If the descriptors are not pertinent, then I have to say that their use is probably indicative of latent prejudices. If there were a lot of kids at the mall of all colors but only the black ones were rowdy, then that’s pertinent - you’re simply identifying which kids you think were rowdy. (OTOH, if all the kids, white, black, yellow, brown, pink, etc were behaving the same, then you’ve singled out the black kids for unfair criticism, which again is prejudiced.)
Scylla, I’ll give you four cents. I’m keeping one cent back because your thread was important but not the only catalyst for my asking–I am actually very interested in the topic because I hear it so much in my husband’s family, which made me hear it in my own speech, and therefore it’s a topic I’ve been giving some thought. [I don’t think my husband’s family is terribly prejudiced, but they really *notice* minority status and remark upon it–a lot].
Since I’ve not yet made up my own mind on this, I consider it an interesting topic to discuss, rather than something to jump on someone’s case about. I rather feared that in your thread, my wording was such that I came off as an annoying bitch, as opposed to someone who had an interesting question. 'Twas also an unfair derailment of your funny vacation stories. As a veteran of travel with a 19-month old (still have emotional scars; the kid is now 24 months) I’m astounded at your sheer guts and ability to actually enjoy such a venture.
I’m glad people have had some perspectives to contribute here. Thanks for volunteering the link; it’s another example for people to ponder.
Cranky:
I wasn’t upset there, nor here. I appreciate the courtesy and the thoughtful manner in which you chose not to link this thread to the other, but rather gave me the opportunity to do. It’s nice.
Clearly you can use racial identity as a weapon if you employ it selectively. Biggirl said it well in another thread.
If you see some kids causing trouble you say “fucking kids.” If you see some black kids causing trouble you saying “fucking blacks.”
That’s being selective.
I think you can test one of these situations by reversing it.
There’s a predominantly black Military school in Chambersburg, PA.
There’s also a mall.
Chambersburg parents have a nasty habit of just dropping their kids at the mall, and letting them run wild. These kids are predominantly white.
One weekend about 3 years ago, there was a floor show at the mall, at which the military school was well represented. On that day, as a visitor to the mall you might observe two large groups of kids there.
One group was a bunch of trashy teenage white kids with mullet haircuts, and such, smoking and cursing, loitering around and causing trouble.
The other group was a bunch of uniformed and cleancut predominantly black and hispanic kids, behaving well.
If you were a visitor to the mall and you described this picture accurately, and simply included the racial makeup as descriptive, along with the uniforms and haircuts and behavior, I don’t think that anybody would object to your description. In fact, it adds to it.
When trying to describe something, you do so through the filter of your own perceptions. You describe the impressions and events you observe. I see no flaw in describing facts.
Of course how you emphasize and select, and what conclusions you draw from these facts are subject to interpretation, and reveal quite a bit about the character or the one doing the describing.
I have a friend I play tennis with who lost the sight in his left eye. When we play doubles he takes the ad court, as he has better visual coverage from that perspective. I would generally play the ad side (as I’m better than he,) we’re it not that we were a more effective team the other way around.
Now, I suppose we could just pretend his sight was normal, and play bad tennis, but I think we’d both rather win. I think it would be demeaning to him to pretend there was nothing wrong with his eye, and insist that I play the ad court since I’m better.
It would however be demeaning and unkind to him if I refused to recognize this fact out of some faux consideration. “He’s not handicapped, he’s handicapable.” Uh-huh.
The fact that he has a bad eye and doesn’t see well on his left side is a salient fact. One can recognize it without drawing false conclusions.
As occasionally happens, behavior motivated by socioeconomic circumstances among different groups can be observed along racial lines. This has nothing to do with any ideas of eugenics or inherent racial characteristics. It has everything to do with environment. However, people of common environment sometimes have common racial backgrounds.
Take this hypothetical circumstance:
A catholic school bus breaks down in Harlem, and a bunch of white kids in plaid get off the bus.
Now let’s say you have a bet about the wording of the Apostle’s Creed with a friend of yours.
