A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
I arrived in the USA in the spring of 1970 as a wet behind the ears 18 year old. And it was very much the "I am Black and I am proud" era. Stokely Carmichael, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Malcolm X shaped and defined the use of the word "Black". John Carlos and Tommie Smith were and remain icons of that era.
A few years ago, I thought it was downright silly when some folks were up in arms after Harry Reid used the word "Negro" when discussing Obama's candicacy for President when it was clear that he wasn't trying to disparage anyone and everybody understood the point he was trying to make.
But that's politics. And all is fair in politics. As Lyndon Johnson used to say, it is all about perception. So let Harry Reid spend his whole campaign denying he is a closet white racist supremacist.
jazzcyclist wrote:there are very few Black Americans who aren't multiracial. . . .There are many Blacks who don't have a 100% European parent who nonetheless possess a lot more European DNA than Obama. A while back, DNA testing was done on former NFL player Emmit Smith, and it was discovered that he was 12% (~1/8th) European and 6% (~1/16th) Native American.
Which is why the 'pale sprinter' threads were so stupid. Defining a sprinter as 'black' or 'pale' is an insult to the real complexity of our heritages. As I've mentioned, my blonde-haired, blue-eyed children (and now grandchildren) have Cherokee blood coursing through their veins. My wife (light-brown hair, blue-eyed, very fairly complected) could have qualified for a scholarship for Native-Americans, for heavens sake!! Looking at someone like Mariah Carey or Vanessa Williams should cure us of labeling someone. Nowadays race is often self-determined, and sooner or later even that distinction will be meaningless. My (known) heritage is British (Eng/Wales/Scot) and Dutch, which makes me a mutt, and I always put down 'Other' under 'race' on forms I have to fill out.
Marlow wrote:basically everyone who hates any group in an 'us vs. them' way
I like the word "tribalism" to describe this phenomenon. Mrs Pego's native village was fairly evenly divided into Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox. Each group considered itself superior to those others (naturally).
A 60 Minutes episode of a couple of months back suggested that the "us vs. them" thing exists in babies of a very young age. Not at all learned behaviour, as I recall.
Of course, all of that tribalism used to be set aside during National Brotherwood Week. It appears that National Brotherhood week survives only in this song, a Tom Lehrer classic that dates back to the '60's:
Marlow wrote: My (known) heritage is British (Eng/Wales/Scot) and Dutch, which makes me a mutt, and I always put down 'Other' under 'race' on forms I have to fill out.
Why would you put 'other' ?? these are nationalities not races.
Marlow wrote: My (known) heritage is British (Eng/Wales/Scot) and Dutch, which makes me a mutt, and I always put down 'Other' under 'race' on forms I have to fill out.
Why would you put 'other' ?? these are nationalities not races.
Race? It's a meaningless term for humans. Wiki explains it succinctly: "While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is often used in a naive or simplistic way, i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits."
So, if a form is trying to make non-existent distinctions (see Mariah Carey allusion above), how am I to answer that EXCEPT as 'other'? Seriously? I'm pretty sure all our ancestors are from East Africa, so where does that leave us?
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Probably Harlem
Vault-emort wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
I don't think there is much of a consensus on this topic, which is not at all surprising given the topic we are discussing.
However,I think what has been good is that the discussion has been pretty much on topic without the extreme name calling that has surfaced at times in other threads.
It will be interesting to see what comments Anthony Treacher has to say when he rejoins the debate.
Marlow wrote:[Wiki explains it succinctly: "others in the scientific community suggest .....race has no taxonomic significance[/u]: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. I'm pretty sure all our ancestors are from East Africa,.
That may be true. All humans can interbreed but evolution over two million years, migration to diverse environments and selective breeding has resulted, although the classification is fuzzy, in five(?) recognizable, more or less consistently physically distinct groups of people which we have been conditioned to refer to as "races"
There are practical reasons for this. How else to narrow down the description of the perpetrator of a crime ? Or redress a greviance against a "race" or racial sterotyping? And, in some wars, makes it easier to identify the enemy on sight.
Also, in recent years some "scientists" have come to believe that humanoid remains in South Africa pre-date those in East Africa.. Of course, that could also mean we have not yet discovered the oldest remains in East Africa.
