock" stages. The final stage of culture shock is supposed to be assimilation, but I consider that definition to be pretty much academic. I mean, let's face it, as a white guy in a country full of Asians, the degree to which I can assimilate is quite limited.

How has being a minority changed me? Well, I'd have to say I look at other minorities differently now. I grew up with a fairly open mind, and in university I had plenty of friends who belonged to minority groups. I didn't consider them to be any different from me, and despite everything I had learned I had a hard time believing that my friends suffered in any way because they were minorities. You know, it's the type of thing that only happens to someone else, not to you or people you know. I guess for me discrimination was an abstract concept. Now that I am a minority, it has become quite concrete.

There's another thing, and it's going to go against what a lot of people are arguing here. Being a minority, I can now understand why people would want to call themselves African-Americans or Asian-Americans. I know this is going to sound contradictory and hypocritical, considering what I just said above, but I remember a time when I detested "hyphenated American" labels, and I would think to myself, "Well, if they don't want to call themselves American, why don't they just go back to <insert proper land here>?" I don't think I was alone in that, though.

Now, however, I understand the value of one's heritage. I'm somewhat of a mix, being various parts German, Ukranian, English, Dutch, French, and Iroquois. However, I am 100% American, and when I think of my heritage I think of America. Living outside the United States has helped to reinforce this, of course. Now, I can't ever become Korean, but consider my wife, who is 100% Korean. When we first began to consider marriage, we talked a bit about future possibilities. At the time, she nonchalantly said that she would become a US citizen if we ever went back to the States. I asked her if she realized that that meant she would have to give up her Korean citizenship, and she just shrugged and said, "What's the difference. I'm still Korean." And it was at that point that I understood what it meant to be a Korean-American, and why the Korean came first. Incidentally, she has since changed her mind, and now she has no intention of giving up her Korean citizenship. I guess she has watched me through the years and seen how I reacted to being in a foreign environment, and even her citizenship has become something precious to her. I'm not sure if anyone will understand this, but I feel proud of my wife for wanting to keep her citizenship. She has realized how important her heritage really is.

What about our kids, though (when we get around to having them)? What will they be? This is something I have struggled with often. Most probably they will not look like me (ghost-pale white boy), and they will probably not look Korean either. As for citizenship, they will be able to have dual citizenship until the time they are 18, when they will have to choose one or the other. But what will they be? In Korea they will be "mixed-bloods," and probably will be looked upon with at least slight disdain (although attitudes are changing, slowly). In the US, they would most likely fit in better, but they would probably be recognized as "minorities." They, however, would have the one of the few true claims to the title "Korean-American."

The real question here is "What does nationality really mean?" Anyone can become an American, but no one can become a Korean who is not born Korean. Sure, there are foreigners here who have become naturalized Korean citizens, but ask any Korean if they consider these people to be Korean and they will say "No." In this case, ethnicity takes precedence, and is generally implied in nationality. In America--the "great melting pot," as our After School Specials would have it--nationality and ethnicity are unrelated. You could be from anywhere in the world and still be an American. And it is precisely that freedom that drives people to label themselves as hyphenated Americans. They are afraid that their heritage--a vital part of their identity--will be stripped away in the melting pot. It would be naive, of course, to think that everyone who hyphenates themselves has such noble motives. There are those that use race as a political trump card. But that's another story, and not part of my point.

If my wife someday decides that she wants to become an American citizen, I would respect that. But I know that she would not be giving up an ounce of her Korean heritage in the process, and if she wanted to call herself Korean-American, I would honor that. If my future children wanted to call themselves Korean-Americans--even if they never set foot in Korea--I think they would have every right.

Many say that nationality is becoming less and less important in today's world. But I don't think that people will ever fully lose sight of their heritage, no matter how mixed and tumbled various nationalities may become. I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic, but that's my personal take on the matter.

As for your final question, WS--how would I explain this to someone who has never had the experience--well, the above is probably my best shot at that. I think I would have to say, though, that explanation may not be possible. I'm just going from personal experience here, but before I actually experienced it myself, there was no way I could understand it. Perhaps some of you out there possess more wisdom and maturity than I did. Who knows?

