• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Black in America

AmateurScientist

Unregistered
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Messages
5,268
February is Black History month in the US, and has been for many years now. There are all kinds of retrospectives, celebrations, and examinations of black culture and the impact of black persons in the shaping of our great nation.

Right now CNN.com has a special piece called "Black in America." Among other things, it solicits and profiles some e-mails from black persons giving their perspective on what it means to be and what it feels like to be black in America in 2007. I think it's interesting.

Although I am white, as a native of the Deep South in the US (to put it in perspective, between one third and one fourth of the residents of my state are black), I have grown up with, been friends with, attended school with, been in clubs with, employed, been employed by, shared foxholes with, and worked with black persons closely all my life. Some I have been close enough with to consider family, and we have attended each others' special family events such as weddings and funerals.

Still, as close as I have been with some black persons, I can never have the perspective of what it is like to have grown up and remained black in America. As the Rodney King and OJ Simpson verdicts reminded us, there remains a divide in black and white relations that appears from time to time that reveals we do not share cultural backgrounds and experiences as closely as we would sometimes like to pretend.

So, black members of JREF, and anyone else, please feel free to share your thoughts about being black in America, or share your thoughts about the posts on CNN.com regarding the same.

Here's the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/bhm.emails/index.html

AS
 
Last edited:
Im mixed. Which has its issues too. Being light skinned is more mainstream "acceptable", but at the same time youll catch grief from "real blacks".

One thing i kinda notice is how many white people dont really recognize when something is all white. People like to say "Whats with BET, why no White Entertainment Televison." Which I like to reply, "try watching CBS's monday nightlineup and count how many minorities you see."
 
Im mixed. Which has its issues too. Being light skinned is more mainstream "acceptable", but at the same time youll catch grief from "real blacks".

I have no doubt it does have its own issues. Forgive me; I certainly didn't mean to exclude persons of mixed race heritage or background. Thanks for adding that.

One thing i kinda notice is how many white people dont really recognize when something is all white. People like to say "Whats with BET, why no White Entertainment Televison." Which I like to reply, "try watching CBS's monday nightlineup and count how many minorities you see."

Yeah. I have to admit that as a kid and teen, I didn't recognize it as a problem. It wasn't until I got to college and graduate school that I began to recognize that there was even a problem of underrepresentation in mainstream media and culture. I will acknowledge that bringing awareness to that kind of problem is at least one good thing to come out of the political correctness movement.

It's too bad that there needs to be a BET. It should be television, period, for all of us. I think that is something Dr. Martin Luther King would have hoped for by now -- that we didn't have to have separate cultural outlets in order for black Americans to be represented and to feel included.

I feel some pride that there is a mainstream major studio film just released on Friday which features a story about a fictional black family that grew up in my city and returns to it for a funeral. It is "Constellation," and stars Hill Harper, Rae Dawn Chong, Billy Dee Williams, Gabrielle Union, and Zoe Saldana. I haven't seen it yet (despite its having premiered here over a week ago), but I understand that it deals with the family's struggling to come to grips with how they and other black persons were treated 40 years ago (and dealt with a scandal because of an inter-racial romantic relationship), and realizing that they have come a long way, especially for a city in the deep south. Gene Wilder's nephew directed it and calls my city "the jewel of the new south." Unfortunately, the film got some good initial user reviews on imdb.com, but the rating of it is pretty low. I'll have to check it out later this week.

AS
 
I have no doubt it does have its own issues. Forgive me; I certainly didn't mean to exclude persons of mixed race heritage or background. Thanks for adding that.

AS


Hey thats no problem. Most of the time mixes are just put under the black umbrella anyway.

You know whats ironic about BET? Its owned by TimeWarner. Hardly considered a black company! :D
 
As a Canadian living next to the sleeping elephant and keeping a wary ear open for its tummy rumbles, this is a topic I don't feel that I can really comment on with any sense of dispassion.

However, I shall note, that in my lifetime North American society has moved a long way. The world of the South of the 60s seems a long time ago. We should always remember that it is not. I, for one, have lived through a major historical event.
 
OK, so, um, are there any black people on the forum?:confused:

There weren't many non-whites at TAM. We noticed, me and hubby.

Define "black".

