Newly minted AG Eric Holder, in a speech that must have had his boss banging his head against a wall in the White House residence, declared:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He went on to say, “Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”
Oh, don’t “we?”
I was always under the impression that talk was cheap. Having a black president and a black attorney general, I would have thought, counts a good deal more than talking. To quote another cliche: Actions speak louder than words.
I would concede the notion that there is a certain, shall we say, tentativeness when it comes to discussing deeper issues of prejudice. However, I am moved to ask:
Whose fault is that?
I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs? The word “ņìggárdlÿ,” the utterance of which in a private staff meeting resulted in a mayoral aide in Washington, D.C. being forced to resign? What about off-hand jokes by radio personalities that wind up getting them fired from their gig no matter how much they endeavor to apologize for it? How about rioters in LA who express their dissatisfaction with what they see as racism by smashing into local electronics stores and stealing televisions and air conditioners? How about everyone from the ubiquitous Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–to the National Association of Black Journalists (were there an Association of White Journalists, such an entity would be declared racist by its very existence) declaring that the only possible interpretation of a NY Post cartoon was one that had racist overtones?
The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order. Under the current atmosphere, who would WANT to discuss racism? Well…Barack Obama did, back when he gave that superb speech about Rev. Wright. I don’t recall whites rioting over it. I don’t recall whites going on TV in droves and screaming for censure. My recollection is that it was a major turning point for white voters to assess Eric Holder’s future boss and deciding that they liked what they saw.
If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice? Or is that just a reasoned response to an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency? And by the way, not for nothing, but when did an attorney general become an “average American?”
PAD
• 
Ðámņ, I just realized that I labeled what should have been 4 as 6… stupid typos! Ðámņ you, Red Kryptonite! Ðámņ you to hëll!
PAD,
Ok, and I mean this in all honesty, did I die and wake up in an alternate reality? I can’t find a single thing I disagree with in your entire post.
I know. I shouldn’t say anything. I am probably like Al Sharpton — if we agree, you must rethink your position! 🙂
There is no doubt racism is alive and well. But for all of my issues with Obama, I was genuinely thrilled to see our nation elect a Black president. It would be nice to celebrate how far we really have come. I think that would take us farther down the road to true equality than someone calling other “cowards.”
Iowa Jim
You wanna know the funniest thing about the whole “African-American” label? Lots of blacks hate it.
I’ve mentioned this before in threads so I know I’m not alone in this, but I have numerous black friends who absolutely hate the tag. I have a couple of friends that have to be a census takers nightmare because they’re very visibly and undeniably black but always check “Other” on forms that ask for race. Why? Because they’ll tell you point blank that they’re not the least bit African. They don’t know any of the languages, wouldn’t be able to find any specific location in Africa on a map without a great deal of help and couldn’t tell you what’s going on over there beyond what’s being carried on the 6:30 news. They’re Americans who just happen to be black. They’re not, as they will very pointedly tell you, African-American.
Hëll, I knew one guy who really hated that label. He was black and got tagged as African-American all the time. He was born in Jamaica. That’s kind of the problem with this PC quest to create a label like that. You can have blacks in America who don’t consider their lineage to be African because their closest non-American ancestors, or even they themselves, were not African by birth or heritage.
The second funniest thing to me about the whole “African-American” label? The people I’ve come across who are the most militant/rude about insisting that they are African-American or will tell you that they’re “from Africa” when you ask them where they’re from are humorously often the people that have the least knowledge about Africa.
We had a class cultural awareness for the African-American community that, as a job requirement, I had to take. The instructor was black. She started the class in a way that kinda caught me off guard. She asked the black officers in the room (about 12 which was a little under the total number of officers in the class) to raise their hands if they strongly considered themselves African-American. About eight or nine did. She then asked those who did a series of questions. She asked them to name three African languages, three prominent African religions, three prominent cultural identities in Africa, three etc, etc, etc. She asked something like ten questions in all. Not one person who raised their hand could answer a single question. And that wasn’t an isolated example as I’ve seen other people pull that trick before. Rare is the time when someone can actually answer the questions.
Richard J. Marcej: “Or how about former NFL kicker Gary Anderson? He’s Caucasian, but he was born and grew up in Africa. If we are to properly describe him with a term, wouldn’t he, a man born in Africa and then moved/lives in America be correctly called African-American?”
Yeah, that’s a good one. I noticed as well that the Lenny Henry question got an immediate answer and that one was left untouched. I’ve known three whites who were African by birth. Lots of blacks they knew didn’t like it if they said they were African-American and one of them, while attempting to be somewhat funny, checked “African-American” on an employment application for a state job. He was told that he couldn’t check that box. He was told, even after he explained to them that he was born in Africa, was now an American citizen and was thus truly an African-American, that only blacks could check that box.
Sheila: “People who have everything stripped from them tend to cling that much more tightly to what little they have left. If all they have is their cultural identity, they’re going to grab onto it with both hands. When you’re already in a sufficiently comfortable position, you don’t need those things as much, and can easily let go of them.”
Sheila, it could also be that the vast majority of people who have generations of family here just don’t see the need. If you ask me what I am I’ll tell you that I’m a Virginian. If you clarify that you want to know my ancestry I’ll give you the complete mutt mix run down (which actually includes African) but explain that I’m pretty much just an American. I know al lot of people like that, but the reason isn’t quite what you describe.
Let’s use my Scottish blood as an example. Outside of having an extensive Billy Connelly CD and video collection I don’t do anything that seems stereotypically Scottish. Further, I don’t recognize or practice certain activities that may be the daily norm for someone living in Scotland. There are cultural differences between Scotland and America. Further, you have to take into account how many generations of my family line have been here. The Scotland of my ancestors isn’t the Scotland of today and it certainly has much less in common with the America of today. I have Scottish blood in family tree, but I’m not the least bit Scottish.
And let’s not even begin to go into listing how dissimilar my culture/lifestyle/whatever is from my Cherokee and Blackfoot ancestors…
Sheila: “What term would you suggest for those whose ancestry traces back to people from the African continent who were forcibly transported to America, and whose culture was shaped by the peculiar institution of slavery? If you don’t think much of the term African-American, then what works for you?”
American?
Seriously, what’s really wrong with that? I mean, given that the vast majority of blacks in America follow and celebrate American cultural norms and events, are more well versed in American pop culture than they are knowledgeable of African culture and speak little to no African words (let alone languages) but know all the American words, slang and expressions…
Or, to put it in the words that the class instructor I referenced above did, if I took an average black American and dropped them in an average American town they’d never been in before; how well do you think they’d fair? Now, if I dropped that same guy into an average African town…
Dude. Wealthy white males don’t get to tell black people what they should want to be called.
As opposed to wealthy black men calling white males cowards, you mean?
PAD
“As opposed to wealthy black men calling white males cowards, you mean?”
Holder did not specifically single out white males as cowards; he spoke of “we,” as a nation — phrasing which thus included himself along with every single other American.