Sorry for the long-winded post. I had a feeling WS wasn't going to let me off that easy. He never does.

[Edited for your reading pleasure]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 08-19-2002).]

Thanks for sharing that Sohu. I was kind of the same myself, but I reacted completly differently.

I too thought discrimination was just something that happened to other people untill it happened to me. The first time I really noticed it was actually due to my age. Being a 16 year old engineering cadet in an office or 60+ people when the next youngest person is 24 ain't all that much fun.

This in a way lead me into the sub culture most would label me with now. Which seems rather silly doesn't it? I mean, if I'm already feeling like a minority why go and seperate myself more? I honestly don't know the answer to that one. Maybe I just needed to feel accepted somewhere by people that I considered to be different myself. I think becomming part of that sub culture gave me a corner to back into, but now there were people in that corner with me.

However, this just brought on a whole new level of discrimination. Which I tried to fight off in every way possible, but that never got me anywhere. Eventually I just learned not to give a shit cause it really just didn't matter, and it still doesn't.

"white americans don't know what it's like to be a minority"

Try being a white american in a predominantly black and hispanic inner city neighborhood.

You see how fast the 'oppressed' and 'discriminated against' take to the other side of the coin....

I have at many times feared for my life simply because I am white. Never mind that my situation and prospects were no better (or worse) than the people around me.

--

Tiki - I understand what you are saying completely, but we are really discussing two different topics. I've primarily been talking about what the 'PC' labels have been, and not blatantly derogatory terms.

It's funny how an accpeted label eventually turns into a derogatory......kinda shows how useless and silly the pc labels are.

Eventually, 'african american' will hold the same negativity as 'negro' simply because people will continue to refer to other people in a negative manner...and if they use the 'proper' label negatively, it becomes negative in time.

That also says a lot about human nature. We need to focus more on how people *think* about other people than what label we call them.



{edit - spelling and grammar....}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-20-2002).]

Damn lightning, fried my cable modem...

N-E-Way

Here, Here, DL!

I agree entirely with your statement about the flip side of the coin as you put it. It's hard to live in today's society when being a member of the majority means that you're treated as a minority. It's hard to live when things aren't equal again but in the other direction this time around. Affirmative action has become the bane of the 'majority'. The majority isn't the majority anymore. White people vs any single minority, sure then the white people are the majority. But white people vs ALL of the minorities and suddenly we're at the bottom of the list. It IS hard being a minority. It is equally as difficult being one of the majority. Especially when your government tries to equalize things. Giving benefits to minorities that the majority don't get rather then letting everone excel based on their merits or enforcing the issues for everyone. Equal is Equal. Benefits go to all or none, not one or the other. Rather than creating laws that protect the individual minorities there should be broadband laws that protect everyone. Or in actuality, enforcement of the constitutional right that 'should' be automatic.

Affirmative Action isn't the only issue either. I find that I have difficulty expressing pride in being myself in today's society. (Myself being White, Male, Straight & Wiccan.) I'm not even allowed to express pride in myself publicly. As a result pride marches irritate me. Not because the people involved shouldn't have pride but I am not allowed to publicly express that same pride for any of my, what I consider to be, defining traits. If I wanted to organize a pride march for white americans who are proud that they can get along in society with every other race that is around without being prejudiced or racist against them... I'd get shot. The only area in which I'm allowed to by prideful about myself is the area where I'm considered the minority. As a pagan I gain a great deal of respect for having pride in myself.

Well... that just isn't enough.

I should be able to be a proud White Man without getting hounded for it or threatened for being it. Being the majority isn't really what everyone thinks it is. The 'WAR' for equality is no longer a battle to be equal. It has become a battle for revenge. Probably not consciously, but that IS what it has become. The perpetation of the racial seperation is taking things away from other people just as they were taken away before. This time its in the other direction. The general attitude seems to be that we deserve it. That's bull... It's out and out revenge at that point. Rather the equalizing things the way they should be we're allowing the scales to tip to the other side.

