BTW, when the big, bushy “Afros” were in style, my father referred to them as “Africos.”
He was quite sincere about it. He thought that’s what they were supposeds to be called.
Whenever he did say it, it was all I could do to not laugh.
Well, at this point, this thread is clearly NOT a general QUESTION, but either a great or not-so-great debate. And since, in this medium and intellectual context, I obviously have trouble seeing what goes on here in simple enough terms not to end up wasting a lot of time and riding on the edge of social tastes by accentuating some abstract points that are brought out in such an interchange. Of course, if I go out on the streets of Berkeley, or the campus, my mind shifts into a completely different gear, unless I talk to someone who I know is not emotionally twanged by elements of this stuff, and is open to the full range of objective aspects the issues here. I have no occupational or other position in this society at present where I’m involved in an policies affected by or affecting these considerations; so, in my case at present, there are only the one-on-one pragmatic and the intellectually aloof stances. All my heavy contentions have been with “co-conspirators” of the conquering (?) whatever-it-is-that-we’re-not-supposed-to-call-a-race, most all of us more or less Anglo-Saxons.
Phaedrus:
[quoteI call an African American a person who is Negroid and lives in America.[/quote]
A number of serious problems, such as:
- What’s cutoff percentage of negroid “blood”?
- What are the borders of “America”?
- Does/should the subject person have a means of influencing whether (s)he is to be so categorized?
Do they intend to? I don’t follow them, but the idea of whether “there is” or “there isn’t” any such thing as race simply amuses me. This is just one example of what is, in my mind, a general sort of ridiculous dilemma: People have employed a word rather indiscriminately, and not closely tied into a tight little paradigm, for ‘x’; does ‘x really exist? NOTHING EXISTS IN ITS OWN RIGHT; IT ONLY EXISTS WITHIN A MENTAL SETTING – CORRELATE TO CERTAIN WEIGHTINGS OF SYNAPTIC INTERCONNECTIONS IN BRAINS – WHICH SETTING PRESUMABLY HAS COLLECTIVE FUNCTIONALITY IN THE LIVES OF THE ENTITIES HAVING THOSE BRAINS AND IN WHAT IS SEEN AS SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS WHEREOF THEY ARE PARTS. This is essentially the same notion as came up in the thread on the order of mathematical operations within a conventionally expressed equation. OK, so it’s only one philosophical point of view. . .but all the others seem to me to just wander off into infinite [<font face=“symbol”>¥</font> (Hey, I was shown how to do it, so I gotta use it.)] nowhere. Science sometimes likes to kid itself that it is independent of pragmatic societies’ and their individuals’ desires, and that its concepts are set in some kind of “holy”, absolute objectivity that “exists” outside of the human or whatever mind. . .but what do you sit on (scientifically, of course) while you prove this is all so?
Anyhow, I say a very wide range of people on this planet want, and feel they have a need, to use some term that is close to the everyday present usage of the word ‘race’. As for scientists (and I’m not sure physical anthropologists are always all that scientific), what do they want out of a decision of whether ‘race’ or a similar word be considered “to exist”. . .in presumably some scientific sense? We readily admit that things macrobiological vary all over the place, so much so that we all admit that the whole taxonomic hierarchy of biological organisms on earth, begun back in the murky early days of biology and only patched up in small ways now and then, is only a crude outline of the menagerie, and that the subject matter is even still varying. Some want to completely overhaul this quite imperfect diagrammatic history and addressing system of variant organizations of living matter, to the extent of doing away with the fixed across-the-board ranks of this hierarchy, i.e., kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The basis of the present biological taxonomic system began with Linnaeus’ classification of plants and animals and established biology as a science in the 18th century.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/Colleges/LFSC/life_sciences/.plant_biology/nomcl/nictxt.html
But in this age of “organics”, some guy named Daston concluded in 1997:
“Classifications organize, but they are not organic.”
