Black in America

[The Atheist]

Well, it would appear that more black Americans (or other) post on Stormfront than JREF.

 

[CFLarsen]

There hasn't been snow there for a week, and that was only for a few hours.

I work fast.

Was MLK a black person? What about Frederick Douglass? Harriet Tubman? Rosa Parks?

Rosa Parks' maternal grandfather was born to a white plantation owner and a slave. If we follow the 1/16 rule, Rosa Parks is white.

Although he later said otherwise, Douglass claimed that his father was white.

No. Look at some photographs of the persons I listed above for some examples, although you will note above that I stated clearly that those characteristics vary widely from individual to individual, just as they do for all persons of all other ethnicities. Thankfully, we humans don't all share the same, indistinguishable face. We might all look like Gumby.

But you didn't say that we all shared the same, indistinguishable face. You said there were "visually identifiable characteristics" that some persons have. Does Rosa Parks have those "visually identifiable characteristics"?

Yes, yes, I know. Out of Africa we all came. Humans didn't stop (and haven't stopped, for that matter) evolving in Africa. We have evolved over thousands of generations, and heritable characteristics have traveled with those various migrating populations. Some are found in some surviving descendants of those populations, whereas some different characteristics are found in the surviving descendants of other populations.

Yes, historical migrations and invasions displaced groups from certain places, as happened in your Denmark.

It's a fair bet to say that it is the rule and not the exception. Groups have always migrated, for one reason or another.

Fair enough. Not so here. Hence, we have surviving American Indian Tribes that exist as separate nations within the US. It's a little surreal legally, politically, and diplomatically.

And divisive, based on race.

No question about it. As you and LA noted above, we're all mongrels already. Our mongrelization will increase, however, in successive generations such that differentiating between readily identifiable groups based on several shared facial characteristics will become increasingly difficult. I wonder what that will do to multiculturalism, which seems to have been invented to preserve and celebrate our differences, not to do away with them.

Al Agami is a Danish rap star. Would you call him black?

The liberal ideal in the US is for remedial measures to correct past discrmination. Personally, I agree with Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele that Affirmative Action and similar programs and policies have outlived their usefulness, and today create more problems than they solve.

Quite so.

I don't support those programs, Claus. I'm for abolishing them as well. I'm particularly fond of MLK's ideal of a colorblind society, however naive or unrealistic that may be. Who knows? It may not be ultimately.

I didn't say you supported them.

I don't know why it is either naive or unrealistic to have a colorblind society. It takes will, that's all.

If you can do away with a slave society, why is it a bigger step to have a colorblind society?

It doesn't. I would argue that it's primarily because of our fixation on remediation and guilt. I say get over it.

Absolutely. Do Danes feel guilty about what happened during the Viking age? ◊◊◊◊, no! Should the Germans of today feel guilty about what happened during the World Wars? Of course not.

I agree there are not clear boundaries for many persons. That doesn't mean that there are not plenty of persons who are easily and readily classifiable as primarily belonging to one racial or ethnic group or another.

As for Woods, if I recall correctly, he once referred to himself as "Cablinasian." Like LA, he seems to be annoyed with the constant attempts to pigeonhole him racially or ethnically. I think Powell acknowledges that he is black.

Which is funny, since I never thought of him being "black", until years after he hit the spotlight. And only because someone else said he was.

I can't provide you "EVIDENCE???" here, Claus. It just is, at least historically in the US, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

You know that doesn't work here. "It just is" is not a viable answer.

If you say that there are "visually identifiable characteristics" for certain groups, but can't list them for "blacks", which group can you list the characteristics of?

Yes and no. How's that?

You have a great future in politics.

I'm not a particle physicist, but I use electons every time I turn on my iPod. "Electronics" are useful to me, even if I can't explain how they work.

That isn't the point. The point is that someone can explain how they work. I have yet to see anyone explain how "race" works.

Nope, but culturally we are much more Roman than anything else.

