what's wrong with 'black'?

C

constantin constantius

Guest
Re: I've always wondered...

> GREAT, SUZANNE !!! GOOD QUESTION. CAN ANYBODY ENLIGHTEN US
> ??????

well, it all depends on how you are asking the question to. for example, if you are asking a nihilist, he would probbly say, i don't give a @#!!!. if you were asking a racialist,he would say, to be british,to be defined as british you must be have white skin;if you don't, then you can call yourself anything you wish - as long as it's not british. a liberal would say any race or any culture can be considered british. but that would mean this whole debate is meaningless, because if anything and everything can be british then britain is an empty shell, a nothing.

most of us define britishness in our own way (it all seems rather arbitary). some may take it from race; some from the english language and litrature; some from the the country's political and social institutions; some from take it from sport. and how we define other people, cultures and nations depends on how we define ourselfs.
 
M

Monet De' Blanche

Guest
If you cannot understand this, then there is nothing more to say

> a liberal would say any race
> or any culture can be considered british. but that would mean
> this whole debate is meaningless, because if anything and
> everything can be british then britain is an empty shell, a
> nothing.

Rather than take the extreme stance, as you have, I MUST point out that without race limitations "British" would be the equivilant of the world national standards. Just as THE REST OF THE WORLD attributes a national name to varoius races of people that live in that country (ie Irish-Iirish citizen, American-Amrican citizen, etc.) so to will Britian. Rather than being "an empty shell" as you so dramatically illustrated, it would just be an actual nation. A real country, in which it's people would labeled "British" (since they are British citizens.)

The only problem in understanding this equation is the fact that there are still so many insecure racist people left in Britain (and in the world), and who cling to their blood (which has itself been tainted for CENTURIES, ie the Vikings, the welch, etc.) for dear life.

Well, it's time to grow up. You can't use national titles to futher racial seperation anymore. Feel free to pout, and stomp your feet in relation to change (in the typical Northern way). But, the world is moving on in the meantime without you.
 
S

suzanne

Guest
i was only half right

> Strange thing about that is unless there is more than one John
> Singleton he's not English.

You mean there is a British Harlem?
 
S

somnium

Guest
Re: I've always wondered...

> well, it all depends on how you are asking the question to. for
> example, if you are asking a nihilist, he would probbly say, i
> don't give a @#!!! . if you were asking a racialist,he would
> say, to be british,to be defined as british you must be have
> white skin;if you don't, then you can call yourself anything you
> wish - as long as it's not british. a liberal would say any race
> or any culture can be considered british. but that would mean
> this whole debate is meaningless, because if anything and
> everything can be british then britain is an empty shell, a
> nothing.

> most of us define britishness in our own way (it all seems
> rather arbitary). some may take it from race; some from the
> english language and litrature; some from the the country's
> political and social institutions; some from take it from sport.

GOOD ARGUMENTS, BUT I WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT A KIND OF RACIST BAD HORRIBLE CRUEL MORRISSEY... I'M NOT TELLING THAT OUR DEAR MORRISSEY IS THAT, BUT HE'S OFTEN SO SENSITIVE, AND I WOULD HATE TO THINK THAT HE SIMPLY IS NOT ABLE TO RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND DIFFERENT KIND OF PEOPLE WHO LOVE HIM. IN FACT, I HAVE SAW THAT "HULMERIST" VIDEO AND THERE I HAVE FOUND YOUNG PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT RACES, SAYING: "MORRISSEY IS AMAZING"... THAT'S ALL, AND THANKS FOR YOUR KIND EXPLANATION..... OK?
.
.
.
> and how we define other people, cultures and nations depends on
> how we define ourselfs.
 
P

Pope Of Mope

Guest
Re: i was only half right

> You mean there is a British Harlem?

Possibly parts of Brixton
 
L

LoafingOaf

Guest
Re: what's right with 'white'?

> What's wrong with calling everyone either Duncan, Clifford, Bob
> and/or Mary.

> But on a more serious note, I don't think the problem lies
> within the actual words themselves it is the why and how they
> become defining characteristics and the context and instances in
> which they become predomimantly used.