So classifiers of organisms started thinking about becoming organic, and Kevin de Queiroz has proposed this phylogenetic system be substituted for the present Linnaean nomenclatural system:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/nomcl/dequ.html
But the bulk of taxonomists being as stuffy as they are, apparently neither this nor similar schemes are likely to happen over night.
Now, I’m not saying I waded through all this stuff. (It would’ve “taxed” me just to much.) But before telling the public around the world that ‘race’ isn’t a scientific enough concept, so they shan’t use it, I say clean thy own house first. . .and ‘race’ = ‘variety’ ain’t all that less scientific than our present Linnaean-based “scientific” hierarchical taxonomic systems, with their silly words for their ranks, like ‘kingdom’. Sounds pretty patriarchal to me. I’ll have to run that by NOW. 
In the meantime, I think your physical anthropologists should hold their decision off until the biolgists, as a more basic science, restabilize about a phylogenetic taxonomic system for all living things, because genes and genetics is where it’s at in these kewl days of millenial shiftiness.
Why not.
Beruang:
Well, you can’t exactly go to Amerinds to find a common name for themselves. Most of them have spent out their energies on negative names for each other, the same as the rest of the world. You can’t even do it for within the US (which is a kind of artificial task borderwise, in respect to the aborigines), because more than one language family is involved.
pointy:
So you say it’s OK to yell ‘ethnic’ appellations but not ‘racial’ ones; is that it? But apparently ‘Sri Lankan’ doesn’t label much of an ethnic designation; you have to break that down to Sinhalese and Tamil, or something, and if you did this task right, you’d probably cross over into a share of India, which, of course, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) used to be when the British ruled it. . .and I’m sure the Brits had some creative names that would cover all non-Brits in India – although racial, subracial, cultural and religious differences were exceedingly apparent in India, as in few other places.
Er. . .don’t try to idiolexicize, when ‘scientize’ oughtta work just fine.
-
Next to nothing can mean a great deal in science. Like, what percentage of the earth’s matter is plutonium?
-
Who said the purpose of the notion of ‘race’ involved science? What does the Mona Lisa mean sciencewise? That a smile on an Italian woman’s face could mean just about anything? Or what does the sound of one hand clapping m
Lawrence:
What is that second word there? Is that supposed to be Latin for ‘chimes’?
I’m saying that, relative-percentagewise within their populations, they have neither the desire/interest nor the wherewithall for technical engineering. Only a few of them try it, and most of those get out of the technical sector of it. Sure, there are quite a small number who are so-equipped, and I guess there are some of those who stay in a technical area of it, but, out of a thousand or so I’ve met, I can think of only one. There are no doubt a few more than that today. I’m also not saying there aren’t a handful who are more capable of practicing technically in that field than the average temperate-latitude-evolved male, but those persons are generally also qualified to do many other things also, which things become more appealing to such persons. The student who achieved, by far, the best grades in all the engineering specialties in freshman year of my undergrad college class was a white female. After that year, however, she got much more social, the chemistry kicked in, and that was the end of that; but I don’t know what she ended up doing professionally. I’m speaking of a class that graduated in 1954, however.
Well, I don’t know exactly how I worded my statement in this regard, but what I intended to put in the prime scientific/technological-aptitude category was males of genetic lines that significantly evolved in temperate zones. South and Southeast Asia have mixes of long-term indigenous, tropical peoples and peoples who spent tens of thousands of years considerably further north in Asia. The latter tend to be dominant today in those areas and are the ones I placed in the mentioned category. Obviously there are oriental and Caucasian engineers situated in the tropics today, but they’re all, of course, descendants of “races” which evolved for tens of thousands of years in temperate regions. Clearly, at this time, there are many opportunities for engineers in all parts of the world, and indoor working areas can be made technologically accommodative to such occupations, but neither of these were the case back when the pertinent genes were being influenced. And today it’s also not as easy to live in the tropics by just grabbing fruit and throwing spears.
What are you worth?