It can't really be defined. That's part of the problem with thinking of "race" as a legitimate concept. It can be somewhat categorized, but there is no hard-and-fast definition. Here are a couple, however:

1. Any person who self-identifies as black, regardless of physical appearance.
I don't argue with them, and have no reason to argue with them.

2. Any person whom I think fits the physical characteristics I associate with being black. I have been wrong. It is embarrassing, no matter on which side of that imaginary line I err.

I tend to go with 1. If I think 2, I keep it to myself until and if I learn how that person self-identifies. And then I go with that.
 
Last edited:
We are at a very weird moment in history where this issue is unique...The PR climate of our media, and the gratifacation that each of us wants in not being 'racist', sometimes stand in stark contrast to reality and there are many who are not willing to look closely on the subject.

I feel in 300 years or so the cultural gap between black and white will finally close...people forget how the civil rights movement was just the blink of an eye ago as far as history goes...

Many racial barriers have yet to be touched, much less broken down, but each generation will become more comfortable with each other, and each will tackle those barriers when it comes to it.
 
There weren't many non-whites at TAM. We noticed, me and hubby.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but of course "non-white" does not equal "black."

It can't really be defined. That's part of the problem with thinking of "race" as a legitimate concept.

This is something I do and do not get. Yes, I get that there are geneticists who scoff and tell us that race really has little to no meaning at the genetic level. I also know that part of that line of reasoning is BS. Heritability certainly is a legitimate concept, and there is no question that certain genetic markers are passed on from one generation to the next. That heritability leads to fragmentation of genetic lines of decendency in human beings over time.

(There are indeed genetic markers that are common in "black" persons that are not found in non-black persons, and vice-versa. There are also morphological tendencies, especially on the face, that we tend to associate with "blackness." Sure, there is plenty of variation among those morphological features, but we all know them and recognize them when we see them. Not all "black" persons share them, of course, so having those features is neither necessary nor sufficient to be "black."

I also recognize that "black" is not a monolithic concept, at the genetic level or otherwise. There is much genetic and morphological diversity among "black" persons).

At least it did in the past. Increasing globalization and easy travel have made interbreeding among those varying genetic lines commonplace today, such that there are many adults and children living now who describe themselves are being of mixed race. It's not a meaningless concept, and neither is race.

Whether we like to admit it to ourselves or others, we use the concept of race all the time, even if only subconsicously. Just this past Sunday sportscasters and writers all over the US made a big deal out of the fact that for the first time in NFL history a black head coach was going to the Super Bowl; in fact, both teams were led by black coaches.

What was that all about? Was that observation meaningless? Of course not, so I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that "black" has no meaning. Why is there a "Black History Month" in February in the US if "black" has no meaning?

It can be somewhat categorized, but there is no hard-and-fast definition. Here are a couple, however:

1. Any person who self-identifies as black, regardless of physical appearance.
I don't argue with them, and have no reason to argue with them.

2. Any person whom I think fits the physical characteristics I associate with being black. I have been wrong. It is embarrassing, no matter on which side of that imaginary line I err.

I tend to go with 1. If I think 2, I keep it to myself until and if I learn how that person self-identifies. And then I go with that.

All well and good, but in regions and places in the US where there is a substantial population of black persons, not many of the residents, black, white, yellow or green really have such a hard time with identifying the "race" of most persons. Granted, with the proliferation of multi-racial couples in the past few generations, it sometimes is hard to place a label on someone, but for the most part it isn't an issue with most persons we encounter.

Of my many black clients, it is they, not me, who bring up being black. It doesn't even register a blink of an eye as an issue, as it isn't politically incorrect to acknowledge blackness or whiteness or other ethnicity in my city. It's just a fact that doesn't always necessarily carry significant political or social overtones. Sometimes it's merely descriptive for identification's sake, like the description of a victim or a subject in a police report.

AS
 
It can't really be defined. That's part of the problem with thinking of "race" as a legitimate concept. It can be somewhat categorized, but there is no hard-and-fast definition. Here are a couple, however:

1. Any person who self-identifies as black, regardless of physical appearance.
I don't argue with them, and have no reason to argue with them.

That's ludicrous. If I self-identify as black, I am black?