> For instance White is very often in many situations taken as
> being the norm, it is rare for a white person to state they are
> so, where as black is used more frequently, and I feel in many
> cases making the distinction that someone is black or asian or
> whatever is actually a euphemism for "not white" or
> other, not the norm etc...

I notice this kind of thing a lot. About a year ago I was reading the local rag, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and in the Sports section they mentioned a new person hired to the front office of the Browns football team. Do you know what the headline was? This is not a lie: "Black hired by Browns." That seemed so racist to me I'll never forget it. And this was just a little over a year ago! In a major daily newspaper! Ever since then I've noticed how many articles do that for no real reason. Sometimes it's relevant, but usually it's not.

> So as I have said it's not that using the terms black and white
> are offensive it is how and why they are, sadly, frequently
> used.

I think it's just a matter of having enough respect for others to let them let you know what they wanna be referred to as. Know what I mean? There's nothing wrong with using "black," but if someone wants me to use African-American, why wouldn't I comply?

I once had an American Indian tell me he hates "Native American." It's hard to keep up on it all, ya know?
 
C

Cinderelli

Guest
Re: what's right with 'white'?

Yeah, I hear ya...I think though, that the main issue is that in many cases where a distinction is made, there is no need for one to be made, no?!

I always think of it in terms of other species, take cats for instance, you don't differentiate between the tabbies or the grey ones, you wouldn't call the black and white ones half cast, basically because that would just be crazy!!!

And if you think about it, at the end of the day, none of us is black or white but rather differing shades of brown!

But when did racists ever hold rational arguments?!
 
R

Ralph McTell

Guest
Ralph Responds

> I think the Bonzo Dog Band summed it up perfectly with their
> song "Can Blue Men Sing the Whites?".

I agree. Funnily enough I've just covered the track on my forthcoming album, It's My Life So Please Don't Say It's Not.

Available soon fans...
 
S

Sheila Take a Bow

Guest
The Cincinnati Reds

> I once had an American Indian tell me he hates "Native
> American." It's hard to keep up on it all, ya know?

I can speak on this point...= )

"Indian" is a bad term to use. You wouldn't want to choose that word to use around most Native Americans. Yes, (Native American) that's also a semi bad word. The best thing to do is just to plainly ask what tribe they affilate with, and use that name at all times.

The reasoning for the negatives of "Indian," is that Native Americans were NEVER "Indians." It's soley a term that the collonists used for all tribes living in the states. Because, they assumed that when they hit land....they were in 'India'. Big suprise, they were not. And, the people living here already had names for themselves. So, the best (most respectful, if you care to) thing to do in this case is to ask the tribe name, and use it.

If you're making a statment about a grouping of people, you should at least be informed enough to know who youre talking about, if not it's most likely not a good idea to say it (ie. Those Native Americans, those whites, those blacks...all are not really wise/copout generalizations to make in the first place).

~a Bit of thought~
 
C

Cinderelli

Guest
Re: The Cincinnati Reds

> I can speak on this point...= )

> "Indian" is a bad term to use. You wouldn't want to
> choose that word to use around most Native Americans. Yes,
> (Native American) that's also a semi bad word. The best thing to
> do is just to plainly ask what tribe they affilate with, and use
> that name at all times.

> The reasoning for the negatives of "Indian," is that
> Native Americans were NEVER "Indians." It's soley a
> term that the collonists used for all tribes living in the
> states. Because, they assumed that when they hit land....they
> were in 'India'. Big suprise, they were not. And, the people
> living here already had names for themselves. So, the best (most
> respectful, if you care to) thing to do in this case is to ask
> the tribe name, and use it.

> If you're making a statment about a grouping of people, you
> should at least be informed enough to know who youre talking
> about, if not it's most likely not a good idea to say it (ie.
> Those Native Americans, those whites, those blacks...all are not
> really wise/copout generalizations to make in the first place).

Just an add on to your point here...the best thing to say would be "that group of people" Hey it works for me!

> ~a Bit of thought~
 
C

constantin constantius

Guest
Re: If you cannot understand this, then there is nothing more to say

> Rather than take the extreme stance, as you have, I MUST point
> out that without race limitations "British" would be
> the equivilant of the world national standards. Just as THE REST
> OF THE WORLD attributes a national name to varoius races of
> people that live in that country (ie Irish-Iirish citizen,
> American-Amrican citizen, etc.) so to will Britian. Rather than
> being "an empty shell" as you so dramatically
> illustrated, it would just be an actual nation. A real country,
> in which it's people would labeled "British" (since
> they are British citizens.)

yes, that's my point, britain would become nothing more than a label; it would have no coherent content.