Tom:
Well, I don’t know about all that Jesse Jackson stuff, but before African American or African-American, there was Afro-American, right? Was the lattermost from a different source. And I believe the present ‘African’ form has no hyphen, right? Without the hyphen it can’t mimic the European American X-American ethnic groups, can it?
Ray (Citizen of the California Republic)
Afro-American was a term that was evaluated (by throwing it out on the street to see whether any one would use it) back in the late 1960s, when the original discussion regarding names was in full swing. The original discussion within the black community was in regard to what word they wanted used when a news article (electronic or print) referred to them as a group. The media at the time was using Negro. The objections raised against that were that is had a pseudoscientific air about it that conveyed an image of specimens being examined. Whites were simply referred to as white, rarely as Caucasian. The word colored might have had a shot, except that nearly all the Jim Crow laws and Northern “point” systems used that word, hanging a lot of excess emotional baggage on it. (I kind of liked “colored,” myself, with the corollary that we descendents of Europeans were “colorless.”) Quite a few other terms, including African-American, Afro-American, and several that were quite bizarre were also put forth. Afro-American followed the usage of Sino-American, Euro-American, Franco-American, and similar words. I never heard why it made as strong a showing as it did at that time. At a WAG, it indicated the geographic origins while being shorter than “African American.” Eventually, they settled on black (lower case “b”) as the word that most nearly resembled white in usage and function.
The hyphen in (or out of) African American has come and gone at different times. (This is also true for Irish American/Irish-American and similar terms. The nomenclature is “hyphenated-American,” but in actual usage it is printed both ways.) The version without the hyphen is the one that made it into the various media style books. Since very few people take the time to find out word origins, the appearance of “African American” as it appears in newspapers and magazines is simply accepted as it is found and embraced or reviled by each reader/listener as they see fit.
Tom~
Come on, Ray, don’t tell me you’ve never heard of Al Campanis, the former Dodgers player and front-office man, and the time he put his foot in his mouth on “Nightline” by saying that blacks “don’t have the necessities” to be major-league baseball executives. It cost the guy his career, which was kind of sad since he’d been a friend of Jackie Robinson’s and had been one of the earliest supporters of integrating baseball. During the '40s and '50s his thoughts were very liberal compared to those of the rest of society. Too bad he got mentally stuck at that time. Your opinions sound a lot like his.
The term refers to American Blacks. I can’t believe all the attention (negative and otherwise) given to this subject. I wonder if Native American, Irish American, Italian American, etc., when first used, conjured up this much controversy. I can’t seem to figure out why one’s preference as to their label (since we OBVIOUSLY have to have them) is met with negative conjecture. I personally use “Black” because it takes too long to say african american also it simply does not matter to me. However, do consider this; I live in Italy amongst Blacks AND Whites who are from Africa AND America. Let the labels begin. And to the politically correct Whites, in an effort not to offend, which is it Red, Native American or Indian; Brown, Red, Mexican American, Mexican, or Hispanic? On a parting note, my American friends (the white variety) don’t refer to our host nationals as whites but as Italians. Hmmmmmm?!?
65 posts and counting… yup. Great Debate here. Duh.
Nickrz
GQ Mod
pendiva:
[quote]
And to the politically correct Whites, in an effort not to offend, which is it Red, Native American or Indian; Brown, Red, Mexican American, Mexican, or Hispanic?**
Well, I’m not very PC, but I use Indian because that is the name that every member of that group that I have encountered uses. Satan’s point that I disagreed with regarding African American may very well be true regarding Native American. Most of the Indians that I know say “OK, the name was a mistake to cover up Columbus’s error. It’s been used for 500 years, and we’re used to it.” There are efforts to get recognition by name for each of the nations, (Lakota, Iroquois, etc.), but when they discuss issues in terms of the BIA or AIM, they recognize that no other word identifies all the people against whom the various European incursions have been made. The folks I know would agree with Satan that “Native American” is simply a confusing imposition by the PC-fearful news media.