Think about it: One could call it a woo argument...

2. Any person whom I think fits the physical characteristics I associate with being black. I have been wrong. It is embarrassing, no matter on which side of that imaginary line I err.

What are the physical characteristics you associate with being black?

I tend to go with 1. If I think 2, I keep it to myself until and if I learn how that person self-identifies. And then I go with that.

What if a person doesn't self-identify as anything? I don't self-identify as "white", or even "caucasian".
 
That's ludicrous. If I self-identify as black, I am black?

Think about it: One could call it a woo argument...



What are the physical characteristics you associate with being black?



What if a person doesn't self-identify as anything? I don't self-identify as "white", or even "caucasian".

Do you self-identify as not an Arab? Why or why not?

How does one know you are (presumably) not an Arab?

AS
 
Do you self-identify as not an Arab? Why or why not?

I don't self-identify as an Arab.

Why or why not? I don't need to give reasons, do I? If I do, and you don't agree with them, does that mean the self-identifying thingie goes out the window?

How does one know you are (presumably) not an Arab?

That comes with the self-identifying thingie: If I say I am X, I am X. If I say I am not X, I am not X.

If you are going to argue otherwise, you will have to come up with some criteria.
 
I don't self-identify as an Arab.

Why or why not? I don't need to give reasons, do I? If I do, and you don't agree with them, does that mean the self-identifying thingie goes out the window?

I'm not such a big advocate of the self-identify thing. For one example of why, a really disproportionately large section of the southeastern US population self-identifies as being part Cherokee Indian. Extrapolating out the numbers, they don't square with official estimates of the extant Cherokee Tribe.

That comes with the self-identifying thingie: If I say I am X, I am X. If I say I am not X, I am not X.

If you are going to argue otherwise, you will have to come up with some criteria.

The latter point about criteria is sort of the point, isn't it? I mean, come on, don't we all sort of have facial charactericstics criteria for categorizing presumed ethnicity upon meeting or seeing someone new? Whether it's politically correct or not, I suspect most of us can distinguish between someone of characteristically Japanese descent from someone of characterically West African descent. I know that begs the question of what is "characteristically" X descent, but you know damn well what I mean. For instance, we don't typically see your characteristically Scandanavian blond hair and blue eyes in ethnically Japanese persons, do we (at least not without dye and colored contacts)?

AS
 
I'm not such a big advocate of the self-identify thing. For one example of why, a really disproportionately large section of the southeastern US population self-identifies as being part Cherokee Indian. Extrapolating out the numbers, they don't square with official estimates of the extant Cherokee Tribe.

Positively woo.

The latter point about criteria is sort of the point, isn't it? I mean, come on, don't we all sort of have facial charactericstics criteria for categorizing presumed ethnicity upon meeting or seeing someone new? Whether it's politically correct or not, I suspect most of us can distinguish between someone of characteristically Japanese descent from someone of characterically West African descent. I know that begs the question of what is "characteristically" X descent, but you know damn well what I mean. For instance, we don't typically see your characteristically Scandanavian blond hair and blue eyes in ethnically Japanese persons, do we (at least not without dye and colored contacts)?

What about me, then? The proverbial Danish Viking? I don't have either blond hair or blue eyes. Yet, I can easily claim Viking ancestry, probably more than most. Is "Viking" a "race"? If not, why not?

"Race" isn't about self-identifying. It's about prejudice. And not solely for derogatory reasons.
 
Positively woo.

Well, not entirely, but mostly so, in my opinion. It's a cultural thing, and mostly worn as a badge of pride. Most of the persons I meet claiming some legally recognized degree of Cherokee heritage (I believe it's 1/16 or 1/32 to be legally part of the Tribe) are no more Cherokee than I'm Nepalese. Also, you should understand that being legally recognized as Cherokee (or a member of any Native American Indian tribe, for that matter) carries with it eligibility for certain set-asides by government and Tribe-only benefits like college scholarships. There is some potential legal and economic benefit to being recognized and being issued a card (yes, they literally have cards for identification).

What about me, then? The proverbial Danish Viking? I don't have either blond hair or blue eyes. Yet, I can easily claim Viking ancestry, probably more than most. Is "Viking" a "race"? If not, why not?