Okay, if nobody is going to say it I’m going to: Can’t we all just get along?
I identify myself as Jewish if it’s relevant, because I happen to BE Jewish. It’s empirically indisputable. I’m Jewish because my mother is Jewish, and that’s pretty much that. When it comes to my nationality, however, I identify myself as an American
I’m not using the term African-American as a nationality. That’s where we seem to be breaking down here. As Micha put it:
Specifically, from a sociological or an anthroplogical point of view African-American is a very real identity, with it’s own historical and cultural markings. It is as real as being Jewish or Muslim or Irish or Gay.
To take that culture and insist that it doesn’t count, that it doesn’t deserve a name, doesn’t make any sense to me. Would it make you feel better if we reverted to previous appellations like “Afro-American” or “Negro” to describe it?
I’m not using the term African-American as a nationality”
That’s good, because “African-American” is NOT a nationality. There is no such thing as “African-American” as a nationality.
Africa is a continent. America is a country, a nation.
As Jerry pointed out, ask these militant “African Americans” a few questions about Africa and marvel as they dodge the questions because they don’t have a clue.
To take that culture and insist that it doesn’t count, that it doesn’t deserve a name, doesn’t make any sense to me
I never said that. I said the name “African-American” makes little sense to me. And now that you’re saying that a term which takes two nations and combines them as a descriptor isn’t meant to represent a nationality, means it makes even less sense.
I think if the average African-American goes to someone living in Africa and says, “I’m an African-American,” the response will be, “What the hëll are you talking about? You’re an American.” Furthermore–and this is purely a guess–if someone who is African comes to the United States, works hard, takes the test and becomes a citizen, I’ll bet’cha they will proudly hold their heads up and say, “I’m an American.”
Plus it must be annoying as hëll if you’re black, living in the United States, and referred to as an African-American if you in fact have no one from Africa in your lineage. It must be annoying to have people refer to you as an African-American if your ancestors, or even your parents, came from South America or the Caribbean.
Don’t get me wrong; I understand the derivation of the term. I understand the reason for the term. When I was a kid the term was “negro.” Then it became “black.” I was around to watch the transition. I’ll grant you, “black” isn’t terribly accurate either, but neither is “white” to describe me, so you shrug it off as being the reasonable response. “African-American” developed in the 70s because blacks wanted to be defined by something other than the color of their skin. Okay. I get that. I respect that. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inaccurate term, just as the term “Native Americans” is dubious since anyone born here is by definition a native American.
In the meantime one of the best, level-headed and even handed organizations representing black interests doesn’t seem to have any problem referring to their constituency as “colored people.” Go figure.
PAD
Yeah, us non-whites do tend to get testy about racial discrimination, because we live with it all our lives, and we do get angry when we see that the country we love so much is so reluctant to deal with the matter head-on. So what if some individuals get upset or downright angry when broached with the matter? Does that mean that all discussion should be stopped?
I didn’t say that. Nor do I believe that. And the proof of that is simple: I began this thread, didn’t I? If I believed all such discussion should be stopped…why would I start one?
The problem isn’t that some individuals get upset or downright angry when the matter is broached. The problem is that it’s curious for Eric Holder, the first black AG, to say that we’re cowardly over discussing race relations when black leaders and black organizations have aggressively and unstintingly attacked not the topic of racism, but people they perceive as racist.
Do you see the difference?
We live in a society where any comment about race can wind up with the speaker being hounded relentlessly, ideally into oblivion. Nothing is good enough until any perceived racist is unable to earn any sort of living and punished to the fullest extent of mob mentality.
Rupert Murdoch just offered a public apology for the Post cartoon. Murdoch, who apologizes to no one, issues a formal apology. The response from Al Sharpton? Not good enough. He’s calling for boycotts of the Post and he’s meeting with the FCC to try and attack Murdoch’s wavier that enables him to own several media outlets in NYC. When was the last time Al Sharpton apologized for anything, even when he was demonstrably wrong? And you can say all you want that Al Sharpton is an idiot or that he doesn’t represent the average African-American (if you will) but the fact is that he’s the one with the microphone. Rather than condemning the nation as cowardly, why doesn’t the AG condemn Al Sharpton for relentlessly exploiting race and widening the racial divide?
Now if the AG had said, “We’re afraid to discuss racism in this country because we’ve created a poisonous atmosphere for encouraging such discourse,” I’d totally agree. But for a powerful and influential black man to say that we’re a nation of cowards while ignoring the fact that powerful and influential black men (and women) have–at the very least–contributed to that atmosphere, strikes me as at least mildly disingenuous.
PAD
The second funniest thing to me about the whole “African-American” label? The people I’ve come across who are the most militant/rude about insisting that they are African-American or will tell you that they’re “from Africa” when you ask them where they’re from are humorously often the people that have the least knowledge about Africa.
On the other hand there’s plenty of people who are native born Americans who don’t have the least knowledge about America. Plenty of actual citizens couldn’t pass the knowledge test given to would-be citizens.
The problem isn’t that militant African-Americans are ignorant. It’s that a lot of people are ignorant.
PAD
Posted by: micha at February 25, 2009 04:34 PM
“Dude. Wealthy white males don’t get to tell black people what they should want to be called”
nobody gets to tell anybody what they should want to be called.
Everybody gets to tell everybody what they should want to be called. Everybody gets to utilize language in whatever way they please. And then everybody on the other side gets to flip them off and continue to call themselves whatever they want.
That’s the worst part of racism, in my eyes. Distinctions between races have become so huge that we actually think we have a right to cordon off large sections of English and deny their use to certain other groups.
PAD,
You got it right, the term ‘African-American’ is synonymous with ‘black’ or ‘negro’ but is just supposed to sound more accurate, even if only by a small margin. Frankly, it’s not that big of a deal to most of us. The problem is that in many circles where you would be identified as ‘man’ I would be identified as ‘black man’ or some variation. All I want is to be treated as ‘man’ or ‘American’. Again, only speaking for myself here as neither I, nor anyone else, can accuratly speak for a whole group.
Oh, just for historical acuracy, most ‘black’ people from places like Brazil, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, etc do have ties to Africa as the slave trade created their lineage in the same way as it did in America.
The problem is that in many circles where you would be identified as ‘man’ I would be identified as ‘black man’ or some variation. All I want is to be treated as ‘man’ or ‘American’.
Which is all I would want for you as well. Which was kind of my point: coming up with yet more classifications, yet more ways of dividing people into categories, undercuts the desire to unify people.
PAD
Wait, why should Eric Holder have to apologize for Al Sharpton? That’s like saying George Clooney should apologize for the Klan. There’s no connection other than skin color. Bush didn’t have to apologize for stupid stuff that Rush Limbaugh has said, and shouldn’t be asked to. Again, nobody speaks for all of ‘Black America’, even if they claim to.
Peter David: “On the other hand there’s plenty of people who are native born Americans who don’t have the least knowledge about America. Plenty of actual citizens couldn’t pass the knowledge test given to would-be citizens.
