what's wrong with 'black'?

[suzanne]

Re: I've always wondered...

I was thinking about this the other day as I drove past the one billionth Mexican restaurant here in town.

How can you authentically package a culture besides relying on the stereotypes and the faithful stand-by ideas of what Mexico should be like?

You can't. All you do is present an idealized version of what feels Mexican to create an atmosphere that feels appropriate for the food.

So, before anyone complains about the use of "what shall we call them" questions, just remember how much is pretty much left unspoken.

 

[Geoff Wode]

Songs For Deaf Lovers

Today, I'm a delicate shade of beige ...

 

[constantin constantius]

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

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

> Sheila

i'm sorry if i give that impression. i just dislike the american strain of liberalism, which is following in the footsteps of those other two grand narratives - communism and fascism - in becoming a tyranny. american liberalism is becoming more and more prevalent over in england, and at times i feel that the people who expound this form of liberalism would "fell more ashamed at singing the national anthem than mugging old women"; and by the way, if you think i am exaggerating again it was george orwell who said that.

if you want to know what real liberalism is then read orwell. he represented all that is good about it, and he would have fougth against it's modern form with all the strength and energy he could muster.

 

[Sheila Take a Bow]

Wells

> if you want to know what real liberalism is then read orwell. he
> represented all that is good about it, and he would have fougth
> against it's modern form with all the strength and energy he
> could muster.

I've read everything he's ever put out.

Thank you for the explanation though, I didn't want to misread you.

Sheila

 

[asleep]

Re: what's right with 'white'?

> I once had an American Indian tell me he hates "Native
> American."

In Canada they like being called First Nations or Aboriginals.

 

[terminated]

Re: Wells?

Don't listen to H. G. Wells. He was a proto-fascist.

 

[silly cow]

Re: Wells?

> Don't listen to H. G. Wells. He was a proto-fascist.

all well's that ends well, good nigth.

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: Simple isn't simple

> 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.

like what?

 

[Someone with a Big Nose]

We Learn our ABC's

> like what?

Exactly. There is no "word" to use. If you're going to describe someone, USE an actual description.

If someone has dark-dark-black skin, describe them as such. If someone has tan-but-light-skin, describe them as such. If someone has medium-dark-skin, describe them as such. I won't go on unless you NEED me to.

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: We Learn our ABC's

> Exactly. There is no "word" to use. If you're going to
> describe someone, USE an actual description.

> If someone has dark-dark-black skin, describe them as such. If
> someone has tan-but-light-skin, describe them as such. If
> someone has medium-dark-skin, describe them as such. I won't go
> on unless you NEED me to.

all this politically correct rubbish is really just dirty-mindedness.
i see no problem calling a black man,black or all black men black - whether they be of dark-skined or medium-dark-skined - but when we say all black men are muggers,then,obviously, that is wrong. i think we just have to use our language more responsibly.

but too many people find offence in our language where none is present or intended. any words that can be seen to have racsist, sexist, heigthist,fattist( i could go on and on) conotations must be banned, and many people do want to ban or change a vast amounts of our language. but it is only THEY who offence in a word; i mean,what wrong with black-board for god sake! nothing. but they seem to think so.

instead of cleaning out half of the english langauge from our dictionary,it is really those dirty-mineded people who need their minds cleaning out.

why don't we just go the whole hog and dispense with all our vocabulary except for a one noun and a few conjuctions, and then nobody can take offence, and we can sure of defining everybody the same.

for example, hi there cabbage, where you off to - i'm off to the cabbage to pick up some cabbages- o, and how's your cabbage by the way - shes fine, apart from her cabbages. yes thoses cabbages are nasty things, many cabbages get them...

nobody could take offence with that ,could they. but would'nt the english become impovrished if we started to reject parts of our language simply because a few people took offence.

 

[Someone with a Big Nose]

Now I've learned my ABC's

> all this politically correct rubbish is really just
> dirty-mindedness.
> i see no problem calling a black man,black or all black men
> black - whether they be of dark-skined or medium-dark-skined -
> but when we say all black men are muggers,then,obviously, that
> is wrong. i think we just have to use our language more
> responsibly.

ACTUALLY, the VERY SIMPLE main point, which you seemed to miss, is that if you're going to label someone with a word to describe their skin color then you should use an ACTUAL decription.

Regardless of the racist few, negative connotations exist in society in terms of race. And, continuing to use the very words that put those connations into place is a very pacifist way to live. I'm glad that most choose not to today. But, I'll refrain from going off on an extreme tangent like you do.

The point that I made, is short and sweet, and best illustrated with a question....So, what do you call a man who looks "black" but isn't (culturally)? If you want to term "black" as a culture itself, then it's unfair to the person if you lump him into it. And, don't tell me that you can spot all cultures and distinguish between them at a glance. THEREFORE, if you're going to make a description call on someone without knowing their background .....(everyone) USE A REAL DESCRIPTION.

(claps) Now wasn't that fun. Way to go kids.

 

[Connor O'Raffety]

We are all equal

Erm, this is related to the discussion, but on a tangent to it. You know, it always strikes me as odd that we're told that skin colour is irrelevant, we're all the same underneath, black or white, yellow or polka dotted - which is basically true. But I can't help thinking that all the ethnic associations that exist (you know, like Black Groups in the police force etc) actually have a divisive influence on their white colleagues. Imagine the uproar if some people founded a "Whites-only" group to give each other mutual support and discuss "White" issues? Christ, there'd be riots. Yet we're all the same, or so we're told. Some people are more equal than other huh?