Not correct. Culturally, we are much more Post-Renaissance than anything else. After the fall of the Roman Empire, we lost virtually all knowledge and connections to the Roman Empire for centuries, including its culture. It wasn't until after the Renaissance that the "modern" world began to form.

Yes and no again. The remarkably different reactions to the OJ Simpson acquittal in 1995, split almost perfectly along racial lines, depending on whether you are predominantly white or black, is a great example of there being "two Americas." On the other hand, having served in the US Army alongside many fellow soldiers who happened to be black, and having studied what it is like to be in combat, I would hazard a guess that American soldiers in combat in Iraq feel a very strong bond with their fellow American soldiers -- their brothers in arms -- one much stronger than the bond any of the black American soldiers might feel with black strangers in Somalia.

Now you need to extend that sentiment to the rest of your society.

 

[LostAngeles]

I think that's a very interesting remark. See, even you subconsciously, or perhaps even consciously, attempted to classify Dungy's ethnicity.

You stated earlier that you were mildly annoyed with the "guess LA's ethnicity" game, and I can understand why, but here you do it too. I'm not blaming you, because we've been conditioned to do it.

Thanks again for speaking out about it, as you and Tmy have been able to give your own perspectives and relay your own experiences that those of us who are not black or mixies could not have personally experienced.

I also agree with you that race shouldn't matter, but it does. In the US, it is almost always at least under the surface in many of our relations with others, even with our close friends who are of ethnicities different from our own.

AS

You're right about having subconsiously conditioned to do it. I probably wouldn't have given it a lot of thought had the announcers not felt the need to bring it up. I was more concerned about Dungy eating a sandwich and was making jokes to that point.

You're welcome AS and I have some stories about the game that are now pretty funny, as opposed to at the time when they were either hurtful, offensive, or annoying.

 

[Tmy]

When asked why we have to have a Black History Month, my eudaction professor replied "because every day is white history day."

Her meaning is just a hair cryptic. I hope I don't have to explain.

Think about your schooling. Do you realize how eurocentric is was? I bet most students can name more European capitols than Asian, African, SouthAmerican capitols combined.

 

[Nathyn]

Do you have a problem with St. Patricks day too? Its just the Irish separating themselves from the rest of us. No one ever seems to mind that, but Black history month is the devil bla bla bla.

What is so wrong with celebrating out differences? Should we abolish Italian,. Greek, Spanish ect.. festivals and holidays.? NO MORE AUTHENITIC CHINESE RESTURANTS!!!! Our countries strength is that we pull our identity from so many backgrounds.

The issue wh white supremist groups is that they arent about celebrating they are about dividing.

St. Patrick's Day isn't established or funded by the government.

I feel extremely unsentimental about government policy, because Congress's job is to run the government to actually accomplish a freer and better society, not to appease interest groups or carry out ceremonies that make us feel good. So, as a perfect example, I think that the tomb of the unknown soldier is a waste of money. It's sentimental, yes, but realistically, paying two men to walk in circles around a dead man's grave for a century is a waste of money.

If you want to fund a "black history month," if black nationalist groups want to establish one, go ahead... And similarly, the KKK can establish their own holidays, with their own funding.

Our country's strength is that we pull our identity from many backgrounds -- so we shouldn't seek to abolish differences, no. So, for instance, those who proclaim "Speak English!" and oppose all remnants of foreign culture are racist and xenophobic. But on the other hand, it makes no sense for us to promote our cultural differences. If we do have cultural differences, if I speak a different language, have different fashion, listen to different music, have a different religion, and have a different worldview, we should acknowledge these differences. But it doesn't make any sense to promote such differences, by encouraging blacks to consider their skin-color a source of primary identity.

I've known blacks who identify themselves more as skaters and anime fans than African-Americans. What makes "skin color" so important that African-Americans should identify themselves based upon that?

We should acknowledge, yes, some of us are white and some of us are black... But the racial identity movement, whether it's by black or white nationalists, essentially implies that our personal character is determined by our skin-color. If not, then the idea of racial identification is ludicrous.