The problem isn’t that militant African-Americans are ignorant. It’s that a lot of people are ignorant.”
I have no argument with that. Keep in mind that I’m directing that comment mostly at/about, as I said above, the people who are the most militant and rude about it.
I’ve met twenty-something whites before who are so divorced from the world around them that they honestly couldn’t tell you when asked who the sitting Vice-President was. We established in the thread discussing the Post cartoon that many Americans, despite School House Rock’s best efforts, don’t know the basic workings of some aspects of our government. And, hëll, I’ve met Virginians, native born sons and daughters of the Commonwealth, who when visiting the city with their kids school trip were amazed to learn that Richmond was the Capitol of Virginia.
Yeah, some people are just brick stupid. But if people are going to… correct… other people about the term they use when describing others or answer “Africa” when asked about where they’re from despite the fact that they were born ten minutes down the road… You might want to actually know something about the country you’re so adamantly insisting that you’re from. You tend to look somewhat less stupid that way and you really tend to make your side of the debate look less foolish and hallow that way.
Troy, I don’t think Peter said anything about Holder having to “apologize” for Al Sharpton. I agree with you, nobody should have to apologize for what someone else says, just because that person may agree with us on other issues. The whole guilt by association argument is lazy thinking.
But if Holder wants to claim that people are cowards for not discussing race it might behoove him to ask why. And maybe part of the answer is that race charlatans like Sharpton have made it dangerous to discuss race in anything but the most superficial terms. If Holder doesn’t understand that, he is out of touch and his words are most likely going to encourage nothing more than a role of the eyes. Acknowledging that some have used race as nothing more than a club to beat down any hint of dissent (or, in Sharpton’s case, go after a newspaper that has been pretty aggressive in reporting on his many ethical lapses.)
Holder doesn’t have to name Sharpton. If he condemns crooked race baiting buffoons who would trample an orphan to get to a news camera we will all figure out who he’s talking about.
Maybe people — PAD inclusive — could try reading Holder’s entire speech, and not just the sound byte that got PAD’s knickers in a twist.
It doesn’t change the fact that it’s an inaccurate term, just as the term “Native Americans” is dubious since anyone born here is by definition a native American.
A good friend of mine has a small amount of Indian ancestry (1/16th, I think). He told me that in his experience, Indians hate the term “Native American” as well – for the very reason you mention. Calling them Indians is fine, calling them by their tribes is okay, but they are as annoyed by the political correctness as many other Americans.
So what’s exactly the problem?
Is it that blacks identify themselves with a collective identity other than American? Why begrudge them that. It is not as if they are doing it at the expense of the American identity. They are not selling secrets to China. the race problems you have are not because of this.
Or is it just that African-American is not accurate enough? Is that really that important? A pet peave? Is accuracy really that important in that context?
Or maybe you’re just against punctuation? Because I can relate to that. Hyphens have been a pain in the neck lately in my work.
——————–
Hyphens aren’t the problem, double-standards and segregation are the problem.
They aren’t Americans, they’re “Insert-Ancestry-Here-Americans”.
And in the case of many minorities and women, they can say whatever they want about whites and/or men, but no one else can say ANYTHING about them.
It’s bûllšhìŧ.
Micha said: “So what’s exactly the problem?
Is it that blacks identify themselves with a collective identity other than American? Why begrudge them that. It is not as if they are doing it at the expense of the American identity. They are not selling secrets to China. the race problems you have are not because of this.”
Well, just speaking for myself, what bothers me about the term African-American is that it’s mainly used to DESCRIBE anyone with black/brown skin.
In this overly PC world we live in if a picture of a black/brown skinned individual appears on a news story or a voice over is talking about black/brown skinned people they automatically say “These African-Americans…” If the individual uses the descriptive term black or brown they’re usually chastised. But why?
If you want to discuss any individual and you know that person, so you can classify them, then fine, call them any hyphen name you wish. But if you’re describing people, well what’s wrong with saying “This black guy” or “This white guy” or, etc…
When I hear a hyphened name, whether it be African-American, Native-American or Asian-American it comes across as so presumptuous to me. Presumptuous that this individual’s ancestors may have come from Africa and that the individual is an American.
Micha, it’s not a matter of what an individual wants to call themselves. I could really care less. But the ever changing self identification all too often becomes the “official” designation and in some areas becomes the mandated designation.
The problem with that is that the official designation is somewhat inaccurate. An African born white male living in America could not call himself an African-American. He’d run the risk of getting the snot beaten out of him in some areas and he wouldn’t be able to claim to be African-American on an official government form because he’d be screwing up the census figures. “African-American” is not and never has been meant to be a label for people of African ancestry who are now Americans. It’s meant to mean “black” and nothing else.
Then there’s the fact that some blacks themselves hate the term since they don’t see themselves as African in the least. They see themselves as Americans who happen to be black and who had family that came from Africa many generations back. Further, as I noted above, you have blacks who came here from countries other than Africa. They’re proud of their heritage as well and being called an “African-American” is about as insulting to them as constantly calling a Puerto Rican or Spaniard living in America a Mexican just because they all (more or less) speak Spanish.
Beyond that there’s just the issue of seeing people more or less determined to segregate themselves in as many ways that they can. There are people in this country who are very proud of their history yet do not demand additional layers of self segregation. It’s also an odd thing when seen as a contrast to so many of the people who come here from elsewhere.
I get to meet a lot of people who have just recently become citizens. The funny thing to me with that is that so many people come here, want to be here and actually want to be called just an “American” with no other qualifier while so many people born here, people that have never had to struggle and suffer for opportunities the way that people coming here from other countries have, add qualifiers or even build walls around themselves to create distance from themselves and just being an “American” with no other label than that.
In the meantime one of the best, level-headed and even handed organizations representing black interests doesn’t seem to have any problem referring to their constituency as “colored people.” Go figure
Keep in mind that said organization was founded in 1909, when “colored person” was about the most neutral title available. And after a century of existence, it would be a bit confusing to change the name now.
I still don’t quite see what’s the point of quibbling about the term African-American just because some people use it incorrectly. It strikes me as accurate in its own way, since it’s an ancestry formed of people taken from Africa and forced to make America their home, but never quite allowed to fully participate in what it means to be American for most of its history.
And, for whatever it’s worth, I tend to use ‘black’ conversationally and ‘African-American’ more formally when speaking specifically of that culture. My general rule is that I call people what they want to be called, out of sheer politeness and consideration. If somebody personally objected to being called African-American, I certainly wouldn’t call him that–by the time he personally objected, I’d presumably be in a position to have a name to use.
“… since it’s an ancestry formed of people taken from Africa and forced to make America their home…”
You’ve brought this up more than once now as though it were a strong point in the matter. That begs an interesting question. If a couple came from to America from Africa of their own free will, became citizens, had a child and that child was raised here; would that child be African-American? If the answer is yes then your point above is meaningless and, at best, a bit of a distraction from the real issues of the matter.