> The only problem in understanding this equation is the fact that
> there are still so many insecure racist people left in Britain
> (and in the world), and who cling to their blood (which has
> itself been tainted for CENTURIES, ie the Vikings, the welch,
> etc.) for dear life.

i don't no if you were branding me a racist there? but it is tyipical of the hysterical responses one hears from liberals when anyone brings up the question of race, and which says nothing of about me, but everything about yourself.

by the way, in germany you can't become a citizen unless you have german blood in you.

> Well, it's time to grow up. You can't use national titles to
> futher racial seperation anymore. Feel free to pout, and stomp
> your feet in relation to change (in the typical Northern way).
> But, the world is moving on in the meantime without you.

yes, lets all change;let all face this brave new world of ours;lets all follow progress. but to where, my dear: to the hemogeney and standardization of all cultures and races - even maybe all languages. lets embrace liberal capitilism and the mcdonaldization of the world. lets just develop over this country until it becomes nothing more than a concrete slap. yes my dear,what a wonderfull future we all have to look forward to.
 
C

Cinderelli

Guest
Re: We look to Brussels for the laws that we use...

> Rather than take the extreme stance, as you have, I MUST point
> out that without race limitations "British" would be
> the equivilant of the world national standards. Just as THE REST
> OF THE WORLD attributes a national name to varoius races of
> people that live in that country (ie Irish-Iirish citizen,
> American-Amrican citizen, etc.) so to will Britian. Rather than
> being "an empty shell" as you so dramatically
> illustrated, it would just be an actual nation. A real country,
> in which it's people would labeled "British" (since
> they are British citizens.)

> The only problem in understanding this equation is the fact that
> there are still so many insecure racist people left in Britain
> (and in the world), and who cling to their blood (which has
> itself been tainted for CENTURIES, ie the Vikings, the welch,
> etc.) for dear life.

You could say tainted, or you could say widened the gene pool and stopped it shrinking away down and down and down - like a cess pool in a drout until people with only ten fingers were but a distant memory in the minds of geriatrics...Diversity is good, small gene pools breed abnormalities.

The British, are arrogant and silly and need to realise the empire is long gone and we are infact european!

> Well, it's time to grow up. You can't use national titles to
> futher racial seperation anymore. Feel free to pout, and stomp
> your feet in relation to change (in the typical Northern way).
> But, the world is moving on in the meantime without you.
 
M

Monet De' Blanche

Guest
Let us all band together to preserve our precious British blood from ambitious outsiders

> i don't no if you were branding me a racist there? but it is
> tyipical of the hysterical responses one hears from liberals
> when anyone brings up the question of race, and which says
> nothing of about me, but everything about yourself.

No, actually the stament speaks for itself. Feel free to read it as is (without your inserting your own words).

> but to where, my dear: to the
> hemogeney and standardization of all cultures and races - even
> maybe all languages.

Yet again pulling in an EXTREME example. How nice. You're good at that.

>lets embrace liberal capitilism and the
> mcdonaldization of the world. lets just develop over this
> country until it becomes nothing more than a concrete slap.

Countries have changed, and cultures have changed for centuries, and even still they have yet to be "concrete" today. We need not hold up in a castle in the north and fight against it. Just because a culture changes it does not imply that it becomes "empty" as you state again and again.

>yes
> my dear,what a wonderfull future we all have to look forward to.

Well, if change is something that threatens you (which it obviously does) then it will be a terrible future for you.
 
S

Sheila Take a Bow

Guest
Re: If you cannot understand this, then there is nothing more to say

>it is
> tyipical of the hysterical responses one hears from liberals
> when

You are typecasting. And, I hope that you weren't intending to do that. = (

Sheila
 
C

constantin constantius

Guest
Re: If you cannot understand this, then there is nothing more to say

> The only problem in understanding this equation is the fact that
> there are still so many insecure racist people left in Britain
> (and in the world), and who cling to their blood (which has
> itself been tainted for CENTURIES, ie the Vikings, the welch,
> etc.) for dear life.

did the ancient britons welcome the vikings with open arms - no!did they say: "we must be inclusive, we must welcome all forigners "- no! all major changes to this country - or any country - has been by imposition. whether through warfare,conquest, state terrorisim, or just the elits imposing their ideas of whats the rigth way for us to live our lives. and let me ask you a question: where the people asked if they wanted to live in a multi-cultural country -no! again it was by imposition.

