Gotcha.
'Course, Asian and Arab - and Jewish, Hispanic, Latino, Caucasian and African-American - are derived from place names that are capitalized, while black and white aren’t.
Hair color is not a well-defined quantifiable physical property like height. Hair color is the visible wavelength subset of light absorption spectrum of one’s hair, which just happens to be partially genetic. Skin color is the visible wavelength subset of light absorption spectrum of one’s skin, which just happens to be partially genetic.
Race is a rather arbitrary system of classification intended to convey descent or heritage that was originally based on physical characteristics such as skin color, hair color, facial features, and others. The terms for hair color are just as abstract and non-representative as the terms for skin color - compare black, white, yellow and red to blonde, brunette and redhead. Formerly a person had very little say in determination of their race – others did it for him based on his outwards appearance. They judged his or her outward appearance into these abstract categories and inferred heritage based on the generalization. This is not accurate and not useful, and currently modern society tends to let people identify with their own race. It just so happened that black and white people used skin color as the primary physical characteristic - probably because hair color is a lot less predictable.
I am a brunette. I am white. Both of these are self-identifications for physical characteristics. Just as other people no longer determine my heritage against my consent, nor can they attribute me to completely arbitrary categories of physical attributes. There’s no definition for either white skin or brunette hair that is not relative. There are a lot of people that blur the lines, and they can self-identify as being blonde, brunette or redhead, white or black or purple if they so desire. Just like you can self-identify as being white but belonging to Black culture, you can identify as being black and belonging to White culture.
While Black culture is a proper noun, when I describe somebody as black I am not attributing them to that group, I am describing the physical appearance I would guess they identify with, I am attributing them to the group of people with black skin. Just as describing a person as “brunette Irish” is not attributing them to the Black Irish, describing a person as a “white American” means nothing more than an American person who most likely self-identifies as having white skin. It tells you nothing about their heritage or culture other than they probably had ancestors of the lighter complexion.
Not really. Dudes from New Guinea are considerably “blacker” than you describe yourself as being and have what many consider “typical negroid features”. The Australian natives also are considered “black” by some. Thus “black” is not nessesarily 100% a “heritage” term.
I’m only talking about how black is treated in the US. Here, a person whose origins are from New Guinea is not considered black. They be mistaken for black, but they are not considered a member of the black race. If a New Guinea-American was to become president, only someone who is ignorant of race labeling in this country would call them the first black president.
If there was a New Guinea guy with an afro and dark skin standing on the street, the only reason I’d describe him as black is because I’m assuming that’s what he is based on features. Most people with dark skin and kinky hair in this country are members of the black race, so that’s not an unreasonable assumption. But if I knew that he was from New Guinea and I was describing him to someone, I would not even think to call him black. I might say that he looked like a black person, but I wouldn’t say he was a black person. This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s not. It’s the very reason why I believe “black” denotes racial heritage much moreso than appearance.
And in my experience, most people speak the same way.
I’m from the South. Therefore, to some, I’m pretty much guaranteed to be a racist redneck. I majored in Cultural Anthropology and studied Mayan writing.
I deal poker. We have a guy that comes in and plays pretty frequently. He’s an awesome guy and good to have on the table. You should see the acrobatics that go on for people to NOT say he’s black. Or they recoil in horror when someone else uses the term. Folks, 95% of our clientele is old white guys. Really, saying he’s black IS helpful in identifying him in a crowd. Of course, I typically call him by name or call him “Daddy.” (Long story) He thinks it is hilarious that folks freak out over saying he’s black.
Now, I’ve heard folks use all sorts of PC bullshit and I’ve sat and listened to someone who insisted to a very kind teacher that she be referred to as “pecan tan.” and I certainly have the rear end of someone who certainly can not claim a pure white ancestry. I was trying on clothes one day and the salesgirl exlaimed “Girl, you got a butt like a sister!” I’ve been told I have a surprisingly nice ass for a white girl. Invariably, as long as you are respectful most folks will let stuff slide.
I had a guy on my table the other day that was the blackest guy I’d ever seen. Not shiny black, but matte black. He literally looked like he was covered in coal dust. There wasn’t a damn thing brownish about him. He absolutely was black. Blacker than my nigerian friend, who is pretty damn dark. I thought it was cool. I found the one guy that actually IS, without a doubt, BLACK. Fortunately, I’ve learned just because I think something is cool, doesn’t mean I should tell folks about it.
If it is any consolation, we have a dude that plays that has a HUGE scar running from his chin, down his jawline and all the way down his neck. No one ever describes him as the skinny white guy with the huge scar, although that works amazingly well.
An incident with a friends girlfriend that was as generic short, blonde with big tits that you have ever seen. I stated the best she could hope for was an interesting scar so you could pick her out of a crowd.
I like distinguishing features. Big noses, interesting scars, neat hues, etc.
I can’t believe no one has invoked the old term “darky” which just cracks me up because it DOES toss away all the hue variations/geographic anomalies and stuff.
Excuse me while I check to see if my husband asked his India indian co-workers what they know about eve teasing.