Moreover, as was addressed above, would that person be an African-American if their three or four generations of African ancestry was white?
“It strikes me as accurate in its own way…”
Except that, in truth, it’s not accurate. Africa is not a country. Africa is a continent made up of many countries. Many people come to this country from the various countries on the African continent that would not be allowed to be called “African-American” by the PC Police or government census forms.
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are all countries that are technically “African” by the fact that they sit on the continent. Oddly, most people wouldn’t call people from there “African-American” if they saw them. Hëll, some of the people from those countries are so pale skinned that they are basically white. They would never be called African-American, well, not seriously at least, because the label “African-American” has nothing to do with culture, history or continent and everything to do with skin color. It means one and only one thing; it means “black” and nothing else.
It’s often a fairly useless, PC term that just gets in the way of honest discussions and more often than not is used by the most vocal fringe as a tool to separate to a degree people of this country from other people of this country .
Wait, why should Eric Holder have to apologize for Al Sharpton?
I dunno. Why should he? I didn’t say he should, and I can’t find anyone else who said it, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
PAD
(South) African-American = Charlize Theron
I had to read this post twice just to make sure you were being serious, Peter. I mean, really? You’re going to use the fact that rappers use the N-word and white people can’t as an example as to why Americans can’t talk about race? Really?
Okay, first, I don’t use that word period. Not even in jest around other black people. I don’t care if every rapper in the world uses that word–not every rapper uses that word by the way—I don’t, and I don’t approve of its use by entertainers.
Secondly, so whites can’t use the N-word. Tough luck. So you aren’t “allowed” to use certain words around people those words offend and injure. You know what? Get used to it. Blacks sure got used to it in a hurry back in the day when a whistle in the wrong direction got us hanged.
It’s a cop out and misleading, Peter, when you imply we black people just make it too dámņ hard for whites to have a civil conversation about race because we make whites too uncomfortable or make them feel too defensive with all our baggage. Yes, as a black person living in American going on thirty-three years I have armor I sometimes wear even when I don’t need it. Yes, sometimes I do misinterpret things people say to me, but that doesn’t mean that armor’s there for no reason at all.
I’ve been pulled over, I’ve been called the N-word just walking down the street, and I’ve been called it online, and never by another black person. So don’t pretend the use of that word by rappers and its being verboten to whites somehow means blacks don’t want to discuss race, because we do. Going by this post, it’s clear we’re still waiting for people like you.
I still don’t quite see what’s the point of quibbling about the term African-American just because some people use it incorrectly. It strikes me as accurate in its own way, since it’s an ancestry formed of people taken from Africa and forced to make America their home, but never quite allowed to fully participate in what it means to be American for most of its history.
I find the arguments over the term African-American small potatoes, scarcely worth the trouble arguing over. But I’ll concede that it is of limited accuracy, for the reasons people have given above. As Jerry points out, more than a few people from the middle east are African but would probably not be considered African American. (BTW, what exactly is the race of an Egyptian who is light skinned? Is Gaddafi a black man?)
For that matter, since you can walk from Egypt to every other country in the mid east, if Egyptians are black why not Saudis, or Jordanians or Israelis, etc? My sister is Paersian and darker skined than some Black people. Is she white? Asian? What? (I’ll stick to Christine, but that’s almost never an official category.)
Australian Aborigines are blacker than many American Blacks. Clearly they are not African, being as they have been in Australia long enough to earn the right to call themselves Australian. (I mean, the Irish came from Africa too, if you want to go back far enough, but I don’t expect my kids to be eligible for the Bill and Mary Gates scholarships) What race are they?
Then you have Hispanics, where the whole race thing gets thrown in the air and reveals itself for the almost purely political construct it is. Hispanics can be black, indian, white, or any mix of them. Unless I’m wrong, most Spanish people in Spain are considered white. Does having a white Spanish ancestor who immigrated to South America make you suddenly Hispanic?
I had to read this post twice just to make sure you were being serious, Peter. I mean, really? You’re going to use the fact that rappers use the N-word and white people can’t as an example as to why Americans can’t talk about race? Really?
I think it’s a good example of why people might be reluctant to engage in a serious conversation (and it was only one example, not the only one). When the rules of engagement are fluid and the risk of saying the wrong thing are high…and, frankly, the potential benefits of the conversation may well be outweighed by the potential risks. I mean, there is zero chance of me losing my job by NOT discussing race with anyone.
I think it’s a good example of why people might be reluctant to engage in a serious conversation (and it was only one example, not the only one). When the rules of engagement are fluid and the risk of saying the wrong thing are high…and, frankly, the potential benefits of the conversation may well be outweighed by the potential risks. I mean, there is zero chance of me losing my job by NOT discussing race with anyone.
Why would you discuss race at work?
I understand what you’re saying, but how far is that fear of hypothetically losing your job over a conversation about race supposed to go?
Yes, a black man was elected to the highest office in the land, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t a very close campaign right up until the economy collapsed part way through. Let’s not make believe there weren’t people who had serious doubts, and still have doubts, about President Obama because of his race. You beg to differ? Okay, let’s talk about it, I promise I won’t get mad. I promise I won’t get you fired. I even promise to listen to your opinion on the matter. I also promise you there are many more PoC who will show you the same courtesy. Wringing your hands over an imaginary enraged person of color and pink slips is cowardice.
Posted by Jill Kelly at February 27, 2009 12:08 AM
Why would you discuss race at work?
Well, if you’re working 8 hour shifts, 5 days a week, that’s something like 25% of your life you spend with your colleagues. It’s a higher percentage if you take out time spent asleep from the total. Why on earth wouldn’t/shouldn’t you discuss race at work?
I understand what you’re saying, but how far is that fear of hypothetically losing your job over a conversation about race supposed to go?
Well, any risk of losing your job surely merits some degree of concern. And white people have lost their jobs for saying the wrong thing on topics of race. As have men for saying the wrong thing on the topic of sex. As have some people for saying the wrong thing about age.
Do I exaggerate? Possibly.. but I personally know of a case where a guy was “fired” for “racist body language”. He was a local councillor, the council was regularly addressed by a spokesperson for the local black community (in the UK we can still say black) and she complained that every time she addressed them he crossed his arms and glared at her. So they removed him from the committee.
See, this is the downside of being PC. People are afraid to speak their minds in case they offend someone and/or get a disproportionate response to something they say… Which, frankly, is bloody ridiculous. But it’s still true.
Cheers.
1- Wringing your hands over an imaginary enraged person of color and pink slips Who says the person who might get me fired is a PoC? Often, the people who put on the biggest show of outrage are the ones who have the least cause. recently, a school near my home town had a minor imbroglio when some people demanded they change the name of the high school sports team from the name of a local Indian tribe to something that nobody ever complains about–the Cavaliers or Trojans or Cornhuskers, I don’t know. The point is, members of the local tribe in question were, overwhelmingly, NOT in favor of the name change. They saw it as honoring them. But the do-gooders made a lot of noise and in the end the school board acquiesced. Only a tiny percentage of people were happy about this, but there you go. near as I can tell, nearly all the ones protesting were earnest white people.