> Well, it's time to grow up. You can't use national titles to
> futher racial seperation anymore. Feel free to pout, and stomp
> your feet in relation to change (in the typical Northern way).
> But, the world is moving on in the meantime without you.

you racist, fasict thug! how dare you brand and define me and millions of other northerners under a single image. do you not realize that we are all individuals and human beings. how can you caterogise the whole of the north like that. maybe if you just related yourself to your own ideas you migth not of contradicted yourself, and maybe,just maybe, you migth be a little more tolerant of people with differing views to your own.
 
T

The Gifted Children

Guest
What's Left of Labour?

> Yeah, I hear ya...I think though, that the main issue is that in
> many cases where a distinction is made, there is no need for one
> to be made, no?!

I think that the term "black" is descriptive, but people tend to view use of the word with suspicion, which is very unfair. For example, if you were asked to describe somebody, you'd say they had ginger hair, brown eyes, one leg etc. It's surely not wrong to be able to say they were black, yellow, swarthy etc without having the Racist Thought Police dragging you away in chains...
 
S

Someone with a Big Nose

Guest
Pot meet Kettle

> you racist, fasict thug! how dare you brand and define me and
> millions of other northerners under a single image.

You've done this just as much as he has. Re-read your own posts.

do you not
> realize that we are all individuals and human beings. how can
> you caterogise the whole of the north like that. maybe if you
> just related yourself to your own ideas you migth not of
> contradicted yourself, and maybe,just maybe, you migth be a
> little more tolerant of people with differing views to your own.

Re-read your own posts. Follow your advice.
 
S

Someone with a Big Nose

Guest
Simple isn't simple

> I think that the term "black" is descriptive

It's too general. Is black dark-dark skin, or medium-dark skin, or light-more-tan skin? If you're using it as a description, it's best to find a better one instead.
 
S

somnium

Guest
Re: The Cincinnati Reds

> I can speak on this point...= )

> "Indian" is a bad term to use. You wouldn't want to
> choose that word to use around most Native Americans. Yes,
> (Native American) that's also a semi bad word. The best thing to
> do is just to plainly ask what tribe they affilate with, and use
> that name at all times.

> The reasoning for the negatives of "Indian," is that
> Native Americans were NEVER "Indians." It's soley a
> term that the collonists used for all tribes living in the
> states. Because, they assumed that when they hit land....they
> were in 'India'. Big suprise, they were not. And, the people
> living here already had names for themselves. So, the best (most
> respectful, if you care to) thing to do in this case is to ask

It seems that you are all so concerned about calling people black, white, indian or whatever, and you have lots of brilliant theories, but we are talking about it just because Morrissey said something. Well, USA is a place full of different races, faces... I have read that an african immigrant was killed by 15 police men in New York, with NO REASON. Yes, I said 15 !!!!!!!! How can anybody accept this outrageous??? On tv I did watch an interview where they did mention latin people as "lazy people". Angry and violence all around. I just think that the only way to live in a civilized and better world, is giveing a chance and respecting people for what they really are. For their honesty, kindness and many other things. Who cares about "british blood" stuff or whatever?? The world is getting worst day by day, and the violence against immigrants makes me shoked. The races are mixeing day by day, and if you don't like this idea, just kill yourself, cause there is no place for you anymore. If Morrissey said that he could not call people like this or that, at least he is concerned about the subject, and it makes me glad, cause he simply could say nothing, if he would not care. But I still would like to hear his opinion about racism... and I mean HIS opinion.
> the tribe name, and use it.

> If you're making a statment about a grouping of people, you
> should at least be informed enough to know who youre talking
> about, if not it's most likely not a good idea to say it (ie.
> Those Native Americans, those whites, those blacks...all are not
> really wise/copout generalizations to make in the first place).

> ~a Bit of thought~
 
Top Bottom