I can see things from both sides of the table depending on what people decide to see me as. Things are granted to me on the side of which I am the minority. And taken away on the side in which I am the majority. I lose far more than I gain. A gain acceptence as being a member of a minority religion and lose the ability to be a proud white american man trying to get by in today's society.

GrythusDraconis

Good points, all. I think it would be safe to say that we have all suffered discrimination at one point or another, whether it be because of our race, religion, sex, age, etc. So, in a way, we all should be able to understand the issues here.

And DL is right, of course--all labels do seem to deteriorate into slurs. One could say that a label is almost inherently derogatory in that it describes a stereotype, preconception, or (at the very best) a broad, general group--not a person. And yes (as DL said), as long as we treat a certain group negatively, any label applied to that group will eventually become negative--but it's not really the label that's negative, it's the thinking.

Right... to quote George Carlin...

"There is nothing wrong with these words(insert long, long list of slurs here) they're just words. it the racist asshole sitting in his scree porch tossing them at people as they walk by that's the problem."

There should be a "Everything I need to know I learned from George Carlin" poster. I actually ahve learned a lot of things from him. Well... less him then his push for me to think about things.


GrythusDraconis

An African-American? IMO someone who has dual citizenship between the United States and an African country.



-Jestah
Cell 277

WS: Yeah, umm... having grown up in Guam for the first developmental 9 years of my life, the complete anti-American/anti-White tones felt there still reverberate through me. Don't get me wrong, I loved the island. Really did. The sun, the beaches, my (few) friends... thems were the good parts. The reverse racism taken to an extreme (nevermind that I was literally the only white kid throughout elementary and middle school) that was less than favorable. The fact that I was the fat white kid... yeah, I'm sure everyone gets the picture.

Though I don't harbor any bad feelings towards the Chamorro culture itself (seriously, anyone here had red rice and lumpia? Holy crap, man... that's good eatin'), just some of the people. Moreover, how they treated me specifically because I was white. I remember an instance of hearing one of my middle school teachers go off on a rant, perhaps "forgetting himself" for a moment and verbally lashing out at how the 'white man destroyed the island'. Needless to say, I didn't do very much for an A in that class. Nor did I have the balls to bring up the fact that we liberated the island from the Japanese in WW2.

But that's neither here nor there.

Purpose of this post?

I think everyone who looks down on another person because of race should experience racism for themselves. Puts things in a better light, in my opinion anyways. Done. Rant over. I'll return to my cell and count the spots on my mumu now...

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

yeah, another problem is the common use of terms like "reverse racism".
No such thing.
This just strives to put whites in an even further bad light, as if whites are the harbinger of all things racist.

Reverse racism, regular racism, racism unleaded... it all sucks.

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

Racism in itself is a stupid concept. How does someone become inferior based upon the colour of their skin? In fact, if anything, those with dark skin are superior to Aryan types in certain ways. The dark skin means that the skin cells contain a large amount of melanin (this is also what gives you freckles), therefore protecting the skin against harmful radiation. That is a good and honest fact. Dark-skinned people are less susceptible to sunburn and skin cancers than white Americans and Europeans. But back to the point, I don't see why the people in the earlier centuries saw people with dark skin as inferior. Are we really so arrogant? When the aliens finally do arrive, will we mock their grey skin or extra eyes? Will we continue to hate each other for stupid reasons?

See the answer right after a word from our sponsers...

quote:

---

Are we really so arrogant?

---

Indeed. And then some. The simple example of racism is but a small trifle in the vast arrogance of white European (and on through American) history.

Just two quick question.

Why is it that in America, 2/3 of the population is white, yet 2/3 of the crimes are commitied by African Americans?

Why is it that in black areas people are killing each other in the streets, and in white areas, people play baseball in the streets?

I have nothing against any one based on color, its just something that has always confused me.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-01-2002).]

A very ignorant question.

In highly congested inner city areas, people commit far higher levels of crime.

It just so happens that in the early -mid parts of this century, those were the only places where blacks could find a home. So you have a higher concentration of blacks in such areas.