2- Let’s not make believe there weren’t people who had serious doubts, and still have doubts, about President Obama because of his race. Wouldn’t dream of it. It would be interesting to try to see how many of the people who voted against him (and claimed it was over ideology) would support someone who is just as black but has a 180 degree difference on politics. For that matter, if a black republican were running against a white presidential candidate, how much of the 97% or so of the Black vote that went to Obama would go to this hypothetical black Ronald Reagan?
(Though, oddly, it doesn’t surprise or bother me much if I thought that Blacks voted overwhelmingly for a candidate based largely on the fact that he’s black. It WOULD bother me if whites did the same. So…hmmm.)
You beg to differ? Okay, let’s talk about it, I promise I won’t get mad. I promise I won’t get you fired.
Thanks. But we agree. So…how about that Watchmen movie?
I also promise you there are many more PoC who will show you the same courtesy.
yeah. I know some of them. Nice folks.
You do realize that most of us…ok, I can’t really speak for anyone else, but I’ll go out on a limb and do it anyway–most of us interact with PoC every single day, right?
And if any of them initiate the conversation I will be happy to give my two cents. I mean, Jill, it makes no sense to argue that I (or PAD or anyone else on this thread) should man up and discuss race. We are. That’s why there’s a thread. But I think, as I’ve written, that there is a reason why many other people might not be so eager to take a chance at doing so (and, despite your doubts, it is a chance. less for me than for PAD, I think. he’s had people write to Marvel in the past threatening boycotts over imagined slights and companies do not like to be the center of racial controversy. I admire what he’s doing here but were I advising him I’d suggest discussing the weather instead.)
And again, I ask–what is the upside for me to engage in this conversation? There is a risk of being misunderstood or even deliberately misunderstood. What is the good I get out of this that outweighs the bad? I actually do discuss race in class, show how the concept of race has changed through the years (White, for example, did not always include Italians or Irish, in some cases) and discuss how much of the concept of race is remnants from some pretty seriously bad pseudo science. Haven’t had any problems yet but I would not be shocked if I do one day and I certainly can understand why others would not touch the topic with a ten foot pole.
So I would suggest finding some other group to try to prod into a race discussion–we’re already there. And I would also suggest that you aren’t going to get much if any good results from throwing the “coward” label around. It kind of sets a bad tone–you’re asking people to do something and calling them a name if they don’t do it. I think most people will simply use that as all the justification they need to shrug their shoulders and walk away.
It’s a cop out and misleading, Peter, when you imply we black people just make it too dámņ hard for whites to have a civil conversation about race because we make whites too uncomfortable or make them feel too defensive with all our baggage.
I didn’t say that. Again: Existence of thread. I obviously don’t find it too dámņ hard. So why would I say it when the very act of saying it would undercut it? The fact that you have a thread to respond to indicates I do NOT think that blacks make whites too uncomfortable, what with my being…y’know…white. So either I’m not a coward, I don’t feel uncomfortable, or maybe I’m just too stupid to know better.
There is a vast difference between saying that blacks in general make things hard–which I didn’t say–and saying that black leaders (or at the very least self-proclaimed spokesmen) and black organizations show no sense of proportion in their condemnation of presumed racists, and that they target anyone who says anything the slightest bit out of line for total economic destruction, thus providing a disincentive for anyone with a sense of career preservation to say anything about the topic at all–which I did say.
I’m saying that if a black leader gets up and comments about a societal atmosphere without addressing the reasons as to WHY that might be–but instead just settles for name calling–then he’s coming up short in his remarks.
Now I don’t know: DID he address that? I freely admit I did not read the entirety of his remarks, if for no other reason than that I couldn’t find it on line. But I’m hardly the research guru; I’d like to know if his remarks have been posted, and if they included something along the lines of, “And perhaps part of the reason for this is that there are certain individuals and organizations who would react with equal fervor to a stupid joke by an apologetic radio host and, say, a venomous rallying speech from the grand wizard of the KKK, and perhaps we might want to think about picking our battles so that our message doesn’t get lost and so that the majority of white Americans wouldn’t prefer to just avoid the entire subject rather than risk censure and the full fury of the black leadership coming down on them because of a bad joke or a single unwise statement.”
Did he say something like that?
PAD
The remarks have been online for over a week now:
Here.
Frankly, I thought it was a great speech, precisely because it was thoughtful and nuanced and seemed to take to task both the Rush Limbaughs and the Al Sharptons of the world– you know, those who provide “simple solutions” in the conversation about race in America. In fact, I think the only legitimate complaint I’ve heard about the speech is that the use of the word “cowards” to describe Americans– at any time, in any context– is impolitic; American voters don’t like it when you suggest that they have flaws. But the thing that’s always attracted me to Obama and most members of his administration is that I don’t feel like they’re telling me what I want to hear, what’s been focus-group tested and approved for the lowest common denominator. We might have legitimate disagreements over whether the word “coward” accurately describes the situation (and it’s important to note, I think, that Holder isn’t say white people are cowardly, or black people or cowardly, but that we have all generally tried to be “sensitive” to the point that the conversation has generally been superficial and insignificant), but I don’t think anyone is well-served by such a semantic disagreement when there’s a much larger issue under discussion.
Well, I read the speech in its entirety.
As a whole, it’s better than is initially being portrayed. I find it curious that most of his comments seemed to be centered around the notion that blacks should be more open about discussing race with themselves. He seems to be more concerned over the notion that race is a divisive issue among blacks than between blacks and others. I suppose we saw a hint of this back during the primaries when the sentiment expressed by some blacks was that Barack Obama somehow wasn’t black enough of a candidate to be
considered the genuine article.
I thought this comment was something of an understatement: We know, by “American instinct” and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. The worst is questioning of one’s character? No, the worst is an attempt to implement complete economic and career destruction, so much so that anyone with half a brain (which lets me out) is probably inclined to steer way clear of the whole mess. And whose fault is that?
The closest he came to my statement was when he said:
There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest.
Much of what he was trying to say had merit. Unfortunately, he couched it in the worst terms possible. How could an attorney general not grasp the concept that how you say something is often just as important as how you say it? If you genuinely to encourage discussion, you don’t kick it off by saying your listeners are cowards, because the knee-jerk reaction is going to be, “Yeah? Well, screw you.” You don’t get to call for nuance when you throw around broad insults. Not to put too fine a point on it, but how can a learned black man not understand the concept that needlessly using inflammatory words is just going to piss people off?
Let me put it to you this way: Barack Obama some time ago made comments addressed to the black community, complaining that young black men were shirking their responsibilities as fathers. Everything he said was understood perfectly. If he had begun his speech by saying, “We are a nation of irresponsible, gutless fathers,” how much attention would anyone have paid to anything else he had to say?