The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
So is American Indian a 'race'? If it is, I fail the "physical identifying characteristics" test, because when I met you, I never would have know you were any 'different' from just looking at you!
Now . . . as soon as you post, yeah, there's the difference!
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
Yes, this is semantic in some ways. For the examples in biology where 'race' is used, the genetic differences are far greater than those seen within the human populations. Part of the reason for that is that humans migrate so readily, therefore, the gene pool has never stopped mixing. Consequently, the biological term 'race' is meaningless with respect to Homo sapians.
As to the differences in the geographical subgroups, there are some unique genetic differences. Mostly, though, we are observing differences in the frequencies of certain traits. For example, lactose intolerance is 5% in europeans but 95% in asians.
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
jazzcyclist wrote:I doubt that the nation's oldest and most prestigious civil right organization would have incorporated this word into its name if was considered a slur
So let me get this right. This respected peak organisation - http://www.naacp.org/ - still includes the description 'colored' but the consensus here is that it's an offensive word?
What should we make of another venerable organization that includes the "N" word in its name?
The NAACP was founded in 1909. UNCF in 1944. When those organizations were founded, the terms in question were common, and thus became part of the titles of those organizations. Both organizations have retained those terms in their titles probably because of longstanding familiarity with the organizations under those traditional names.
Where I live now, in 2012, both of the terms in question would be considered offensive. My colleagues and students who consider themselves to be part of these ethnic groups refer to themselves and each other as "African-American" or "black." Thus, I use those terms. I have not heard one of my colleagues or students -- ever, in the past 30 years -- refer to herself or himself as "negro" or "colored." I am reasonably confident that they would find these terms strange at best, but more likely would find them offensive.
Here's another example: American Indian Movement (AIM). In my contact with people who self-identify with this ethic designation, they either use a specific tribal name or they use "Native American." However, the formerly common terms, "Indian" or "American Indian," are still in the organization's title.
It seems that the best guidance for respectful usage is to try to follow what members of the group(s) in question use of and for themselves in common, public discourse, and to try to be cognizant of changes in usage.
I don't see anything contradictory or strange in this -- it seems to be the way language works.
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur. On the hand, most Black Americans wouldn't even realize that they had been insulted if some called them a "kaffir".
Well...most Americans would not realize that term was a slur unless they were familiar with terminology used by South Africans. I read Mathabane's "Kaffir Boy" 25 years ago...excellent book.
jazzcyclist wrote:A few years ago, I thought it was downright silly when some folks were up in arms after Harry Reid used the word "Negro" when discussing Obama's candicacy for President when it was clear that he wasn't trying to disparage anyone and everybody understood the point he was trying to make.
I think it's fair for "white folk" to be offended if any politician assumes that a qualified black candidate can only earn their vote if he doesn't don't sound "black." That's pretty much what he said in a nutshell, right?
"Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Daisy wrote:The whole point of the 'race' designation is to break a species into subgroups (often used in botany). So the fact that humans are all the same species is irrelevant to the debate. The main argument against using the term 'race', in the context of humans, is that the genetic differences between ethnic groups are minor.
So we are dealing in semantics here? There are five/six subgroups which serve as convenient visual/physical identifying characteristics instead of five/six races? Seems to me a distinction without a difference.
So is American Indian a 'race'? If it is, I fail the "physical identifying characteristics" test, because when I met you, I never would have know you were any 'different' from just looking at you!
Now . . . as soon as you post, yeah, there's the difference!
Until Daisy educated me, I did not know the scientific distinction between "race" and "subgroup" and am not competent to debate/discuss the point. As to physical characteristics, several generations of "racial" mixing has blurred the phisiography of individuals within families. My maternal Choctaw/Creek grandfather could have been the model for the Buffalo nickel. My maternal great-grandfather, a Confederate veteran of undetermined heritage from Mississippi, came to Texas after the Civil War and married (we presume) a Comanche woman right off the plains. (Someone in the family has her wedding picture, standing in front of her fathers teepee in a white buckskin dress) My maternal grandmother had Caucasian features, as did my mother, but four of my mother's five brothers and one of her seven sisters looked Indian.