Have you ever been to a trailer park? Go visit a few predominately white trailer parks, and I gaurantee you will have a far different view. Or, spend some time around the white populations in the inner cities....or for that matter, visit any group of people who are crowded into small areas and with feable economic conditions.

You will quickly see that it has nothign to do with race, and much to do with circumstances.

I don't know what planet you're on (or which tv channel you get your prespective from...) but I've seen plenty of stickball or street hockey games in the city, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people playing have been black/hispanic/oriental and even the occasional white guy.

I've also seen plenty of drunk beligerant rednecks beating the shit out of people and stabbing/shooting/running over each other.

I could go on for hours I suppose, but hopefully you are beginning to see some sort of pattern and/or a point here.....?

The numbers don't lie and there are reasons for the disparity. None of them are due to race. It might be a very constructive conversation to have. In order to fix problems, it helps to know what is causing them in the first place.

Well, you see, ahh, yea. I just asked a question, you know.

Good answer, DL



On a side note...

You know you've spent too much time on the computer when you spill milk and the first thing you think is, 'edit, undo.'

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-01-2002).]

I guess I just have a big problem with this train of thought -

quote:

---

Why is it that in black areas people are killing each other in the streets, and in white areas, people play baseball in the streets?

---

Where do you get such concepts?

Obviously not from any sort of attentive observation of reality.

Agreed. Nice point, DL.

Maybe someone should spend some time on an indian reservation...

Well, from the news..of course...

But the point is, Black people commit more crimes than white's, there are way more black people in jails than whites, yet there are more white people than Blacks in America. Now you can blame it on circumstances or location, or whatever; but I'm not sure about all of that. I just don't know. I mean we are all from the same planet, there are buses you can take that go anywhere, there are always jobs available. Now, I'm not trying to be rascist or anything like that, its just that it seems like black people, on average, commit more crimes than whites. There is no reason for crime, none. And which ever reasons you proceed to give me, I will still say why? Why do people choose crime and hurting others over getting a real job and working for your money? And why does it seem like the majority of people who commit crimes are blacks? Is it because of the fact that the laws are not fair? Is it because laws are made to get blacks in trouble? I just don't understand... Why are our jails filled of blacks?

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-02-2002).]

I don't have the time or energy to answer this as it needs to be answered. There's a lot to say. But I believe the following two reasons account for much of the problem you cite, GN.

Drug possession laws have filled out jails with far more young black males than is helpful. Rehabilitation makes far more sense for possession offenses.

I said before, the numbers do not lie. But more specifically, young black males represent the majority of offenders. And I believe the primary and by far the most prominent reason for that is the high rate of "fatherlessness" in the black community. We have totally underestimated the importance of fatherhood when it comes to curbing young boys from committing crimes.

Yea, I guess your right Bug's.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how important it was for me to be with my father. When I was younge I was quite a fighter, but my Dad taught me against it. No telling what would of happened if he had not pursuaded me away from that, and I guess if I had lived in an area where guns often solved fights, well...who knows. Anyway, yea... I don't really know where I was going with this to begin with.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

quote:

---

We have totally underestimated the importance of fatherhood when it comes to curbing young boys from committing crimes.

---

As a society we have completely underestimated the importance of fatherhood when it comes to all things. A single mother is bound to fail in my eyes. There are exceptions, however. But the child won't have experienced many of the things that are essential in growing up. (At least in my eyes.) But then the things I'm talking about can also be applied to "whole" families, just not as many. What are these things that I'm talking about children missing out on? Well, punishment for one. Whippings are good. I can't tell you how many times I got knocked around, but in the long run, I'm glad it happened. And don't give me any of this "child abuse" garbage. Child abuse is when you beat on a kid with no proper justification. And you can't just go wailing on him without setting down the rules long before.

But I digress... Actually I forgot what the conversation was about now... Just saw that line and went off

And now, back to your regular scheduled program.

[edit: grammer...]

[This message has been edited by Lord_Fukutoku (edited 10-02-2002).]

Perspective, Gilbert.

You say that as you sit fully able to take advantage of many of the opportunities around you.

While it looks good on paper to say that a young black man in the inner city living in utter squalor has the same opportunities, it simply doesn't work out that way in the real world.