PAD
I think Eric Holder was trying to take a break from the practices of every past administration before him. For the most part, they have failed to deal with the real issues of inequality that plague minority communities. And we “talk” about race, but we only scratch the very surface. The reality of this election was not about black or white, but a multicultural reality that the country has yet to except. It’s rather easy to say that America has done more than other countries in terms of race. But Eric Holder was not comparing us to other countries. We should compare ourselves to our own standards. He was talking about the creed and constitution we should live by. And I don’t think anyone can claim that the nation has fully lived up to those standards. We deal with race as it comes our way, rather than addressing the moral quandaries that come with discussing it. Because every day or month or year goes by that we don’t discuss it, more and more people suffer.
I didn’t say that. Again: Existence of thread. I obviously don’t find it too dámņ hard. So why would I say it when the very act of saying it would undercut it? The fact that you have a thread to respond to indicates I do NOT think that blacks make whites too uncomfortable, what with my being…y’know…white. So either I’m not a coward, I don’t feel uncomfortable, or maybe I’m just too stupid to know better.
Honestly, this thread seemed more about how angry you are that Holder said something that made you feel attacked and, well, angry, than about race discussion. I could be wrong. My biggest issue with your thread post was the inclusion of rappers into the discussion. It’s wince-inducing to constantly have what entertainers with questionable morals and talent say and do be a measuring stick when it comes to any serious topic concerning race.
There is a vast difference between saying that blacks in general make things hard–which I didn’t say–and saying that black leaders (or at the very least self-proclaimed spokesmen) and black organizations show no sense of proportion in their condemnation of presumed racists, and that they target anyone who says anything the slightest bit out of line for total economic destruction, thus providing a disincentive for anyone with a sense of career preservation to say anything about the topic at all–which I did say.
I have to admit, Peter, I forgot to take into account that you are someone many people pay attention to. Your career is at risk if you write a bad storyline, never mind when you talk about heavy stuff like race. I apologize for that. And you’re right; certain groups do overreact to real or imagined slights against PoC. I barely acknowledge the NAACP and National Association of Black Journalists after they helped get that idiot Don Imus fired.
But not every white person is in your situation, in fact, very few are. So where are they when talks about race happen? If they’re serious, where is their advocacy at the Board of Education for history books to include in-depth lessons concerning race in America? What’s stopping them from attending lectures and seminars on race, where everyone present can talk openly? There are places people can go to talk about race, safely, but do enough people, white or of color, care enough to find them and participate?
I’m not expecting every white person to be Tim Wise, not at all, antiracism is not their job (hëll, it shouldn’t be anyone’s job!), but some of their attitudes about race leave us nowhere. It makes many PoC doubt white people would discuss race at all if they weren’t dragged kicking and screaming into it. Which isn’t a stretch; if PoC didn’t have to deal with racism on a daily basis, we probably wouldn’t want to suit up, either.
Did Holder use impolitic language? Yes, in my opinion, he did, but what he said wasn’t totally off base. We are weary and scared, because talking about race is a minefield. That doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore the discussion whenever someone on the other side says or does something we disagree with.
Posted by: Bradley at February 27, 2009 08:28 AM
The remarks have been online for over a week now:
Here.
Thanks for that, Bradley.
Read it, agreed with a lot of it.
The word “cowards” is an emotive one to use, and in this context it’s arguably a word more applicable to leaders than the masses, because – to a degree – they have not grasped the thorn in the way it perhaps should have been.
On the other hands, sometimes a slap across the face is what’s needed to get the patient’s attention, especially if the symptoms include hysteria…
Cheers!
“Well, I read the speech in its entirety.”
Just now?
Three days after you published a blog post complaining about it?
If you genuinely to encourage discussion, you don’t kick it off by saying your listeners are cowards, because the knee-jerk reaction is going to be, “Yeah? Well, screw you.”
Well, first of all, Holder didn’t “kick it off” by saying his “listeners are cowards.” He started the speech with some remarks about African American contributions to American history. The word “cowards” doesn’t appear until the second paragraph. I think that’s an important distinction to make– he didn’t begin things by proclaiming, “You’ve all been cowards!” in order to shock or offend people into listening, which is– I think– what some people would have the general public believe.
Instead, he constructed his argument by beginning with a generally positive statement, then moved on to the idea of cowardice– “There’s a lot to be proud of, but…” This is, I think, effective rhetoric– the listener or reader is at first flattered, then challenged.
From there, we get to the word coward. But it bears noting that at no point did Holder accuse a group of others of cowardice– the pronoun is “we,” not “you.” Holder indicts himself along with everyone else– this is “our problem.” Again, it’s not white people; it’s not black people; it’s not Republicans; it’s not Democrats. It’s us– we can all do better. Honestly, I thought that was self-evident.
In general, I agree that it’s bad form to issue insults while trying to persuade– that’s why I have no use for most political TV shows or blogs these days. But I don’t see Holder’s words as insulting– just poorly-chosen, because he failed to anticipate that so many people’s “knee-jerk reactions” would be their only response to what he had to say. Frankly, I think that indicts the American media and punditry more than it indicts Holder.
To clarify, when I use the term “self-evident,” I meant the idea that this is something we can all do better at, not that Holder’s meaning was “self-evident,” which it clearly wasn’t. Just re-read my own comment and thought that part came across as unintentionally insulting. Sorry if that was how anyone took it.
Honestly, this thread seemed more about how angry you are that Holder said something that made you feel attacked and, well, angry, than about race discussion. I could be wrong.
You are. I didn’t feel attacked. First of all, I don’t care if someone calls me a coward about race relations because I know that I’m not. Someone saying it doesn’t make it so. I was angry because I thought that a black leader characterizing about a problem–reluctance to discuss race relations–as being cowardice on the part of Americans when there are black leaders who have exacerbated this problem at the slightest opportunity was, at the very least, dissembling. I don’t care about name calling. I care about hypocrisy. If you don’t want there to be a toxic atmosphere about discussing race, then don’t try to annihilate, for instance, repentant jokesters.
I have to admit, Peter, I forgot to take into account that you are someone many people pay attention to. Your career is at risk if you write a bad storyline, never mind when you talk about heavy stuff like race. I apologize for that. And you’re right; certain groups do overreact to real or imagined slights against PoC. I barely acknowledge the NAACP and National Association of Black Journalists after they helped get that idiot Don Imus fired.
You have no idea. For instance, I wrote an issue of “Supergirl” which centered on protests at Stanhope University over a guest lecturer who was going to speak about how he believed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites. In the comic, I guest starred Steel and had him offering reasons as to why the speaker should not be allowed to speak. The story ended with the black student organization, who had protested the speaker announcing that they were going to have a speaker come in to talk about black pride, and discover that the university’s Jewish student union was going to be protesting because they felt that the speaker was antisemitic for attacking Israel.
I was condemned by many readers as being a racist. The story was not only based on true incidents, but everything Steel said was arguments that I lifted, verbatim, from position papers and editorials written by black scholars and professors who were protesting speakers they felt were racist and shouldn’t be allowed to lecture.