Imagine, for instance, the ridiculousness of a "haircolor identity" movement, of people who identified themselves as redheads, brunettes, or blondes, who felt oppressed. Oh yes, the "blonde people" have grown tired of blonde jokes and they will now fight for their right to not be mocked as stupid!

Groups like the NAACP and others which promote black nationalism are no different than this. There is no difference between blacks and whites, so to fight for the rights of "black people" specifically or claim that you're somehow different because you're black is racist.

 

[Nathyn]

Think about your schooling. Do you realize how eurocentric is was? I bet most students can name more European capitols than Asian, African, SouthAmerican capitols combined.

Aside from London and Moscow, I can't think of any European capitols.

But I do know the majority of South American capitols because in one Spanish class (I took three years of Spanish too), we had to memorize them all.

With the abundance of curriculum on black history, not to mention modern U.S. history which includes non-whites, I fail to see how you can say our curriculum is Eurocentric.

Even so, though, it makes sense for our country's history to revolve around European history, since we were founded as a European colony. Our history was founded primarily upon the history of Europe, not Africa, Asia, or South America.

Furthermore, I think your assertion that "European = white" is ignorant. I suppose Spaniards, Serbs, and Turks are all caucasians?

Calling them all "European" is the typical ignorant American view. A Russian is not a Ukranian anymore than a Chinese person is Korean. It's recognized as blatantly racist to call Asians "orientals," yet you see no problem in making a similar generalization about white people in Europe.

 

[The Atheist]

Aside from London and Moscow, I can't think of any European capitols.

Right... You never heard of Paris or Rome. Where'd you go to school again?

Calling them all "European" is the typical ignorant American view. A Russian is not a Ukranian anymore than a Chinese person is Korean. It's recognized as blatantly racist to call Asians "orientals," yet you see no problem in making a similar generalization about white people in Europe.

Given that "European" encompasses every country from UK/Ireland to Russia, including Scandanavia, then down to Turkey and across to Spain, it pretty much encompasses where "whites" now living in USA, Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa came from.

 

[gtc]

"whites" now living in...NZ

NZ has whites? I thought they just had (all) blacks!

 

[The Atheist]

NZ has whites? I thought they just had (all) blacks!

Ahhhhhh.

 

[slingblade]

I
I don't know why it is either naive or unrealistic to have a colorblind society. It takes will, that's all.

No one will get it, nor will they agree. I already know that. But colorblindness is just another form of racism, and an insidious one, as it drives racism underground, so to speak, where we can't see it.

But like the wind, we can see the effects. Unfortunately, we can pretend they aren't there or don't matter.

RACISM WITHOUT RACISTS: COLOR-BLIND RACISM AND THE PERSISTENCE OF RACIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES. By Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 2003. Pp. 213.

Abstract: In Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva examines how whites use color-blindness as a tool to perpetuate racial inequality without themselves sounding racist. He asserts that white America’s justifications for the continued second-class status of African Americans stem from a new, post-Civil Rights racial ideology that he calls color-blind racism. Bonilla-Silva argues that color-blind racism, which is founded upon the belief that race no longer matters, is currently the dominant racial ideology in the United States. This Book Review ratifies Bonilla-Silva’s argument through an examination of the recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action in higher education, which demonstrably undervalue the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Through the use of a color-blind ideology, the Justices mask the seriousness of racial inequality in the United States and may be hastening an end to racial progress before its time.

There is much more out there on the topic of colorblind racism, but I'm not going to waste my time looking it up.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Two things out that:

If true, they'd be right at home here!

Nice generalisation - anything to suggest that's right?

I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of the people who post on this forum are Black.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Where all da brotha's be at?

Calling all Brothers...Identify yourselves!
No, I'm not one...Seriously, Who on this forum isn't white? I bet that less than 10% are non-white and less than 5% are black(mixed or not).

 

[slingblade]

Let's see how that works on other things, shall we?

"I don't see you as a man, at all. To me, you're just a person."