 

[Lucretia]

Re: The white group IS the police force!!!

> Imagine the
> uproar if some people founded a "Whites-only" group to
> give each other mutual support and discuss "White"
> issues? Christ, there'd be riots. Yet we're all the same, or so
> we're told. Some people are more equal than other huh?

These already exist what do you think the ethnic groups need to group against?! Truth = most institutions in society, ie, schools, police, hospitals, courts, churches are white middle class and male. (yes it is the year 2000, but no it doesn't seem to have changed anyone round anywhere!)

So, certainly in Britain, there are your "black groups" but the white group is just called "The police force" The "black groups" is a round about way of saying the "non-white group". It is white middle class patriarchal society with it's rigid structures itself that creates this situation of "otherness"

And on a slightly different note, what niggles me, is that in a situation where a black persons colour is pointed out, in the same situation that persons white counterpart's skin definition would most likely not be remarked upon. It's one of the first things people seem to point out about "non-whites" that they are "non white"!

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: Now I've learned my ABC's

> ACTUALLY, the VERY SIMPLE main point, which you seemed to miss,
> is that if you're going to label someone with a word to describe
> their skin color then you should use an ACTUAL decription.

> Regardless of the racist few, negative connotations exist in
> society in terms of race. And, continuing to use the very words
> that put those connations into place is a very pacifist way to
> live. I'm glad that most choose not to today. But, I'll refrain
> from going off on an extreme tangent like you do.

> The point that I made, is short and sweet, and best illustrated
> with a question....So, what do you call a man who looks
> "black" but isn't (culturally)? If you want to term
> "black" as a culture itself, then it's unfair to the
> person if you lump him into it. And, don't tell me that you can
> spot all cultures and distinguish between them at a glance.
> THEREFORE, if you're going to make a description call on someone
> without knowing their background .....(everyone) USE A REAL
> DESCRIPTION.

we all see the world in ideas and images, and what is language but ideas, and it is impossible to compeletly do away with the categorisation of people, animals and objects. just try it and you'll see what i mean.

under your ideas it would be impossible to categorise anything. to use an actual description you would have to meet an actual person. if i wanted to refer to the french people,for instance, i would have to meet sixty million actual people and try to find a common trait in them and then, and only then, could i describe the french people; it would be impossible. surly i could describe the french as being french, as speaking the french language - their may be different accents and dialects amongst it - but it would still be legitimte to refer to it as the french language. but it would be illegitimate to describe the french as garlic smelling wine drinkers,and then lumping sixty million people under that concept; that would be a false categorisation. so surely refering to black people as black is a true categoristion. black people seem to have very little problem with it. i'm sure most of them if asked, would say they are proud to be black.

as i said in a earlier post, we have to use language responsibly and when categorising things, especially people, we must do it carefully.

for a good example of false categorising read lucretia's post to this thread: it is idealogically loaded and prejudiced.

 

[Lucretia]

Re: Apparently you have not done so well enough.

> for a good example of false categorising read lucretia's post to
> this thread: it is idealogically loaded and prejudiced.

It's not a statement of fact snapneck it's an observation you big hoonie. See I speak in reference to the actual real world not some written down, wishy washy, post this, post that, theory mad, over enthusiastic, over confident, poly students notebook.

And look, netiquette taken into consideration, the odd typo taken to count, your spelling and grammar would STILL make an illeterate hooker feel ashamed!

You are trying too hard you touchy feely misfit...Now fug off, your oppinions have no worth, and your comprehension skills are lacking.

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: Apparently you have not done so well enough.

if you ever wanted to know how a crass and vulgar little mind works, read lucretia's last post to this thread.

 

[Someone with a Big Nose]

Ok, the song is over, just stop singing

> under your ideas it would be impossible to categorise anything.
> to use an actual (snipping the rest)

I gave you a way to describe how a person looks on the outside, rather than include them unessarially into someone else's culture. THAT IS ALL. DO NOT PUT YOUR OWN AGENDAS INTO WHAT I AM SAYING.

If you want to go on and on about whatever feel free to do it. But, do not do it in attachment with my posts. Because I am neither saying, nor alluding to anything of the sort.

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: Apparently you have not done so well enough.

if anyone wants to know what a crass and vulgar little mind works like, read lucretin's last post to this thread.

 

[Cinderella]

Drink, Drink, Drink...and die of alcoholic poisoning tonight.

Hahah! Over an hour and that is the best you can do? (You hairy pie) Do you know the last thing I saw that was less appealing than you was a bucket of tripe, only that was slightly more intelligent and had better lines.

I'd love to meet you...in a dark place, tooled up, when you woke up you'd be in a coma! (ha, that makes about as much sense as one of yours, pft!)

Just so we're all nice and clear on this you do realise what a blithering twat you are, don't you, poontang?! Still there's nothing wrong with you a nice little labotomy can't sort out.

Go get with a fat girl so you can slap her and ride the waves, urrrrghghgh...You're ideas are embarrasing and you deserve a good slap.

I'll see you in the ministry of love. The only way I can imagine anyone gaining pleasure from touching you would be whilst thumb shutting your eyes.

You are pathetic. Give up.

 

[mozpistol]

Re: I've always wondered...why everybody needs good neighbours

> Wow !!!... This is a Moz Moz world (LOL). Dearest Mozpistol
> (silly, isn't it?) ... You should save your energies to do
> something more constructive, and you should know that a sentence
> is just a sentence, nothing but a sentence. If you want to say
> something, just be polite and beware with this vulgar language.
> ... BANG BANG.

skippy the bush kangaroo made more sense than this