I wrote the story to get people to think. I wrote it to examine all sides of racism. I wrote it to examine the limits of free speech.
Didn’t matter. Fans condemned me as a racist. Many informed me they would never read anything of mine again. A few said they’d be writing to DC to call for my ouster and writing letters of complaint to Time Warner and the NAACP.
So, as I said: Not a coward. But when that issue of Supergirl came out, a lot of people seemed far more interested in attacking me than considering the merits of the story. And if Al Sharpton had gotten hold of it, well…who knows if DC would have stood by me? More likely, they would have issued an internal memo instructing that nobody come anywhere near the issue of race again.
PAD
My biggest issue with your thread post was the inclusion of rappers into the discussion. It’s wince-inducing to constantly have what entertainers with questionable morals and talent say and do be a measuring stick when it comes to any serious topic concerning race.
That’s a valid point–I can understand how annoying it would be to have some of the worst examples of a group held up as role models.
In that sense, Obama is a real ray of sunshine. I’ll put it this way; when black kids in school are talking about 50 cent or whatever the thug rapper du jour is, they feel free to throw the N word around with abandon. But I’ve never seen any of them use that term on Obama. They can see the difference. he gets a level of respect that Sharpton and Jackson never got, probably because his success was not tied so much into racial politics but on ability and charisma, just like other presidents.
Dialogue is a two way street. If people of color just want to vent and hear no back talk in return, well, you can probably get that. Won’t be much use but there you are. If you want actual dialogue you have to be prepared to hear some things you may not like, may even put you on the defensive. And it’s at that point where you will either make the conversation rise or fall. If the reaction is just that the point makes you wince or that they’d just better “get used to it” (“it” being whatever they didn’t like), well, that’s not terribly illuminating.
I can think of a few good arguments for why it’s ok for blacks to use racial humor and broad, not terribly good stereotypes in movies, whereas a white filmmaker would find himself the target of a a boycott if he did the same. But it is a double standard. you can explain why you think the double standard is ok. You can agree that the double standard is unfair. You can just say “tough luck, get used to it.” two out of three of those replies could potentially do some good.
But not every white person is in your situation, in fact, very few are.
I agree, though not in the way you mean. Peter is intelligent and articulate and a great writer. Most people are intelligent, in my opinion, but the ability to articulate thoughts and put them in written form is rare (See Kennedy, Caroline). PAD can defend himself if need be. The average person can be torn to shreds by the media and the death by a thousand cuts that comes from gossip and anonymous sniping. With the internet a lie can get around the world before the victim is even aware that it’s out there. (How many people read the Huffington Post headlines about John Gibson calling Holder a monkey’s scrotum? You can still find the (doctored) video online.)
If they’re serious, where is their advocacy at the Board of Education for history books to include in-depth lessons concerning race in America?
People will disagree over what constitutes in-depth lessons. I have a personal gripe with the fact that meaningless minutia are shoved in there to provide worthless diversity. Crispus Attucks got as much attention in one highschool book I saw as far more significant figures from the revolutionary War. Frankly, it’s almost insulting; how is a black kid supposed to feel when this minor figure is being elevated. kids aren’t stupid. They can read about Lafayette and Arnold and Madison and…Attucks.
Then again, you could argue that it’s important to emphasize that there were black Americans back then, even if history did not record their lives. Crispus happened to be in the right place at the right time for his life to be remembered. But i still say it could be presented better than it was. Then again, a lot of textbooks could use some good writers.
The point is, my idea and your idea of what constitutes in-depth lessons concerning race might differ. I think I’m the one in greater danger of being called a racist if my opinions don’t please the wrong people though.
What’s stopping them from attending lectures and seminars on race, where everyone present can talk openly? There are places people can go to talk about race, safely, but do enough people, white or of color, care enough to find them and participate?
Other than small gathering of friends and co-workers, I don’t know that those situations are all that common. College seminars and lectures? Forget it! It’s a smart kid who learns to keep their mouth shut in class if they disagree with the teacher and/or the class majority. Oh, you will have the satisfaction of having stood up for your beliefs but that will be cold comfort if you are brought up before the academic court and charged with having fostered a negative classroom environment or whatever thoughtcrime is called this week.
(Keep in mind my exposure lately is UNC Chapel Hill where even a leftwinger might be called a fascist if they don’t tow the line.)
It makes many PoC doubt white people would discuss race at all if they weren’t dragged kicking and screaming into it. Which isn’t a stretch; if PoC didn’t have to deal with racism on a daily basis, we probably wouldn’t want to suit up, either.
I think you’re correct on both counts, though I think you may underestimate the logic behind that reluctance. In my hometown a lot of the racism is from blacks toward hispanics. And if you ask black kids why they won’t talk about it they will claim that they get in trouble just for asking questions. Now…I would argue that some of the questions are ignorant and insulting, but I also see that they are genuinely interested in the answers and the ignorance comes from not being able to ask a question without getting their heads bitten off. It certainly isn’t helping just suspending them for being insensitive. Then again, the hispanic kids probably feel angry at having the same old bigotries thrown in their faces time and again. (It’s amazing how many of my Black students talk about Hispanics in virtually the same language once used by White bigots against Blacks.) (And mind you, the White kids are probably just as anti-Hispanic as the black kids but they are more likely to know that they aren’t supposed to express those thoughts out loud. When you are told, as some black kids have been, that it’s impossible for a Black to be a racist it’s a whole lot easier to let yourself become one).
Did Holder use impolitic language? Yes, in my opinion, he did, but what he said wasn’t totally off base. We are weary and scared, because talking about race is a minefield. That doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore the discussion whenever someone on the other side says or does something we disagree with.
I think, Jill, that this is pretty much what PAD was saying. At the very least, I would agree with it. But see, we spent all this time seeming to disagree when we really agreed on the larger issue. And I think we are both on the smart side. What chance do the average folks have?
VoilĂ ce qu’on peut faire quand on se rebiffe et je le conseille Ă chacun qui peut avoir des ennuis avec ce gros connard de sarkozy ou sa clique de clowns de flics minables : je suis en train de rĂ©gler un petit problème du genre dĂ©tail avec cette grosse tache de si peu prĂ©sident de la rĂ©publique Française, en lui envoyant un avocat pour mises sous surveillance illĂ©gales, lynchage inspirĂ© de bonnes vieilles mĂ©thodes qui ne dĂ©plairaient pas au ku kux klan, lynchage qui n’a mobilisĂ© personne sur le web ou dans la presse et plagiat vulgaire et ridicule qui passe Ă la tĂ©lĂ©. Avis Ă la population et merci pour l espace d’expression. VoilĂ , ceci est Ă©galement une tentative de gros scandale public parce que ça calme pas mal les gros connards.