But he is a man, and has to deal with it every day.

"I don't see you as a child at all. To me, you're just a person."

But she is a child, and has to deal with that, every day.

"I don't see you as blind at all. To me, you're just a person."
"I don't see you as having no legs. To me...."
"I don't see you as impoverished. To me...."


So it's okay to take a crucial part of someone's identity and pretend it doesn't exist. And if we do that, everything will eventually work itself out without the need to do anything else.

Except, some people ARE black, or Asian, or Amerind, or hispanic.
Where is the logic in pretending they are not? How does it help to deny that?

Just to make you feel better?

 

[The Atheist]

I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of the people who post on this forum are Black.

I'd give very short odds on unders at 5%, so no bet here.

 

[Skeptic]

The big disagreement about racism in America is that whites say they are not more racist (on average) than blacks; blacks say they meet far more racism than whites.

John Paul Altos notes that both may well be correct. Suppose 10% of the population is black and, also, 10% is racist (being a white person who hates blacks or a black person who hates whites). In every 100 people you meet, you'll have, on average, 81 non-racist whites, 9 racist whites, 9 non-racist blacks, and only one racist black.

So despite the fact that whites are exactly as likely to be racists as blacks here, if you are white, you'll only feel racism from 1% of the people you meet, while if you're black, you'll feel it from 9% of those you meet. The reason is not that whites are more racists on average, but simply that since there are more whites than blacks, there are more white racists in total.

Being a minority, notes Altos, often means you will be a target of much more racism than the majority even if society is not prejudiced at all, but simply because there are more people in the majority and therefore more racists as well.

(Incidentally, he notes that the same explains other "paradoxes" based on the fact that each one of us is a minority of one vis-a-vis the rest of society. Why do you, such a nice person, always seem to recieve a lot of rudeness from society? Well, since you are one person and you meet-say-100 people a week, you will recieve 100 as much rudeness, on average, per week than you dish out.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

I've known blacks who identify themselves more as skaters and anime fans than African-Americans. What makes "skin color" so important that African-Americans should identify themselves based upon that?

We should acknowledge, yes, some of us are white and some of us are black... But the racial identity movement, whether it's by black or white nationalists, essentially implies that our personal character is determined by our skin-color. If not, then the idea of racial identification is ludicrous.

Imagine, for instance, the ridiculousness of a "haircolor identity" movement, of people who identified themselves as redheads, brunettes, or blondes, who felt oppressed. Oh yes, the "blonde people" have grown tired of blonde jokes and they will now fight for their right to not be mocked as stupid!

Groups like the NAACP and others which promote black nationalism are no different than this. There is no difference between blacks and whites, so to fight for the rights of "black people" specifically or claim that you're somehow different because you're black is racist.

The problem is that even if you yourself don't consider your skin color important, and do not consider it as an integral part of your identity, other people do. If you're treated badly because of a physical characteristic, it's not your physical characteristic that's the problem, nor is it your own attitude about your physical characteristic. It's the other guy's attitude about your physical characteristic that's the problem.

 

[CFLarsen]

No one will get it, nor will they agree. I already know that. But colorblindness is just another form of racism, and an insidious one, as it drives racism underground, so to speak, where we can't see it.

But like the wind, we can see the effects. Unfortunately, we can pretend they aren't there or don't matter.

There is much more out there on the topic of colorblind racism, but I'm not going to waste my time looking it up.

Colorblind racism? That's a new one. Can you give an example?

Where all da brotha's be at?

Calling all Brothers...Identify yourselves!
No, I'm not one...Seriously, Who on this forum isn't white? I bet that less than 10% are non-white and less than 5% are black(mixed or not).

Who, on this forum, is "white"? What is that? It is clear that nobody can define "black", so maybe someone can define "white".

Let's see how that works on other things, shall we?

"I don't see you as a man, at all. To me, you're just a person."

But he is a man, and has to deal with it every day.

"I don't see you as a child at all. To me, you're just a person."