"From the News, of course"

Well, where you get your news makes a huge difference as to how indepth and how accurate the information is.

I just can't fathom how it is that you can't grasp the concept of how much your living conditions, parental conditions, school system quality in your area, the ease of attaining drugs, the ease of attaining weapons, the lack of support, lack of inspiration, can effect the way you live your life.

There is also racism to blame. You can't tell me that there haven't been coutless situations where a black man has been convicted when a white man committing the same act would have been let go.

And again, there is the simple fact that the percentage of blacks to whites in impoverished areas is much higher, and for no better reason than the fact that blacks were pushed into such areas decades ago.

This simple fact is the basis of everything:

look at white areas that are in similar conditions as poor black gettos, and you see white men committing the same crimes as black men.

Put any group of people in the such an environment, and high crime rates will result. PERIOD. Whether or not you feel that anyone would be justified in committing a crime.

Perspective.

Live in fear of being randomly shot through your living room wall.
Live in fear of the drug dealers, muggers, prostitutes and corrupt police who infest your neighbourhood.
Live not knowing a father, as bugimus said. Or, live with a fear of your father because he is a violent alcholic/drug addict.
Live in fear of not having food to eat at any given time, or of not having clothes to wear that fit you, or of your neighbors and peers beating/stabbing/raping/shooting or otherwise harming you on a daily basis, in fear of so many other things that are simply reality where you live, and tell me your views would not change.

Live through that from birth to 18, and tell me you could sit there and say the things you are saying now.

Some still can. Not many. But those ones still say it with a hardness and an understanding and a longing that you don't.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 10-02-2002).]

Thanks DL.

And then try an indian reservation...for a desolatation of the mind, body and soul the likes you have never seen. Where the only thing that reminds one that he/she is alive is the hurt...and even that is barely felt through the numb veil of existence. Aimless existence...full of drugs, violence, alcohol, abuse...repeat. Death is a welcome escape...if you have ever heard of 'indian rulette', then imagine that it actually happens...every day. Unemployment the likes you've never seen. Misery. Sickness. Despair. Horror. Repeat. Every new day...repeat.

Those who actually survive this...madness...are far and few between. The question is, after all that, are they the lucky ones...? Pent up rage, hopelessness, disgust, sadness....dis-jointedness. And then the racism...and the 'glass ceilings'...and being 'put in a box'...man, how I hate that...you know, how indians are depicted, running around slapping their hands to their mouths to make that whooping sound...indians never did that...the sound is made with the tongue...it's just that whites never learned that. Stupidest, most demeaning gesture I've ever seen. And, of course, being lumped into the group...'Oh, you're indian...cool. So like, you guys kicked Custers ass, right?' No, not my tribe...

Now, go live in the Ghetto for a couple of years...after totally ruining your credit rating for life...and run up an impressive criminal record, so that you'll never get a decent job. Nope, you're not allowed to take any money with you. Penniless. Oh, and let someone smack you hard in the head a couple of times to 'dislodge' that education that you have...you're not allowed to see your parents or family again, or friends (to simulate them either being dead, addicted to drugs, in prison, etc). So...we'll see what you become after that...and to what lengths you're willing to go to survive.

Because that's what it is about. The bottom line. Survival. How long can you survive? Don't even worry about tomorrow, you have it hard enough just getting through today. And tonight.

DL-44 your list is good, let me add to it:

Live in a world where your parents don't pay any attention to you- They've already given up on life.

Live knowing you have no hope of ever going to college.

Live in a world where you are not likely to see the age of twenty-one.

Be bombarded with images constantly showing that the measure of your worth is the amount of posessions you have. know that you will never have these things and are therefore worth nothing.

Live in a world where, with the police, your rights are a flexible thing. They would never bounce a white suburban
kid off the hood their.

Live in a place where you can here every scream, fight, and abuse your neighbors fling at each other.
Go to school where the teachers dont care and the books are 10 years old and tattered.




-tiki, cell 478

Any black people on this forum?

We're all African.

Race is a myth.

Yeah, but apparently skin color isn't.