– dotclear dit :Vous ĂŞtes exclu de ce forum. L’administrateur ou le modĂ©rateur qui vous ont exclu envoient le message suivant –
– http://lettres.blogs.liberation.fr/sorin/ – email DĂ©tectĂ© comme spam – zut, on se donnĂ© le mot ? …etc , etc
VoilĂ ce qu’on peut faire quand on se rebiffe et je le conseille Ă chacun qui peut avoir des ennuis avec ce gros connard de sarkozy ou sa clique de clowns de flics minables : je suis en train de rĂ©gler un petit problème du genre dĂ©tail avec cette grosse tache de si peu prĂ©sident de la rĂ©publique Française, en lui envoyant un avocat pour mises sous surveillance illĂ©gales, lynchage inspirĂ© de bonnes vieilles mĂ©thodes qui ne dĂ©plairaient pas au ku kux klan, lynchage qui n’a mobilisĂ© personne sur le web ou dans la presse et plagiat vulgaire et ridicule qui passe Ă la tĂ©lĂ©. Avis Ă la population et merci pour l espace d’expression. VoilĂ , ceci est Ă©galement une tentative de gros scandale public parce que ça calme pas mal les gros connards.
– dotclear dit :Vous ĂŞtes exclu de ce forum. L’administrateur ou le modĂ©rateur qui vous ont exclu envoient le message suivant –
– http://lettres.blogs.liberation.fr/sorin/ – email DĂ©tectĂ© comme spam – zut, on se donnĂ© le mot ? …etc , etc
Okay… I can make out something about the French Republic, Sarkozy, illegal monitoring, lynchings, ku kux klan, administrator, moderator, email and spam. It might not actually be a spam post and something on topic instead.
Anyone here better at French than I am?
Jerry said, “You wanna know the funniest thing about the whole “African-American” label? Lots of blacks hate it.”
In the early 90s, I was doing data entry work, and we had to process survey forms from recent new car buyers. On one form, the person had crossed off the option “African American” and written “Black” in large capital letters. With, if I remember correctly, several explanation points and underlines.
PAD is right, of course, that both “Black” and “White” are inaccurate descriptors. Dark brown and light brown, respectively, would be better descriptors of skin color. In fact, I’m reminded of the Deep Space Nine episode “Far Beyond the Stars” where Sisko sees a man in 20th century clothes (Michael Dorn out of costume and make-up) walking down a corridor of the station and greeting him as “Benny.” Later, when describing the apparition, Sisko said the man had brown skin. I found that interesting because it’s A) more accurate than “Black” and B) letting the viewing audience know that 24th century classifications of different ethnic groups of humans is somewhat different than in the 20th.
Which one would hope we’d see in the actual future, as well as in a fictional one.
In my own writing, I debated on how to describe people in a novel set in 2357. My first impulse, to give a hypothetical example, would have been to describe “Bob” as a lanky Black man in his late twenties. But the book is written from limited third person POV. So if “Joe” has the POV in the scene where “Bob” is introduced, “Joe’s” not going to think of “Bob” as “Black”, but as whatever descriptor they use at that time. So I decided to find some other way to describe people of various ethnicities.
In one case, a character is described as being of African ancestry, which isn’t terribly accurate, since people of many races come from the continent of Africa. Though presumably readers would get that he’s Black, especially since he speaks with a Jamaican accent. Though I suppose it’s possible that Whites who’ve lived in Africa later emigrated to Jamaica where their descendants still live. I suspect, however, that they’d be a small percentage of the population.
In another case, a character’s race was described via the contrast between his dark skin and his prematurely white hair.
It’s possible I’ll come up with even better ways to show that my characters are a racial and ethnic mix. Ideally, I’d like to get the point across without describing skin color or other physical features.
With regard to current race identifiers, a co-worker of mine said he prefers to be called “American” or by his name; but if limited to either “Black” or “African American” as an identifier would chose the latter. He said it’s pretty much what would be expected on forms and so forth. His own choice for how he’d identify himself by race: “person of color.”
The former editor of a local newspaper often stated in his editorials when the subject of race came up that we’re all of the same race- human; and that separations of “White”, “Black”, etc. are artificial constructions. He’s got a point. From biological classification point of view, we’re all of the same species.
PAD mentioned that the term Native American is somewhat inaccurate. True, though I’ve tended to use “Native American” over “Indian”– not because it’s “politically correct” as some might say, but because it’s geographically correct. Technically, Indians are from India. Columbus got lost.
Maybe the Canadian term “First Nations” is a better descriptor. Though obviously I’d defer to an individual’s preference as to whether he or she would prefer to be called “Native American” or “Indian.”
I do know that some of that ethnicity I’ve spoken to prefer the word “nation” over “tribe”, as in “Chippewa Nation”, because they believe the word “tribe” has negative connotations.
When I was a kid, I wondered what American Indians called themselves since they wouldn’t have known the word “Indian” before Columbus. I assumed they were all of the same “nationality.” It came as something of a surprise when I learned that American Indians were not one homogeneous group (but go back far enough, and no nationality is). Instead, each “tribe” was distinct (with some alliances and so forth), thus the preference, in some cases, for the word “nations.” I believe that in many cases a tribe’s or nation’s word for itself means “the people” or something along those lines, and others are essentially “not us.” Likewise, their enemies had different names for them.
I agree that people like Sharpton seem more interested in self promotion than in any real discussion of the issues. It would be nice if Holder or Obama or some other respectable figure did condemn Sharpton and others like him for as PAD put it, widening the racial divide.
In early 2007, Ruby Dee was the keynote speaker at Oakland University’s Keeper of the Dream awards event. I covered that event at at one point, in response to a question about what disappointed her but conversely most pleased her about civil rights progress, she said “One thing that bothers me is too many of us who know too little start spouting off about everything.”
I have no idea whether she had Sharpton in mind.
I’ve neither heard nor read Eric Holder’s speech, I’ve just heard about it; so I can’t comment on it specifically. But even if he could have phrased it better in some instances (such as the “cowards” comment), if it gets more people to talk about race (whether between races or within the same race), isn’t that a good thing?
Rick
“It’s possible I’ll come up with even better ways to show that my characters are a racial and ethnic mix. Ideally, I’d like to get the point across without describing skin color or other physical features.”
Using names that combine different heritages could be one way to go. Like Ororo Monroe.
Posted by: Rick Keating at February 27, 2009 06:07 PM
It’s possible I’ll come up with even better ways to show that my characters are a racial and ethnic mix. Ideally, I’d like to get the point across without describing skin color or other physical features.
Possibly you’re double overthinking it?
In the future – hopefully near future – saying “he had black skin”, or skin the colour of (fill in the comparison) is just factually describing what “he” had, without any baggage attached to statement of fact…
Barring visual defects, we all look at someone and see what colour they are. But that’s all we should see.
Cheers.
Rick Keating: “It’s possible I’ll come up with even better ways to show that my characters are a racial and ethnic mix. Ideally, I’d like to get the point across without describing skin color or other physical features.”
Micha: “Using names that combine different heritages could be one way to go. “
“Hi there. My name’s Sitting Bear Kowalski.”
And somewhere out there is at least one person who knows the first three quarters of that joke.