I can’t agree with this at all. What do other people think?
Really?
From here:
Why do you think it would be correct to call a New Guinean a black person, based on the American usage of the term black?
In America, you Self-identify. This is according to the various Federal government agencys. Thus, if you were from New Guinea, you could call yourself “African-American” or Black, depending on which term the form used. Although you did find a CDC page, they don’t sort dudes to into various races, they are more interested in other factors. We had a debate on this in GQ about six months ago, i posted link to the US Census which stated that people self-identify as to race, there are no legal definitions at all.
In fact, this is the only fair way of doing it. Most of us are of mixed ancestry and thus you may self-identify with the group you feel fits you best. (The one excemption is American Indian, which has hundreds of specific legal determinants, tribe by tribe).
Ah, here is one of them:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_68176.htm
"Definition:
The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.
The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30,1997, Federal Register Notice entitled,“Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity” issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."
It does use this as a guidline for African-american “Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro,” or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian”
They don’t go into what used to be called Melanesian.
Because maybe they are people having origins in any of the black racial groups OUTSIDE OF AFRICA?
Oh no, not this argument again. :smack:
Sure, it’s possible to self-identify with a race. You can self-identify as a gender, too. Amazingly enough, religion works the same way. I can go around calling myself a Christian even if I don’t believe in God and I make it a practice of burning bibles every Sunday. A Mexican could also call himself an American. A guy could call himself gay even if he’s attracted to women and is repulsed by men. Zell Miller calls himself a Democrat.
But. So. What?
None of that changes the fact that the US Census Bureau defines “black” in such a way that a New Guinean does not qualify. He could have a fro as big as Alabama, that does not make it accurate to call him black.
I just posted a link to a CDC article in which blacks are defined. This definition is the very same one that the US Census Bureau uses. Just because you can self-identify doesn’t mean that “black” means whatever you or anyone else wants it to mean. Just as how Mexicans are not considered Americans, New Guineans are not considered black (in this country).
What is a black racial group?
Why don’t you ask the US Censor Bureau, since you quoted them and all, but I would guess a racial group that predominantly has black skin. Note, they were defining Black or African American in terms of ‘black racial group’, implying that they themselves believe in two distinct concepts of ‘Black’ and ‘black’.
I think the definition is poorly written, as it allows this interpretation to be infered. It defines “black or African American” by using “black” in the explanation. I don’t think they meant to imply that there was other “black racial groups” outside of Africa.
All A-As are black. All blacks are from Africa. The definition is confusing because it is expressing both points within the same sentence, at least how I see it. But perhaps my interpretation is wrong. I’ve never seen any reputable American source calling dark-skinned, non-African-origin peoples “black”, even if literally they are black.
That’s because a lot of so-called reputable American sources are stuck on stupid, clinging to the old racial classifications of Whites, Reds, Yellows and more arbitrarily splitting up the Blacks and Browns.
“Black” is a much wider and fluid racial descriptor than what can be contained by geography.
Just because black is predominately associated with one continent and its indigenous peoples doesn’t mean that coloration is particularly unique or exclusive to that continent. The same dark coloration crops up elsewhere in various other continents. They’re black, too. They’re just not African.
Many Afrocentrists, myself included, regard many of the people of India and the indigenous peoples of the Australian outback-- just to name two others – as straight up black folks. British colonialists called us all “darkies” at one point-- why not blacks from different continents?
I assume that “black racial group” WRT Africa is to distinguish them from “non-black racial groups” from Africa such as those from Egypt or Libya.
Jackson is indeed largely responsible for the (relative) popularization of the term “African-American”. From this page:
By the way, I was born in 1959 and grew up in Ohio, so I can remember the end of the period when Negro was the preferred term for a person of sub-Saharan African origin. The social studies book I used in second grade featured a section devoted to Australian Aborigines, and made the point that “they have chocolate-brown skin, but they are not Negroes.” However, as Askia notes, these Aborigines (along with New Guinea tribespeople and other members of what was once called the Australoid race) are indeed considered black by many people in many parts of the world.
Why do I think a New-Guinean-American who looked black is actually black? Because someone who was ignorant and racist would think so. Thus, this person would face many of the same obstacles as African-Americans, and would be perceieved as being in the same group by most people he encountered.
Since race is largely a matter of perception anyhow…
My argument is that black as it is used 99% of the time in America most often does not refer to appearance as much as race, and therefore, capitalizing the word is consistent with how we treat other racial/ethnic lables that are used the same way. The last thing that I’m arguing is that only African-derived blacks are the only folks in the world with dark skin.
Because there is nothing except some phenotypic features that makes them similar to Blacks. Race is a social construct, to be sure, and I’m not saying that there are or should be hard and fast rules that keep other dark peoples out of the club. I’m just saying that historically, in the US, these kind of folks have been considered “something other than black”, just by dint of their geographic origins. The one-drop rule only applied to the African-blooded, not just to people with dark skin. So if we’re going to be talking about black people in the US, grouping folks who would have been exempt from the madness in with the folks who would not have been only complicates matters, IMO.