Sad...

Meta - that's another one of those things that sounds great in theory, but doesn't work in the real world.

(not that you can't hold that belief and live that way, but the rest of the world simply does not).

Ummm, yea - DL - I think I agreed with all of that already, but thanks for clarifying.

Ok, I got one...

Try growing up in a white suburb, knowing your whole life that you are going to be a slave to the corporate giant,
sitting behind a desk for 8 hrs a day. Being a worker bee, working for the queen, with no goal in mind.
Constantly bombarded your entire life with fake morals, and a false sense of reality. Living your life behind a mask of lies.

Well, this isn't to bad actually. thanks for the info. guys.

You see, luckily, unlike most people, when I hear something that is true, I change my perspective. So, umm yea. I am glad I grew up in the suburbs, where the only worry was the crazy next door neighbor dog.

Metahedron - Are we all African? - See Below... http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,50896,00.html

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-03-2002).]

Hehe..

Well, I guess that is a bit of an explanation of the problem

No, you didn't agree with "all of that" you agreed with a one line statement from Bugimus about the importance of having a father. That doesn't begin to touch on all the other issues I mentioned.

But if your perspective is sufficiently changed, so be it

However, the fact that your perspective can be so radically changed so easily is obviously a big part of why you so readily believed that the numbers you quoted so obviously spoke of some sort of racial difference as well....

merr... what a thread. I've got so many thoughts floating around on this one, but can't quite manage to conglomerate them all, so I'm doing my best here.

I'm (as noted earlier) mixed, black & white. I've grown up in a variety of different situations: all black neighborhoods, all white neighborhoods, inner city (complete with rats in the backyard, drugs in my own home, and my next-door neighbor being stabbed 17 times on my front lawn), and rural areas (where I was the only mixed kid, and two other black kids attended my school). My mother left my father when I was three, and the last time I saw him was when I was 10. It was a court hearing for child support (much of which he still owes). During that time I've dealt with a heroin-addicted mother, lack of a father figure, often poverty-like conditions (read: not sure if I was going to have dinner that night), among many other things that I'd rather not go into. My mom kicked her heroin addiction six years ago, and almost relapsed last year when her boyfriend died of an OD (they met through NA).

That leaves me rather opinionated on just about everything that's been said here, so I'm just going to kind of relate to everything that's been said (rather than get in a number argument). Mostly I'd like to touch on the fatherless childhood point.

quote:

---

A single mother is bound to fail in my eyes.

---

Not sure who said it, but that's not important of course. I grew up under a single mother, and I must say... she didn't fail (it sounds conceited, but whatever). I've been rather successful (graduated from high school, attending a prestigious university, working for a large auto company) up until this point, and I plan on keeping the same path. She certainly didn't fail in teaching me right from wrong; I'll never touch a single illegal drug for as long as I live (and if they legalize any of the currently illegal drugs, I still won't touch them; my life means too much to me and my future family). IMO it's bullshit to predict a child's "success rate" by whether or not they were raised by a single parent.

Of course, maybe I'm just an exception.

Perhaps tomorrow I'll begin on the striking differences between seeing your future as a "worker bee" and not knowing what the future holds for you, or if you even have one.

Anyway... I'm done.

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 10-04-2002).]

Hey Raptor, nice to see you in the Philosophy area, for a change.

To your post - I certainly know where you are coming from, I am also from a single parent home, I've never known my father. That said (and as a father myself), I do realize what the others are implying. A child from a single parent home, esp. one where only the mother is present, is faced with many more difficulties as a child born into a 'solid, working' family, with both parents. This is naturally because of the economic conditions, and because of the almost impossible task of both earning money, and being both parents in one...i.e. filling both roles for the child in question. It is a rare person, that can accomplish all that. Most fall far short of the mark...not because they are bad, or do not want to be a good parent, but because they are hopelessly overwhelmed by the situation. That, and dealing with the entire emotional part of it, as well.