(Note that the strong centers of the various Indian movements tend to not be the heavily populated Rust Belt cities, so their language is not influenced by the same social dynamics that played a part in Jesse Jackson’s choice.)
As for immigrants from Mexico, when I still lived near groups of those folks in SE Michigan, they had not developed a concensus. There were (20 years ago when I knew them) votes for Chicano and La Raza that, (in Pontiac and Capac) were occasionally looked upon as “Californian” issues. Hispanic seems to be the word I see most often, but it has the problem that it tends to lump “Mexican-Left-Wing-Revolutionaries-with-their-Southern-Neighbors” and “Cuban-Right-Wing-Exiles” along with “Status-Conflicted-Puerto-Ricans.” All those terms are in quotes because none is a reality. The stereotypes do, however, reflect the fact that there are differences within/among those communities that prevent them from being united as a single group in the way that blacks (+99% descended from forcibly imported slaves) and Indians (100% invaded lands) do.
Tom~
Nano: all I will say is that you appear to have some emotional problems and I urge you to get help. I am not joking and I do not mean that to put you down. I could easily refute all your points against me but it would be better in the sense of human compassion to advise you to seek help. I sincerely hope that you get well.
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
tomndebb: I personally know Native Americans who view the term “indian” when applied to them as derogatory. I find the term insulting. But then again, I am Native American. Mitakuye Oyasin! I have lived with the Lakota and have participated in their ceremonies. It is that portion of my blood that gives me my high IQ. I know we have spoken of this before and I know you don’t think that such a concept even exists. I assure you it does. This is also why I believe The Bell Curve. It states that Native Americans have a higher IQ than whites. We do. We are also close in blood to Orientals. I have a treatise on the subject if you are interested. Whether you are or not in a moot point to me. In this I am utterly right.
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,
Watch that Phaedrus trollin’,
See his head is swollen,
Crackpot!
His kooky racial theory
Makes everybody weary
Let’s throw him in Lake Erie
Crackpot!
“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”
Regarding “indian,” is Native American the term (other than a concatenated list of several dozens of nations) you prefer? The folks I know (mostly Ojibwa, a few Huron) prefer Indian to Native American.
I don’t care. My policy is to refer to a people in their chosen term and I am perfectly happy to refer to you as Native American. (It may not show up in all my posts on the subject because you are the first person I have personally encountered who prefers it.) It does get confusing when every word used will raise somebody’s hackles.
As to IQ. If you want to post a couple of reference sources, I’ll try to get to some of them.
(I am always amused that the people who believe most strongly in the validity of any test tend to be people whose own group comes out the highest on that test. )
Tom~
Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, in their highly-tongue-in-cheek-yet-pretty-scary-at-the-same-time book The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook, claim that calling Kermit the Frog a “puppet” is demeaning, and that he and his ilk should be properly referred to as “Hand-Held Americans.”
Phil, you rule. Of course, now I have that damn song in my head…
I second Gaudere.
tracer: What would Big Bird and the Snuffelupagus be? Human-stuffed Americans?
<< IT’S NOTHING BUT POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEAK DESIGNED FOR WHITE LIBERAL GUILT!! >>
I’ve generally noticed people who use “politically correct” (or worse yet, “PC”) to be scoundrels.
<< Say someone is American if they are indeed a member of our country. >>
I notice most people with any sort of claim to ethnic background usually hang on that. This is, in fact, generally a point of pride with them.
<< Say they’re black if their skin color seems to indicate that, and you really have to say something other than “human.” >>
Why? In order to begin the process of humanizing, let’s use a term like “African-American,” which is not unsimilar to say, Italian-American" or “Irish-American.”
<< A lot of black folks like to call themselves “niggaz,” in fact. Use this at your own peril. >>
A lot of Italians like to call themselves wops or dagos. Doesn’t mean you should.