In that environment do you ask a white kid, or a black kid?
Now let’s say you’re lost and need to find the nearest subway entrance. Do you ask a white kid or a black kid?
Now of course some of the kids in plaid may be black, and some of the harlem kids might be devout Catholics.
But, naturally, one observing these kids would tend to see them as groups of black and white, plaid and nonplaid, wearing kids. Those are both salient and recognizable features of the two groups present.
You would obviously notice it, just as you noticed the plaid. If you refuse to recognize a valid observation or think there’s something wrong with doing so, then I suggest that that in itself makes one look prejudiced.
Wearing plaid doesn’t make a kid a Bible student any more than being black makes a kid a hoodlum.
Most intelligent people know this, and don’t draw stupid conclusions.
I think you can go in the other direction and exhibit PC weirdness, or even emphasize race when you refuse to recognize it.
My in-laws are much the same way. They honestly believe that they are without prejudice, yet they make a note of ethnicity all the time, whether it’s an issue or not. You know me…with me, when they do that, it BECOMES an issue!
no, that’s called prejudice. you are judging their character based upon their appearance. some people with green hair are very nice. some are very interesting. some are intelligent and articulate. some are a**es. just like people with other hair colors.
-
-
- Actually, it isn’t prejudice, it’s simple reasoning on the part of the observer.
-
- More and more black conservatives are noting that if black kids dress like street thugs, they shouldn’t be surprised when regular people are afraid of them.
-Regular people including other black people. Like taxi drivers, for instance.
Some of this whole experience is a cultural gap that is difficult to cross, but common sense should tell you that if you insist on looking like a social outcast, you souldn’t bitch about being treated like one. - MC
I guess the problem with the use of the “black” or “woman” descriptor under these circumstances is that these descriptors imply an unspoken “and you know how they are.” Now the speaker may not intend this meaning, but it’s easy to see how a listener might infer such an intent.
Sorry that I’m late on this thread but since no one brought it up I just wanted to add my opinion that using such qualifiers is racist because it perpetuates the mindset that white males are the “default human beings” and anyone else is in need of a qualifier. Unbelievably racist and unbelievably annoying. Also, as it’s been mentioned before, unnecessary qualifiers treat people as group members rather than individuals. In any vague, hypothetical situation, a white guy is described as “the short guy with the spikey hair” while a black guy is just described as “the black guy”. See how the white person is rewarded with more individuality?
is this a joke? This seems like a big joke. I read post after post that actually have a problem with the use of adjectives. Black is an adjective. In our language we describe things to one another using them. If it were a group of dogs making trouble in the mall we might describe them by color especially if they were all the same color. And if I asked you to “hand me that red screwdriver” would you think poorly of me for having described the screwdriver?If the doctor was a woman then the woman was a doctor. How bland should our communication be?
Here is something I found that I think might help.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A leading U.S. dictionary publisher said it would revise entries for more than 200 offensive words after receiving complaints that some definitions, especially for the word ‘nigger’, were racist. Merriam-Webster Inc. said it would make the alterations to ethnic, religious and sexual slur words in the 1999 edition of its Collegiate Dictionary to ensure that readers were aware just how offensive the words are. The dictionary will also modify its entries for words considered vulgar and obscene.
But what, I ask, do they mean by racist, offensive, let alone vulgar? If, and one must assume they do, if they have a line, where exactly is it drawn? Who cannot be hurt; who, more vitally, can? The knee-jerk response is simple enough. The so called obscenities, natch; racism, of course, nationalist stereotyping, probably; homophobia, maybe; sexism, well, sometimes. The grey areas come swooping in. And, anyway, where do you stop? Because every group wants its say these days. The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear – stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others – must surely be resisted.
If someone said to me “Hand me the red screwdriver”, I would assume they mentioned red for a reason, like there was also a green screwdriver there. If there was only one screwdriver there, what’s the point?