Sorry, I've never met you, but my faulty recollection from having seen some (poorly lit) online photos of you led me to believe that you had both blond hair and blue eyes. I take it back then on your word that you don't.

"Race" isn't about self-identifying. It's about prejudice. And not solely for derogatory reasons.

To a limited extent, I agree that any group politics, of which race is a sub-category, is about prejudice, good, bad, and neutral. Race is not a worthless concept, however, as it still has many social, cultural, legal, and political consequences. On government forms (at the local, state, and federal levels) there is often a spot for checking a box for race or ethnicity. Those completing the forms are allowed to self-identify, for the most part. Exceptions may be for some set-aside programs and scholarships. Oh, and government bureaucrats at all levels keep mountains of statistics tracking activities and patterns by race or ethnicity.

Despite the impression one might get from certain online circles, discussing race and racial issues isn't necessarily off limits per se in certain circles in real life. Some degree of sensitivity is recommended, but the topic itself is not socially verboten in my neck of the woods. That includes discussing white and black relations, whatever that means to you, between and among groups which include persons who are white, black, mixed, Asian, or other.

AS
 
Last edited:
Is "Viking" a "race"? If not, why not?

I wouldn't say "Viking," because that's mostly historical now, isn't it? What about Scandanavian? I would say that Scandanavian is probably a facially morphologic category of ethnic (and probably genetic, too, for certain markers) heritage that has certain typical features. I would hazard a guess that it isn't hard to rule out "Scandanavian" as an ethnic heritage for many persons by looking at them with a quick glance. In this case, I suspect darker hues or skin tones not due to dark tans would be a rather quick way to rule out "Scandanavian," for instance.

You may call that "woo" if you like, but I suspect most of us do it subconsciously every day, whether we're aware of it or not. We are creatures who habitually categorize things, including people. We like to find patterns. One of the most common kinds of patterns we humans are very good at recognizing and categorizing is facial patterns. Pretending that there are not recognizable groups that share a common ancestry and heritability is silly. We can see them and recognize them with a high degree of accuracy without giving it much thought, and if we compared those guesses with ancestries prepared by geneticists, I suspect they would match very often. Go ahead and pretend they don't exist, however, if you like.

AS
 
"Race" isn't about self-identifying. It's about prejudice. And not solely for derogatory reasons.
In the Middle East there's a whole nation based on racial self-identification: Israel.
 
Many Whites in the United States have a strong sense of ethnic identity that is tied to their immigrant ancestors’ country of origin (Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Swedish Americans) or to their experience in this country (New England Yankees, Midwestern Hoosiers, Appalachians, and so on). There are many subgroups within the White experience, but ...[m]any United States Whites with a strong sense of ethnic identity do not have a strong sense of racial identity. Indeed, ...many Whites take their Whiteness for granted to the extent that they do not consciously think about it. Nevertheless, their identity as members of the White group in the United States has a profound impact on their lives.

"White Racial Identity Development in the United States" by Rita Hardiman in Race, Ethnicity and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspective, edited by Elizabeth Pathy Salett and Diane R. Koslow (Washington, DC: NMCI Publications, 1994).



...it has frequently been the case that White students enrolled in my class on racial and cultural issues in counseling expect to be taught all about the cultures of people of color, and they are almost always surprised to hear that we will be discussing the White group’s experience. Some students remark that they are not White; they are female, or working-class, or Catholic or Jewish, but not White. When challenged, they reluctantly admit that they are White but report that this is the first time they have had to think about what it means for them.

"White Racial Identity Development in the United States" by Rita Hardiman in Race, Ethnicity and Self: Identity in Multicultural Perspective, edited by Elizabeth Pathy Salett and Diane R. Koslow (Washington, DC: NMCI Publications, 1994).


[Blacks are mired] in a very natural process of inversion in which we invert from negative to positive the very point of difference — our blackness — that the enemy used to justify our oppression.

...One of the many advantages whites enjoy in America is a relative freedom from the draining obligation of racial inversion. Whites do not have to spend precious time fashioning an identity out of simply being white. They do not have to self-consciously imbue whiteness with an ideology, look to whiteness for some special essence, or divide up into factions and wrestle over what it means to be white. Their racial collectivism, to the extent that they feel it, creates no imbalance between the collective and the individual. This, of course, is yet another blessing of history and of power, of never having lived in the midst of an overwhelming enemy race.