<< But, I repeat, the term African-American is an abomination brought on by white guilt!>>
I’m amazed you didn’t work the word “Liberal” in there some place.
<< STOP THE FUCKING MADNESS about, “well, if you are born in Uganda, but spent 3.6 years living in Pakistan, while here on an expired Visa…” >>
Do you know Scott Stafford?
<< ARGH!!! >>
Settle down there, Blackbeard.
{\¶/}
<< The paper’s arguments as to as great a genetic variation within a designated “race” as between individuals of two different such don’t contradict the existence of different means of skills/behaviors between different recognized “races”. >>
Presumably, there are slight genetic variations which lead to greater concentration of certain things among races, especially if you get to artificially define them, but of course they are at best slight and wide variation is more easily accounted for by cultural destabilization, and etc.
<< Common sense / science isn’t convinced that specific geographical latitude of long-term environment-affected genetic development makes no difference in the correlate “racial” means of complex abilities. >>
How long term are we talking about? What, like…10,000 years at an absolute limit? Yeah, sounds like it. For most of these differences, you’re looking at 2, 300. Not enough to affect the gene pool, you ask me.
<< Though certain individuals of human strains that remained mainly in the tropics – where life was, in earlier times, not enhanceable by then-approachable innovation – may excel at innovative techniques for superior life support which require complex, abstract thinking; the groupwide means of such behavior between those tropical folks and other tribes long adapted to temperate zones, through evolutionary success with such innovation applied to their survival, will differ considerably in favor of temperate-life-supporting abstract-thought behavior. >>
I make no guarentees that I read the above correctly, but it seems to indicate that white people and certain chinese types are just naturally smarter than anyone who lives where it’s hot. I then would wonder why the bulk of human learning did not take place in temparate climes.
<< Much more science and engineering will continue among the long-term temperate-zone-accommodated “races”. >>
Which is readiliy accounted for with, for example, Diamond’s geographical dissemination. A plant domesticated in China could easily be transported and then grown successfully in what would later be France, due to the east-west orientation of the Eruasian super-continent, while the north south axis of Asia and the Americas limited the emergence of agriculture, because of radical climate shifts limiting the viabilty of crops taken only a few hundred miles away. Once agriculture replaced hunter gatherer society in these areas, members of the population could be shifted over to invention, etc.
<< As an engineer, the vast number of engineers I encountered were individuals of ancestry in the European Caucasian, Semitic, South Asian and East Asian peoples. >>
You know, the ones with money who haven’t faced rampant european destabilization.
<< The Black African, Amerind and Malay-through-Polynesian groups were totally unrepresented or negligibly represented. >>
They were busy running numbers rackets in their head.
<< Most of this unbalance was resultant of these latter groups’ own choice of occupational interest and lower-educationally demonstrated ability repertoires. >>
Wow. This is getting painful. Presumably even a pseudo scientist would note a valid comparison cannot be made because of the lack of equivalent education facilities, pervasive racism, etc.
<< One cannot override tens of thousands of years of bio-cultural evolution with a few racial-equality regulations. Engineering talent is a preadolescence-developed, highly male-chemistry determined trait accentuated in temperate-region-evolved persons. >>
Right, which is why the Aztecs, for example, had such an underdeveloped civilization.
{\¶/}
And I’ve found that people who kow-tow to be politically correct (oh, excuse me… PC) are saying things because they think they should but often don’t have any idea WHY they are saying those things. Just becaue others do, which is a real nice way of reasoning.
I have a shirt which says, “Fuck PC! Think!” Draw your own conclusions…
And nobody is telling them not to be prideful of their heritage. But don’t tell me I have to subscribe to someone elses definition as to what to refer to them as.
While the term might have been penned by Jesse Jackson, it’s usage is almost exclusively amongst white folks and the media, which loves to kow-tow to white liberal ideals. Now, why am I going to call an ethnic group something they predominantly do not call themselves? Seems patronizing to me…
And it’s also a double standard. The media and everyone else still calls me white (or maybe Caucasion), not a “European-American.”