Similarly, what is the point of saying “those black kids at the mall were rowdy”? Do I need to know they were black in the story? Probably not. Are you allowed to say it? Sure. But I’ll look at you they same as if you asked for the “red screwdriver” when there’s only one screwdriver around. You were being extra descriptive because…?
I think it’s OK to take into consideration cultural differences when thinking about the behavior of people, as there ARE noticeable differences in the way different groups think and act, though there are of course exceptions. As an example, I don’t think it’s wrong to say that you are more likely to be physically attacked if you insult a young Hispanic male’s masculinity than if you were to deliver the same insult to a white male. It’s not because there is some genetic difference in people of Hispanic descent that makes them more violent, it’s just that a larger percentage are raised in an environment where such things are taken far more seriously. I lived in a city with a diverse population for years, and had friends of many different ethnic groups, and I did consciously adjust my behavior based on the race of people I was around if I did not know them well personally.
Based on experiences I have had certain prejudices built into me (Although now I try to judge each person as an individual).
If previously the only <insert stereotype here> have been <insert attribute here> (or most of them) is it wrong for me to assume the rest of this <insert stereotype here> will be too?
Possibly, but it is how we learn things, when I was a child I learnt how to open a cupboard. The next cupboard I came to I tried to open in the same way, this is how I learnt how to open cupboards.
Now of course I know that there different types of door handles, but If I see a cupboard I will try and open it the same way I open all cupboards.
Perhaps a better analogy is dangerous animals, I know that if a see a Tiger (for example) walking down the street it’s probably a good idea to go out of my way to avoid it. Even though this particular Tiger may just be a good pussy cat, most of the tigers I have seen aren’t.
When people belonging to a particular group all act in the same way the same thing often happens.
I know that they are all individuals but if in my experience (or even thought the experience of others) most of them behave in the same way it is possible I will come to expect this.
In fact I believe it may be a built in survival trait (i.e. avoiding the Tiger) but that is possibly a different thread.
In conclusion I agree with Badtz Maru
- yes there was another screwdriver and I was being specific
- or no there was not and I was simply using an adjective to describe the only screwdriver.
- Yes there were other groups of kids in the mall and I was describibg the trouble making group.
- no they were the only group in the mall and I was using a description of them.
- To think the reason why I chose a particular adjective to describe something, BLACK kids or OLD woman, is out of some type of stereo type or racism is simply weird. You people worried about this have way too much time on your hands.
2 points:
if the kids were black and white and being bad but are described as “black kids being bad in the mall” then there would be a issue.
what happens when a “stupid woman” or “dumb bitch” cuts you off driving home. is it a woman that was stupid or a stupid woman? I have a lot of trouble with that. I wouldnt call anybody a stupid man. I would say stupid idiot or dumbass or…
aHahaHa!
That reminds me of the brother of a friend of mine. His name is “Hung.” Whenever my friend mentions his brother’s name, I’m compelled to ask “Well, is he?”
Well, I think both sides of this debate have good points. It’s important to try to avoid prejudice. Think about whether it’s relevant that you point out that the kids were “black”. On the other hand, descriptive adjectives do not necessarily imply value judgement.
I wish to share an anecdote about a person I knew who erred on the “never use race words” side:
Some years ago, I worked for a temp service. On one job, I was part of a crew of about 12 people setting up an dinosaur exhibit at a local museum. Only one person in the crew was black. (All were males.) We were split into smaller teams to do various jobs. At one point, on of the ladies who worked for the museum needed to talk to the guy who happened to be black for some reason. She came up to the group I was with and said, “Have you seen that tall guy?” (He also happened to be the tallest guy in the crew–though not by a whole lot). “Huh?”, was the general reply. There was a lot of confusion, and she added some more descriptors, and eventually we figured out who she meant. (“Oh, the black guy!”) Obviously, she felt that to ask for the black guy would mean she was prejudiced. But it sure would have saved time. And I certainly wouldn’t have thought it made her a racist.
There was also a couple of guys from Japan there to set up the animatronic dinosaurs. When she needed them, she asked for “the guys in the blue shirts.”