The ancestry on my paternal side is less well known. My paternal great-grandfather emigrated from England circa 1840. As he migrated westward, he married a widow of unknown ancestry in Paducah, Ky. They had a lot of kids. The few extant group family pictures from the 1880s are not much help; mustachioed men and bonneted women in their Sunday finery.
I inherited the mostly Caucasian features of my paternal side, although I do bronze up nicely in the sun. I had the requisite neck-reining paint pony and assimulated seamlessly with the "Indian" looking kids at the Red River swimming holes.
My late wife's father emigrated from Germany circa 1880. Her mother, who appeared Caucasian, was from the Caddo reservation is southern Oklahoma. Seven of their eight children appeared Caucasian. My eldest daughter looks Caucasian. My son is a tall, Teutonic dirty blonde. My younger daughter could be Miss Indian America. so go figger.
OKC annually hosts the Red Earth Festival, a week long convention of dozens of tribes from all over the country for dancing, art displays, etc...The Indian Princess sometimes is a blue-eyed, redhead or blonde...with tribal credentials.
jazzcyclist wrote:A few years ago, I thought it was downright silly when some folks were up in arms after Harry Reid used the word "Negro" when discussing Obama's candicacy for President when it was clear that he wasn't trying to disparage anyone and everybody understood the point he was trying to make.
I think it's fair for "white folk" to be offended if any politician assumes that a qualified black candidate can only earn their vote if he doesn't don't sound "black." That's pretty much what he said in a nutshell, right?
"Sen. Harry Reid said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
I think it is a fact that in order for Obama to get elected, he couldn't seem too Black for White folks, who made up 74% of the electorate in 2008, and the same holds for other minorities (eg, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, Asains, etc). Minority candidates always have the burden of broadening their appeal when running for office. It's why Mitt Romney avoided talking about his religious faith during his campaign. And it's why Louisiana's governor is considered a viable Presidential candidate as Christian Bobby Jindal but wouldn't have been as Hindu Piyush Jindal.
lonewolf wrote:My maternal Choctaw/Creek grandfather could have been the model for the Buffalo nickel. My maternal grandmother had Caucasian features, as did my mother, but four of my mother's five brothers and one of her seven sisters looked Indian. I inherited the mostly Caucasian features of my paternal side, although I do bronze up nicely in the sun. My late wife's father emigrated from Germany circa 1880. Her mother appeared Caucasian, Seven of their eight children appeared Caucasian. My eldest daughter looks Caucasian. My son is a tall, Teutonic dirty blonde. My younger daughter could be Miss Indian America. so go figger. The Indian Princess sometimes is a blue-eyed, redhead or blonde...with tribal credentials.
So you'd agree that trying to distinguish people along 'race' lines is getting sillier and sillier, huh!
IMO the discussion on this thread has developed into what has generally been a pretty robust and thoughtful debate on what can be a pretty emotive topic with a wide range of diverse opinions across countries as well as racial and nationalistic groupings.
gh wrote:
Pego wrote:I am beginning to understand why you have been banned from all those places.
and this place.
As Anthony Treacher has been conspicuously absent from this thread since he opened it am I correct in presuming he has been banned?
If so I think it is an overly harsh response to the questions he posed in opening this thread. In saying that I am not in any way trying to defend him for whatever comments he has made in other threads where he has obviously rubbed a number of people up the wrong way.
When one reads the comments of jazzcyclist a few postings ago he noted that if a person in his/her 80s used the term "coloured" he would not be bothered given the generational era of that person. However, a white guy in his 20s using the term the jazz cyclist would consider that person was being deliberately provocative.
I am a baby boomer in my 60s who spent nearly all of the 70s in the USA. i do not use the terms "coloured", "Negro" or "African American". I use the term "Black" because as so eloquently stated by jazz cyclist that was the term used in the 1970s.
As I understand that Anthony Treacher is much closer to the 80s generation I think it would be appropriate and in the Xmas spirit to cut him some slack and let him back on the Board.
And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
Flumpy wrote:And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
A colleague once told me.
"My psychiatrist says I am not paranoid. It's true everybody hates me."
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Place: Munich Time: 1996 during Oktoberfest People: A Dutchman, a couple of Germans, a couple of Italians, a few Australians, three South Africans (two Black, one White)
Everyone was shocked when I said that word was very offensive in the U.S. and could easily cause a violent reaction if used in the wrong setting. I remember the White South African saying that he could call the two Black South Africans n****r all day with no problems, but if he called them kaffir once they'd kill him, and the Black South Africans nodded their heads in approval of what he said.
Flumpy wrote:And he didn't begin it to start a 'robust and thoughtful' debate. He did it just to be the cantankerous old git that he's always been.
This will, of course, just give him more evidence that the whole of officialdom is out to get him and that all his woes are the fault of others, rather than his own disagreeable nature.
Merry Xmas Flumpy. While you may well be right, I would suggest that AT is far from being the only cantankerous old git that inhabits this message board.
The point I am making, and a point which is well exemplified by jazz cyclist, is that the various descriptors we use to describe various types of people may be acceptable in one part of the world but offensive in other parts of the world. In this particular instance I just happen to think it is an over reaction to ban a person for asking questions about the term "coloured". And for people to equate such questioning as being indicative of him racist is certainly wrong and over-the-top.
I certainly do not find such questions to be offensive. What I find offensive is the over-the-top support of many on this message board for the right to carry and use AK47s and other automatic assault weapons. Since Sandy Hook there have literally been dozens of further instances in the USA of people being murdered with guns.
Tuariki wrote:Merry Xmas Flumpy. While you may well be right, I would suggest that AT is far from being the only cantankerous old git that inhabits this message board.
Obviously not but he is the only one whose sole purpose is to be one.
Tuariki"The point I am making, and a point which is well exemplified by jazz cyclist, is that the various descriptors we use to describe various types of people may be acceptable in one part of the world but offensive in other parts of the world. In this particular instance I just happen to think it is an over reaction to ban a person for asking questions about the term "coloured".[/quote]
But he wasn't asking a genuine question. He was being purposefully provocative. He has no interest in getting a proper answer on the subject he just wanted to be controversial. From another poster I have no doubt it would have raised any objection but from him his intention is clear. I guarantee it would have lead to a lengthy rant about political correctness and how injust the officials in UK Masters athletics are. It happens every time.
[quote="Tuariki wrote:And for people to equate such questioning as being indicative of him racist is certainly wrong and over-the-top.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Tuariki wrote:I certainly do not find such questions to be offensive. What I find offensive is the over-the-top support of many on this message board for the right to carry and use AK47s and other automatic assault weapons. Since Sandy Hook there have literally been dozens of further instances in the USA of people being murdered with guns.
Agree 100%
Tuariki wrote:Give me a debate with cantankerous AT any day.
Trust me it may seem like fun at first, but after a decade it becomes exhausting.
Merry Christmas to you too Tuariki
Last edited by Flumpy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:I didn't realize until 16 years ago, while on a trip to Europe, that the term "n****r" isn't universally a slur.
I don't know what part of europe you were in !!
Place: Munich Time: 1996 during Oktoberfest People: A Dutchman, a couple of Germans, a couple of Italians, a few Australians, three South Africans (two Black, one White)
Everyone was shocked when I said that word was very offensive in the U.S. and could easily cause a violent reaction if used in the wrong setting. I remember the White South African saying that he could call the two Black South Africans n****r all day with no problems, but if he called them kaffir once they'd kill him, and the Black South Africans nodded their heads in approval of what he said.
I'd definitely take white south africans as arbiters of what language is to be considered racist !!
mump boy wrote:I read it but it doesn't mean that europeans think nigger is an appropriate word to use,
I didn't make any broad statements about Europeans, I only stated that the word n****r isn't the universal slur that you seem think it is, and that I was incredulous until two Black South Africans weighed in. I also mentioned that many if not most Americans wouldn't know that word kaffir was a slur, including most Black Americans.
mump boy wrote: it just means there are wilfully dumb people everywhere !!
Calling people willfully dumb just because they aren't familiar with all the world's slangs, slurs and local customs is very narrow minded and hypocritical of you, since everyone of us, including you, could potentially make fools out of ourselves if we were put in an unfamiliar environment.