It is also incorrect. I loved watching the face of the person who referred to a friend of mine quote innocuously as an “African-American,” and he responded with a smile, “Well, I’m from Haiti, actually.”
What’s wrong with saying, “I’m an America of Italian descent?” Why do we need hyphens? I say dash all of them!
Did I say you should? What I meant was, people call themselves a LOT of things. So why, if a group of people are fine calling themselves whatever they want, does another group have to come in and say, “Well, I’m going to call you something else.”
Read the Ice Cube quote that I used in my first post. Not that The Cube speaks for all black people, but it’s certainly a rational viewpoint I think many black people share.
I should get a new signature file - NEVER argue with a dufuz!
Yer pal,
Satan
Satan: That shirt is awesome! Wish I had one!
Tracer: THAT was a stitch!!
Tom: Yes, that is what I prefer thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration. And yeah you are right, it is funny when people believe in tests that they score the highest in. Too true!!! That means me as well as others. Oh well, we all know I’m not perfect. I have proved that much at least beyond anyone’s doubt.
Phaedy
That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes.
<< And I’ve found that people who kow-tow to be politically correct (oh, excuse me… PC) are saying things because they think they should but often don’t have any idea WHY they are saying those things. >>
I seriously doubt you’ve found any such thing, and in fact are just reacting to having to behave a certain way in public. Certainly there are goofy elements at the fringes of any political movement, but to debase “politically correct” into “PC” into a boogeyman, and then use it when you mainly mean “polite” is exactly the sort of anti-language thing you’re complaining about.
<< I have a shirt which says, “Fuck PC! Think!” Draw your own conclusions… >>
Right now I’m wondering if you’d be in the market for a “Fuck chewing with your mouth shut! Think!” T-shirt.
<< And nobody is telling them not to be prideful of their heritage. >>
I’m also suggesting they have more or less every right to be down right silly about their heritage, and exaggerate or even make things up like, say, Irish Americans do.
<< But don’t tell me I have to subscribe to someone elses definition as to what to refer to them as. >>
So wait, you’re in charge of deciding who all is entitled to be .25 Cherokee or Irish or whatever? Huh.
<< While the term might have been penned by Jesse Jackson, it’s usage is almost exclusively amongst white folks and the media, which loves to kow-tow to white liberal ideals. >>
Ah, there’s the dreaded “L” word. Now, as to your second statement, Bunk. Do you see lots of Pro-drug legalization on TV? How about radical animal rights, hmmm? Certainly not compared to the number of Burger King commercials you see.
<< Now, why am I going to call an ethnic group something they predominantly do not call themselves? >>
I am not aware that anyone is requiring, or even expecting that you use the term “African American” in place of “black,” and I am arguing here that said term is useful or descriptive in certain contexts. “African American,” you have to admit, has a certain scholarly, anthropological ring to it, and that’s generally the context where I would expect it to be used.
<< Seems patronizing to me… >>
“Have a little fire, Scarecrow!”
<< And it’s also a double standard. The media and everyone else still calls me white (or maybe Caucasion), not a “European-American.” >>
Again, I do notice the various ethnic subgroups of white people in America commonly refered to as such. Ann Landers apologized to Polish Americans, not white people. For a person who wants to de-emphasize race, you seem to be reluctant to put any of your ideas into effect.
<< It is also incorrect. I loved watching the face of the person who referred to a friend of mine quote innocuously as an “African-American,” and he responded with a smile, “Well, I’m from Haiti, actually.” >>
I am thinking now of many Canadians who would identify themselves as “Scottish” or “German,” so again, the term remains as descriptive as ethnicity can ever be.
<< What’s wrong with saying, “I’m an America of Italian descent?” >>
Well, it’s a little awkward, and said people are more likely to say “I’m Italian.”
<< Why do we need hyphens? I say dash all of them! >>
“I hate full stops, period!”
{\¶/}