How many posts did it take for this simple act of apology to take place?
Let me simply note that this is a microcosm of what we African Americans have to go through every single day…
Note it is not even an actual apology if you read carefully, but rather a non-apology.
Eh, well, at least he agreed not to use offensive words. That’s a pretty big concession, in my mind. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more from Mr. STONER…
I suppose Loonie you are suggesting in your oh so subtle way that I may get get my head kicked in. The fact that you hold the residents of Brooklyn in such low esteem speaks volumes. Of course there is no racial implication here is there? Or do you believe violence is perfectly acceptable in this case?
That’s only because Canada did not exist prior to Slavery being abolished throughout the British Empire (a somewhat gradual process).
Take a look at the history of slavery in Nova Scotia about a hundred years before it confederated into Canada. Slavery there was not on a massive scale as it came to be in the southern USA and the Carribean, but it certainly existed.
Shelburne, Nova Scotia in 1785 had the largest urban population in all of North America, when up to 20,000 Loyalists arrived from the newly independent USA. The white “gentlemen farmers” brought with them both indentured black servants and black slaves who were later freed (England abolished slavery in 1832). Unfortunately, these farmers quickly found that much of Nova Scotia was NOT suited to farming; they were given heavily wooded land with thin acidic soil, with lots of granite just below the surface. Many of the whites soon left for next door New Brunswick, or continued into the Eastern Townships of Québec (south side of St Lawrence River, north of New England) or Ontario, which had vast stretches of flat rich farmland along the St Lawrence between Montréal and York (later named Toronto)
See these links for more information on slavery in Canada:
African Canadian Heritage
“Must All Blackness Be American?”
and Human Rights and Canada for information and links on the history of discrimination, racial exclusion, and slavery in Canada
Uh, Grienspace, I think the argument is whether black people do or do not consider the term “negro” to be offensive. Now, you may feel that the term SHOULDN’T be offensive, since it simply means “black”. Well, duh. But unfortunately black people haven’t consulted you about which terms they should find offensive and which they should not.
The fact remains, as illogical as you might think it, that “negro” IS generally considered offensive. And it is well known that racists will often use the word, then disingenously claim that they had no IDEA they were offending people, but since these negros are so damn sensitive and unreasonable they will use some other term. I’m not claiming you are a racist, in fact I believe you are not. I’m just saying that racists often cling to such terms and that by also clinging to the term you are doing yourself no favors.
Again, logical or not, you have no say in what terms black people find offensive when used to describe them. They will feel offended, or not, despite how you think they should feel.
Greeny, greeny. You’re reduced to “sic”ing me missing a u in by when typing a board message? Please old boy.
In fact greeny, I hold the residents of my old stomping ground in very high esteem. Some of the best folks in the world live on Vanderbilt Avenue and in Crown Heights.
However, folks will put your inane opinions on Negro in their proper context. Violence? Physically, prob not, although that depends on your obtuseness at the time.
Some choice words for your ever delicate constitution, oh yes.
Of course greeny if you go down to Redhook and sling around Negro with insistence, someone may take it upon themselves to correct your ignorance with more force than you’re used to, but that’s Redhook.
This use of the term “Negro” AFAIK was first put into question in the very late sixties. As I mentioned before, even Martin Luthor King Jr. used the term in the sixties. But someone way back questioned the word as racist when compared to describing a French or British person who are not described as Caucasian in common daily language. Another word the was questioned was “Indian”. Hence the terms African and Native American.Without being overly concerned about the issue, I do vaguely recall reading or hearing that people of both groups are rethinking the issue of how they shouldn’t be described.
Now I suspect, repeat I suspect that African Americans aren’t very concerned about the word “negro” unless used by someone with a racist agenda. Even the self-avowed anti-racist Gaspode used the term several days ago in an unrelated thread. I believe the context is relevant. At least two self described African Americans in this thread have ignored my request for clarification of this issue. If I am to be corrected I prefer to hear it from them.
In the U.S., Negro was the preffered term from the early 20th century until around 1967-1968–just about the time the Dr. King was murdered. The community so named engaged in a public discussion over how they should be identified. One argument that they put forth was that when newspapers identified white people (when they were not simply assuming that anyone not otherwise identified was white), they simply used “white.” On the other hand, when newspapers identified people whose anscestors had been imported as slaves, they used the (then scientific) term Negro. The objection was that Negro placed all the people so named into a special “scientific” category that made them appear more to be specimens for observation than people. After considering Afro-American, African-American, and a few other terms, they settled on black as the obvious counterpoint to white.
Jesse Jackson’s effort to bring African-American into currency was based on a well-intended but flawed premise. In the cities of the Rust Belt from which he and most of his cohorts sprang, the use of Irish-American, Polish-American, Italian-American, etc. is fairly common. Jackson and company wanted to be seen more like the other immigrant groups, but they failed to notice that those references are not frequently found outside the urban Rust Belt–and in some locations they are not used at all. Thus the phrase strikes many people as artificial. (And events such as refering to Nelson Mandela do nothing to make the term more acceptable to people who are already disposed not to like it.)
So Be It! I Correct You.
Generally, if you hear African Americans use the term “Negro” to refer to someone, it will be in a disparaging way (I won’t go into more detail than that in this brief post). One exception I knew personally was my father’s aunt in Pittsburgh, but she was born in 1889, and she just wasn’t going to change what she called herself in her 70’s. It is NOT an acceptible term to the vast majority of blacks – and it doesn’t matter whether it’s “used by someone with a racist agenda.”
And another thing: assuming I’m one of the two people you mean) I have a lot of other things to do in life than respond to every post that I might feel could use my input, or that is a request for my feedback, and as much as I like to be a responsible netizen and “pull my weight” on any message board, I would ask that you not take lack of (what you’d consider) a timely response as someone actively deciding to “ignore your request.”
Sorry to flush you out on this but you’ve cleared the air on this particular issue as far as I’m concerned.