Shelby Steele, The Content of Our Character (New York: Harper Perennial, 1990).



The anxiety that exists for Whites concerning the subject of race should not be underestimated. It is high even for those who believe they have mastered their biases and especially for those who have made the commitment to self-confrontation. For although many would like to believe they are free of racial prejudice and want to view it as operative only in instances of blatant bigotry, there is tension about checking this out. This anxiety has been expressed in terms of fear of discovering bad things about oneself, uneasiness about unexamined values, awareness of the pervasiveness of racism, of one’s helplessness to cope, and of a sense of a sense of entrapment... Management of this anxiety in the interest of confronting bias and achieving greater comfort and confidence in cross-racial interactions should be seen as an act of courage.

But usually Whites do not feel courageous. They tend instead to plead ignorance and to protest that they have never had to think about the meaning of being White.

Elaine Pinderhughes, Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Power: The Key to Efficacy in Clinical Practice (New York: The Free Press, 1989).



There are few resources that focus on the need for white men to learn about their own identity. History books do not tell about the effects of slavery on the slave owners. They do not suggest that white people’s fears when they see two or more black men walk or drive through white neighborhoods may be the same fears that haunted white Southerners after slave-uprisings such as Denmark Vesey’s plot in 1822 and Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831. Nor do they describe how being part of the race that has dominated and oppressed Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, and other people of color on this continent affects individual members of that race.

Oron South, "The Learning Problem," in The Diversity Factor, Vol. 1 No. 3, 1993, pp. 32-33.



There are two other students in my class who have one black parent and one white parent, and they were very black-identified, but they also got recruited very heavily by these same two [black] guys who were like, "You belong with us. Why don’t you come with us?" And I didn’t want to be recruited. Again, I wasn’t willing to make this decision that these were the only people I was going to talk to for three years, which is really what they wanted you to decide. It was okay to talk to the Latino students, you know, and the Native American students; if you had to you could talk to the Asian students, but you should avoid white students unless they prove themselves... I know so many white students who feel completely alienated; they didn’t come to Berkeley expecting to have to jump through hoops to be allowed to talk to someone who was black.

Lisa Feldstein, age 28, biracial child of a black mother and white father, quoted by Lise Funderburg in Black, White, Other: Biracial Americans Talk About Race and Identity (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1994) pp. 130-131.





You start talking about racial issues, especially with upper-class white folk, immediately they go into the denial stage of "Prove to me why this is true." Well, how many volumes am I going to sit here and beat my head against the wall to prove to you that our life experience may be just a little bit different from yours?

Brad Simpson, age 31, biracial child of a white mother and black father, quoted by Lise Funderburg in Black, White, Other: Biracial Americans Talk About Race and Identity (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1994) p. 171.



...the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.

Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increase in Mankind," (1751), Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree (New Haven, 1959). Cited in article by Straughton Lynd, "Slavery and the Founding Fathers," in Black History: A Reappraisal, ed. Melvin Drimmer (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969).







And to answer AS and Larsen: You don't get to tell me who I am. I get to tell you. And if I happen to want to say I'm black, what business is it of yours? Are you going to tell me what "race" I belong to, based on your observations?

I did once go around saying I was part Cherokee, because that was the family story. However, there is no proof of it, save for two family photos from the late 1800's that show two people whose features look rather "Indian."

I don't self-identify as Cherokee anymore. And you don't get to tell me I'm wrong, because you can see my high-cheekbones and thin lips and the fact my tan can last for months.

As to why I said "non-white?" Because you just can't win on this freaking forum no matter what you do or how careful you try to be. If I had said there were no blacks, SOMEONE would have helpfully pointed out the Asian persons, or the Hispanic persons.

See, what my husband and I said at TAM, verbatim, was this:

Me: Have you noticed, it's a sea of whiteness here?

Him: Yeah. Why is that? Aren't any non-whites skeptical folks, too?

Me: I...I..I'm sure...there must be. No group is monolithic.

Him: I know. So where are they?

Me: (feeling helpless) I don't know. I'd like to know.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom