[Stealth]

First off, I have nothing against blacks, african-americans, whatever you want to call them.  Of my staff, I am the only person that's NOT black (or asian), and i get along just fine with my employees... both at the job, and off it.  many of my closest friends, both here and back home, are black... so please don't come in here and pull the "You're obviously a bigot" or "racist" or whatever.  This is a trend i've been noticing in LIFE, and i thought i'd mention it here, because i'd be amused at the response i receive:

Two things.

FIRST:
The other day on TV I was watching... these black guys were protesting, all the way up to the NAACP or what have you, because someone called them "black".  Yeah, that's right... they were called Black.  Not "African-American", and that was offensive to them.

So I got to thinking.  I don't think i'd get offended if I were called "white".  Shoot, I'm called "white" every day.  I'm never called "European-american" or "British-american".  That would be stupid (more on that later).  So why should BLACK PEOPLE be called "African American"?  And it really is nonsense, because look at someone that, say, comes over here from Columbia.  He's black.  Been in Columbia since it was colonized, and he's as Columbian as you could get.  Speaks Spanish fluently (of course!  he's a 12th generation Columbian), but if he comes to this country, immediately what is he tagged?  African-American.  FORGET THE FACT that this guy or his family hasn't SEEN africa in 200 years... 

And if you think about it, I mean how many black people in this country really can consider themselves African American?  Most of them came over to America at the same time this country was founded.  They came over in the same boats as their white bretheren - who, to this day, are called "white".  They are as "American" as the average white "American" in this country.  I guarantee you.  99.9% of blacks (or, "African Americans", if you prefer), have not had an ancestor who's set foot on Africa soil in 100 years.

I am South African.  I was born and raised in South africa.  Spent 13 years of my life there.  You know I got in TROUBLE at school once, when I was taking an exam, for marking the "African-American" box on the exam?  Yes that's right.  I got IN TROUBLE for lying on it.  LYING ON IT?!  I am more African American than 99.999% of "African American" blacks in this country, but I got in trouble for putting African American on the exam....... yeah, sure, I was trying to be cute, but the fact remains.  I, who am more african-american than most, are not ALLOWED to mark "African-American" on tests, whereas people who are 100% American, but of the black skin color, are allowed to.

SECOND:

This second point is probably more touchy.  There are two words, I realized, when I attended my 11th and 12th grade "Civil Rights Club" (founded, by the way, by me and some friends, at our high-school... and exists to this day).  There is "Nigger", and there is "Nigga".  Until then, i thought they were the same word.  I thought when a racist white guy wants to insult a black person, he calls them a "nigger".  I also thought, that when rappers and black "gangstas" in general want to be 'cool', they call each other "niggers".  OH NOOOO, i was told... Not at all!  The word "Nigga" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from "nigger"



So, I brought out.  How is it that black people can call each other "niggas", but if a white person calls a black person a "nigga" (NOTE:  NOT a "nigger"), then he's suddenly racist, and probably beaten up, punished, etc.
You know what the response was?  Because "nigga" doesn't offend "African-americans" when it comes from an African-American.  But when it comes from a white person, then it's just too close to the word "Nigger"[/i].  And you want to preach to ME about "Equality"? LOL. 

Point being, that if a word offends you (i.e. Nigger), then common sense tells you you don't use a word on a regular basis that is so close to the offensive term, that when a white person (or non-black) says it, it's ASSUMED they're saying the offensive word.

If being called a "cracker" offends me (and it doesn't, by the way, i could care less), then whyyyyy on earth would I decide to call my 'homies' "crackas". NOTE: It's not the same word!  Forget the fact that it's PRONOUNCED ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.
It's just stupid.  no one would do it.  But it just goes to show how ****ed up society is.

So i came to a conclusion.  And this conclusion, as racist as it sounds, i think is completely true.  And there are exceptions.  To every rule in society, there are exceptions, but I think to the majority of black/African-Americans living in the United States, MOST of them hold chips on their shoulders.  You still see lawsuits today... black people trying to sue other people and governments because their GRAND FATHER was a slave.  They're trying to screw the government or some poor individual or organization out of money for the suffering their GRAND FATHER, who they NEVER KNEW OR MET, went through.  W. T. F...
This chip on the shoulder extends to all aspects of life and communication.  You get in an argument with a black person?  Eventually... sooner or later... the race card is going to be pulled out.  Watch.  Always happens.

Three black people  beat up a white person.  They "didn't have the correct upbringing and environment... that's what spurred them to do this". 
Three white people beat up a black peson!? Oh HELLLLL no.  Now it's a race crime.  You have every black organization in the US rising up protesting, etc.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!?  If you want EQUALITY, you GET equality... you don't just get "equality" in whatever aspects you want.  You can't "pick and choose" where to be equal and where not to be.

I seriously believe that it's not equality most african-americans want.  Because if it were, they'd know to not keep bringing up "Oh.  it's because i'm black, right?  It's because i'm a minority, right?"  That's just SPURRING racism.  They want to have a one-up over everyone else.  Seriously.  And society bends to this rule.  No, I think individuals like Martin Luthor King, Jr, honestly wanted equality.  Educated, respectable individuals such as King just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else.  But you know what?  It's gone past that point.  Now it's that black people have to be treated better.  Because if they're not, then it's racism.

What think.  Thoughts?

[aldo_14]

On part 1;  the reason that 'black' is objected to, I think, may stem from the traditional regarding of black as 'evil', 'wrong' or 'something to be feared'.  Now, I don't believe black is a racist term, but it's worth considering the reasoning; that for these particular people black has rightly or wrongly became synonymous with a racist attitude - largely because many of these words stem from the past, a time of endemic racism.  And the concept of 'African American', I believe, has become adopted as an attempt to recognise the ethnic origins of the descendents of slaves.

On the subject of 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's a lot more simple.  It's a racist epiphet which has been adopted by black Americans as a way to, in effect, 'defy' its racist connotations; in much the same way as calling someone a doss **** is offensive to a stranger, but not to a friend or family member (because the context is changed by that friendly / fraternal relationship).

My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting.  The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group.  I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.

[Unknown Target]

I think it's all a load of horse****, either way. I have to go now, so I can't form a completely cogent reply at the moment, however, I was very much offended when at a school assembly for Black History Month - which is not called African-American History Month for some reason, as far as I know, when a couple students got up to sing the "Black National Anthem".
Seriously, what the hell?


I think basically all this political correctness is the US government (and white Americans in general) trying to tiptoe around what happened not 30 years ago, and try and make "amends" by catering to minorities, when, in my mind, the only way that we'll ever move past is to stop putting "African-American" and "Hispanic" and "Caucasian" on our census forms, and instead indicate whether or not a person is American. Affirmative action? Pah! You can't get any more racist than that! Except it's OK, because it's directed at white people, and no one cares if you're racist to them. A black man once said this on some talk show, and I agree with it completely - Just because you were once the opressed doesn't give you the right to become the opresser.

[Rictor]

First off, no one has a right not to be offended. If I want to spew every racial epiphet in the book, such is my moral (and hence, ideally my legal) right.

Secondly, rascists usually don't call blacks "black", but rather any of the other, more derogatory, terms. So if nigger is a slur, black can't be. I doubt that, historically, Southern rascists called blacks anything quite as tame as "black". Just as no one in their right mind can insist on being called "Caucasian" instead of white, the same is true for all others.

[Rictor]

As a wise man once said:


It's cool, I'm taking it back.

[Flipside]

I think the problems are, in part, based on the fact that a lot of the events that actually led the African population of many countries to feel this way is only a subject of history for the younger generation of whites, so they end up feeling like they are paying for the 'Sins of the Father' as it were.

Whilst that prejudice is still bound into the system in part, I do think that at times the 'racist card' is played simply for convenience.

It is like Positive Discrimination in the UK, a rule which allows the formation of, say, 'Black African Women's Club' but forbids the formation of, say, 'White African Women's Club'. It's hardly surprising with obviously slurred rules like that, that normal everyday workers are going to feel slighted, they only see the effect, not the cause of the rule.

For the main part, I think the whole racism law has started to forget the malice rule, in other words, it's not just daring to mention someone's skin colour, it is doing so in an offensive or hurtful way.

Theres still a lot of work to do regarding equality, but I think that the wrong people are being pointed at, racism is constantly made to be the fault of individuals, but the real ongoing problems are often with policies.

[karajorma]

On part 1;  the reason that 'black' is objected to, I think, may stem from the traditional regarding of black as 'evil', 'wrong' or 'something to be feared'.  Now, I don't believe black is a racist term, but it's worth considering the reasoning; that for these particular people black has rightly or wrongly became synonymous with a racist attitude - largely because many of these words stem from the past, a time of endemic racism.  And the concept of 'African American', I believe, has become adopted as an attempt to recognise the ethnic origins of the descendents of slaves.

That doesn't however make it any less ****ing stupid to tag the word -american on to the name of the race. Lets say you're a black man who was born and raised i the UK. You go to America. Suddenly you're African-American. WHY? What the **** do you have to do with America? Look at every other race. Asian, oriental, white. The name either comes from a simplification of the skin colour or from the geographical region that this skin colour originally came from. Anyone who ever called me Asian-American or who told me that I have African-Americans in my family tree is likely to get a very long rant at them that I have absolutely **** all to do with America and I'd thank them not to assume that every black person in the world does.
 If you have to remember the heritage call them African just like I'm Asian. Or simply call them Black. Tagging on the -American at the end is pretty racist in and of itself.

On the subject of 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's a lot more simple.  It's a racist epiphet which has been adopted by black Americans as a way to, in effect, 'defy' its racist connotations; in much the same way as calling someone a doss **** is offensive to a stranger, but not to a friend or family member (because the context is changed by that friendly / fraternal relationship).

While I understand this thing about taking back the epithet and all surely the ultimate sign that this has happened will be when you can call a black man a nigga in public and no one bats an eyelid. So by making this stupid distinction between the terms nigger and nigga and who can use them all that happens is that the divide between races remains. If I hang out with 10 black people who all call themselves nigga why should I not be allowed to join in based on the colour of my skin? Surely that is racist if you are doing it to people who are your friends.

My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting.  The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group.  I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.

I tend to disagree. While I think he is overreacting saying that most black American have a chip on their shoulder about this he is 100% correct in identifying a distancing technique that is being used to keep black people apart from all the other races. And if you don't believe that take a good long look at the treatment Hispanics often receive from blacks.
 I won't say that we're all one be happy multicultural nation over here in the UK but not reinforcing stupid divisive lines like that over here is probably helping a lot towards reaching that goal than the tactics Stealth is on about.

[MP-Ryan]

Language is the basis of society, and all fundamental injustices in the world.  This current "phase" of political correctness is nothing more than a passing ideological framework, which is irrelevant to the true relationships of the world.

Of course, I don't think that makes anyone feel better.  If anything, it's just more depressing.

/philosophizing

[Sarafan]

I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO.

[NGTM-1R]

The NAACP is subject of the fundemental paradox that afflicts such organizations (and unions too). They are formed to achieve specific goals. In the NAACP's case that was to secure equality under the law. Now that equality under the law has been secured, it serves no practical purpose according to its founding ideals. Like a union it must invent a new goal for itself so it can keep existing and the people who work for it can keep drawing a paycheck.

Such organizations tend to have as their first goal securing rational, humane treatment of their constituents. Once they've secured that and decided not to dissolve or go into holdership, then their next goal must be, perforce, not rational. Organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU have their merits and do on occassion serve a useful purpose, but for the most part they have outlived their usefulness and now engage in ideal-waving silliness that tends to betray what they were founded to do.

[Polpolion]

I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO.

Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? :

EDIT: For the completely uneducated, the full name for the US is the United States of America (hence, USA).

[Nuclear1]

I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO.

Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? :

EDIT: For the completely uneducated, the full name for the US is the United States of America (hence, USA).

Exactly... there are Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, Venezuelans... we're not saying we own the continent.  If we'd kept the name of New England (like the Northeast states still do), we're all be New Englanders, not Americans.

[Mefustae]

The fact of life is that nobody wants equality, deep down everyone knows their 'team' is better than all others, whether it be race, religion, nationality or even gender. It's this bias that makes the reach for true equality fundamentally impossible.

[Rictor]

The NAACP is subject of the fundemental paradox that afflicts such organizations (and unions too). They are formed to achieve specific goals. In the NAACP's case that was to secure equality under the law. Now that equality under the law has been secured, it serves no practical purpose according to its founding ideals. Like a union it must invent a new goal for itself so it can keep existing and the people who work for it can keep drawing a paycheck.

Such organizations tend to have as their first goal securing rational, humane treatment of their constituents. Once they've secured that and decided not to dissolve or go into holdership, then their next goal must be, perforce, not rational. Organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU have their merits and do on occassion serve a useful purpose, but for the most part they have outlived their usefulness and now engage in ideal-waving silliness that tends to betray what they were founded to do.

Listen, I agree with you on the NAACP, but the ACLU, for all their occassional douch-baggery, does serve a legitimate and relevant purpose. Take a look at the legislation passed in the last few years and tell me there's no need for a civil liberties watchdog group? Their purpose, as I understand it, is to side with the citizens against Big Government, Big Corporations, Big Brother and whatever Big Authority may come along and try to squash individual rights, up to and including Notorious B.I.G.

[Turey]

I think basically all this political correctness is the US government (and white Americans in general) trying to tiptoe around what happened not 30 years ago, and try and make "amends" by catering to minorities, when, in my mind, the only way that we'll ever move past is to stop putting "African-American" and "Hispanic" and "Caucasian" on our census forms, and instead indicate whether or not a person is American. Affirmative action? Pah! You can't get any more racist than that! Except it's OK, because it's directed at white people, and no one cares if you're racist to them. A black man once said this on some talk show, and I agree with it completely - Just because you were once the opressed doesn't give you the right to become the opresser.

The worst part about Affirmative Action is that, in addition to determining the success of a person based on their race, it also doesn't match the actual breakdown of which group is the minority. For example, there are many college scholarships restricted to "Women, African-Americans, or Native Americans." This is absolute crap. There are more women in college than men, and it's approaching the 60-40 mark nationwide. Yet if these scholarships were restricted to "Men, African-Americans, and Native Americans," there would be a huge outcry.

On the subject of hate speech, I feel that if the comment was not meant by the person who said it to be offensive, then there really isn't a case for hate speech.

[NGTM-1R]

Listen, I agree with you on the NAACP, but the ACLU, for all their occassional douch-baggery, does serve a legitimate and relevant purpose. Take a look at the legislation passed in the last few years and tell me there's no need for a civil liberties watchdog group? Their purpose, as I understand it, is to side with the citizens against Big Government, Big Corporations, Big Brother and whatever Big Authority may come along and try to squash individual rights, up to and including Notorious B.I.G.

Isn't he dead?

Basically though, the fundemental checks and balances of the electoral system have kind of rendered the ACLU moot in that case. Look at Congress right now.

[Sarafan]

Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? :

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

[Blaise Russel]

This reminds me of something.

http://blackpeopleloveus.com/

Suffice it to say that I don't think you have a full understanding of the intricacies of the situation.

[Kosh]

My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting.  The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group.  I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.

Do they have race quotas in university admissions over there? There was a huge contraversy about it in the University of Michigan (IIRC) a few years ago because in its admissions points system, it gave a lot more points for being a "minority" than it did for any kind of scholastic achievement.

One of the things that seriously annoyed me at my old university was their "diversity scholarship". I did not know a single white disabled student who got it, even though it was supposed to be for disabled people as well as minorities. In reality it is a totally arbitrary race based scholarship that even many minority students didn't get. Like a couple friends of mine were either of asian decent and were born in America, or their families went to America at an early age. Two of them told me the financial aid office told them that asians could no longer get it, yet I knew a third one who did get it, despite being the same ethnicity. Smells like bull**** to me.

And of course one thing I really resented was that you could get scholarships if you were black or hispanic or asian, but not if you were autistic. Aren't autistic people special in their own way?

Overall I guess I have a problem with all of these schools throwing all kinds of money based simply on the way they look. ****ing rediculous.

[Unknown Target]

I hate affirmative action, even though that I actually qualify for and take advantage of it. Why? Because if I don't, I'll get pushed to the back of the pack as other people who do take advantage of it get pushed ahead of me for the simple reason that they are also ethnic. The whole thing smacks of racism and is completely retarded, IMO. If it were to go away and the playing field was leveled, I would be all for it.