So, yes, I do think you are an exception to the rule...but answer me this - have you not had to work twice as hard as the others, to be 'normal'? Do you not 'drag around' emotional baggage from your childhood, that others do not? Were you 'forced' to grow up earlier than others, because of your childhood experiences? If you can say yes to one (or more) of these questions, then you can consider yourself a person coming from a dysfunctional family (the 'formal' term for it). I am. I know this. I have worked very hard on myself to compensate for it. You see, much of this 'emotional baggage' is hard-wired...because it happened at a time when your brain was still growing, making connections. Realizing this helps, but still, often I find myself reacting to a situation in a way I don't like...because of this (for example, I can become very aggressive for little reason, and tend to become obsessive). Also, I have noticed that I 'fall in love' with the wrong women...women that are bad for me. I had to re-learn what love truly is, and re-train myself in this regard. Abuse is not love, but my 'hard-wired' brain thought it was...took me a long time to realize and acknowledge this. Took even a longer amount of time to re-train myself.

So even though I love my mother, and have great respect for her, and what she went through for us children, I also recognize (and we've talked about this together many times), that yes, she did the best that she could, under the circumstances...but...it wasn't the best possible upbringing...or anything near it. I can distinctly remember being locked in a closet for three days, because one of my mother's boyfriends were beating the s**t out of my mother, and then wanted to do me in. My mother 'sacrificed' her own body for mine...and traumatized me in that closet, so that I would live, survive. Though I have long forgiven her for that, the experience remains 'hard-wired' into my brain. For the longest time in my life, I viewed all men as enemies...deadly ones. The mere physical presence of a man would set off my alarm bells, invoking an aggressive reaction from me. Adrenaline would race through my body, my 'fight-or-flight' mechanisms were activated. I nearly ended up killing one of my mothers later boyfriends with a knife when I was 16 because of such...though he dearly deserved it, the bastard. I rarely had male friends. In sport, I was way over aggressive. I would pick fights in school with the biggest guy, over nothing. It took me a very long time to get this thing under control. Almost 30 years. I'm still dealing with it today.

Of course, there are other things that I got out of my 'upbringing' that are advantages, if used and perceived correctly. I have a very strong will, and can drive myself onwards under the most extreme of conditions. Actually, I function best under extreme situations (being that such is what is 'normal' for me...because of my childhood). I have a very high tolerence for stress, and violence, meaning I can rationally think under such circumstances, and react accordingly. I don't give up easily (in fact, I don't give up...can't ever remember actually doing so...it's also one of my greatest weaknesses...). Because of the many 'strange' and different experiences in my childhood, and the almost total lack of parental control over me combined with the different environments that I lived in (big city, medium city, small town, wilderness, indian reservation, ghetto, 'rich area'), I have learned to approach problems from many different directions at once, seeing it from many different perspectives. I learn fast, am flexible, and adapt rapidly to new situations. I am a great survivor. I tend to think (and plan) over a long timespan. I evaluate myself and my experiences on a regular basis. I think alot, and can enjoy long periods of solitude without problem. Many these days think of me as 'easy going' or 'relaxed', because I don't seem to react to every little crisis that comes around the corner. Most of these 'little crisises' I have faced many times, and know the solution and can recognize the pattern of the crisis. I have great person identifying skills, though I tend to wait to see if my suspicions prove to be real.

So, plus and minuses...yes. However, it took me a long time to get where I am now...and much pain, and sacrifice. I applaud that you seem to be doing well, despite what you have been through. Kudos.

Please forgive my ramblings here. Your post brought back a lot of old memories...

And so therfore, the circle of life continues to spin. And there is no hard facts on anything. Some people can survive without both parents, some can't. It's just a matter of personal strenght. Which goes along with my theory on souls. Some people are old souls, and are strong willed and determined to survive. But since there are so many people being born, most people these days are new souls. When they are born, they have a brand spanking new soul, which has never experienced anything. So therefore without any guidance from a parental figure, they fail. But Webshaman and Raptor have survived and succeded. Perhaps due to their advanced soul...

Oh yea - DL-44 - thanks for the graciously put comments. And the reason I had those opinions was because I never discussed it with people in the Asylum, only my father, who is rather rascist.

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-04-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-04-2002).]