But she is a child, and has to deal with that, every day.

"I don't see you as blind at all. To me, you're just a person."
"I don't see you as having no legs. To me...."
"I don't see you as impoverished. To me...."

So it's okay to take a crucial part of someone's identity and pretend it doesn't exist. And if we do that, everything will eventually work itself out without the need to do anything else.

But that's the question: Why identify as a skin color at all? Why separate people based on their skin color?

Except, some people ARE black, or Asian, or Amerind, or hispanic.
Where is the logic in pretending they are not? How does it help to deny that?

Just to make you feel better?

The problem lies how you define a "black", "Asian" or whatever. What the hell is someone from the "Asian" race? "Asia" is a geographical distinction, while "black" is not.

Am I black, because I say I am black?

Is high-cheekbones, thin lips and a long lasting tan what identifies a Cherokee? I can show you other "races" that have the same features, but are clearly not Cherokee. Now what?

 

[PogoPedant]

#define WHITE 0xFFFFFF;

Other than that, definitions of black and white etc. depend on perception. Racism is based not on reality with absolute definitions, but on an individual's perception of reality. So stop asking for definitions of black, of white, or of race, because such definitions are irrelevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

#define WHITE 0xFFFFFF;

Other than that, definitions of black and white etc. depend on perception. Racism is based not on reality with absolute definitions, but on an individual's perception of reality. So stop asking for definitions of black, of white, or of race, because such definitions are irrelevant.

We are not discussing race, then. We merely talk past each other, because we are allowed to make up our own definitions.

Even less productive than watching paint dry.

 

[slingblade]

But that's the question: Why identify as a skin color at all? Why separate people based on their skin color?

You're looking at it backwards, though. You have to acknowledge that for some people, because of their skin color, inequity and bigotry still exist. That they must deal with it every day, while you can choose to ignore it, if you're white.

To ignore it dismisses the problems they face on a daily basis. It dismisses them.

You aren't separating them. You are acknowledging their daily reality. I call that respect, not separation. They are black, or Asian, or Hispanic, or Amerind, or whatever they are. Your ignoring that won't make it easier for them to get along. To do that places the solution on them, instead of on us.

"Instead of changing my perceptions, my biases, my prejudices, I'll just change you! Presto! I don't see you as black!"

What on earth good does that do?

In my class on White Identity, we explored the idea that to say "I don't see your color--you're just like me," is rather like saying "you're white, like me."
But they are neither white, nor is their daily life just like the average white person's life.

There are many things you get, every day, for being white, that you didn't ask for, but can't refuse. Their color is something they can't choose to see or not, deal with or not. They must deal with it. Why deny their reality?

When I walk into a store, for instance, no one follows me around because I might steal. But many blacks get followed........

I've mentioned "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" many, many, many times. I don't think anyone's ever read it though. But it can still be easily Googled, if anyone wants to bother. I doubt they will. It must be painful or something, I don't know.

Is high-cheekbones, thin lips and a long lasting tan what identifies a Cherokee? I can show you other "races" that have the same features, but are clearly not Cherokee. Now what?

I made that statement so you could hopefully understand that just because I might look a little Indian doesn't mean you can think of me as an Indian. I may have a couple of "classic indian features," but they don't make me Cherokee. I'm not Cherokee. My family was never part of the Dawes Census. Oddly, many whites in Oklahoma, where I'm from, think they are part Cherokee. More oddly still, it's usually just the one "grandmother" or "great-grandmother."

Didn't that woman have an entire family? Parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins? So why aren't they also part of those families? How do so many people in Oklahoma have just one Indian ancestor?

Girl 6 was mentioned earlier. I met her at the pajama party, and I have to tell you, I had no idea she wasn't white. Do I have the right to tell her she is white, because I perceive her that way, or do I need to respect her self-identification, regardless of how she came by it?

My grandma always told me we were "Black Dutch." Look it up and find out what it means....

http://www.rosecity.net/cherokee/blackdutch.html