Oh, and I forgot to mention: None of them think any of the other’s use of the term is invalid.
How is the definition of a word “factual”? Usage and meaning varies greatly across geographical areas and sub-cultures. DtC hears “African-American” and hears “descendents of slaves.” And given that the majority* of people in America who are of African heritage are descended from slaves, it’s not an unreasonable way to define the word–especially because it’s often used in political discussions where the policies being discussed involve the disadvantages most blacks suffer because of historical injustices that stemmed from slavery.
Your definition also works.
On a related note, doesn’t your (Dewey Cheatum Undhow) arguing over what “black” means prove the point that DtC and others have been trying to make?: “black” and “African-American” are far more loaded terms then “white” is, and it’s not really fair to create equivalences between “White Clubs” and “Black Clubs”?
- I’m basing this on a class I took on immigration in America a few years ago. Non-forced mass African migrations to the Americas were not discussed, so I assume they didn’t happen. I may be wrong, and if anyone has some numbers (instead of anecdotal evidence) on this point, I’d be very interested in hearing it.
When I hear someone describe someone as an “African American”, I think that person is a black American like myself…someone who is descended from slaves and is enmeshed in a particularly culture stemming from this fact.
I do not think of someone from the Caribbean or from an African country. It makes no sense to do this because these folks are from a specific country, and thus you can refer to their nationality. Many black immigrants to this country are offended when they get lumped in with American black folk. And why should they be lumped? Jamaicans are different from Nigerians. A family with multigenerational roots in the US is different from a family fresh off the boat from Ethiopia.
It’s a subtle distinction that not everyone is aware of, but it most certainly exists. Instead of being argumentative about whether or not its real, people should accept it and learn from it. Why? Because you are using the terminology incorrectly otherwise, and you risk offending people. Use “black” if you aren’t sure about someone’s nationality. I know a few people are tiffy about this, but there are also quite a few (myself included) who don’t like African American.
At my university, we have a Black Student Union and an Afro-Caribbean Club. I’m sure there is some overlap there in membership, but not a whole lot. So there isn’t a “black race” club, per se, at my school. They are cultural clubs.
We talked about this thing a few months ago, and I followed a link to the high school’s yearbook. The school is predominately white.
Just to set the record straight, the OED online (I access through a university server, so I don’t have to pay the subscription fee - or anyway, I don’t directly pay the fee, tuition probably does) lists “African-American” as:
A. n. An American (esp. a North American) of African origin; a black American.
B. adj. Designating or relating to African-Americans.
Also, the OED has no entry for “bling-bling”.
(Slight nitpick) Actually it was a Belgian colony. And most of the whites weren’t British except for Marlowe. Not that the Brits didn’t do pretty much the same elsewhere.
Aaarrrgh! This feminist descendant of an O’Daniel is now crimson colored – no longer white. I have also been discriminated against because I was at one time obese. And I’m a step mother. And I was a teacher and now a senior citizen. But I’ve never had to make a point of my humanity because I am white.
With that said, I can think of one issue that is particular to whites, Diogenes. At the beginning of the school year, unless your reputation recedes you, black students often assume that a strict white teacher is prejudiced against Blacks.
Why wouldn’t you want that club open to non-Euro-Americans?
When I was teaching, I worked all year toward the goal of making my classroom a comfortable environment for discussing lots of issues including these. During the last six weeks, student-led class discussions always included the topic of race relations. Both races need honest input from other races on the subject.
I haven’t seen any liberals doing that. Care to be more specific?
Jdeforrest, regarding your list of issues that are particular to whites, I didn’t see a single one that I thought fit the category. Want to elaborate?
My God, Jdeforrest, how do you manage to stand the strain of the The White Man’s Burden?
=============
Diogenes, cut it out with “African American implies descendants of slavery.” Even my liberal ass ain’t buyin’ that one. You know you’re wrong. And veering this off into a dictionary debate is a sign of “internet debate meltdown.” All we need now is a reference to Nazis and we’ll be done.
Keep the peace, mo’ fo’s.
Moriah, gobear’s post on the top of the second page is a reference to the Nazis, so I think we’re moving along nicely, thank you.
Don’t forget ProjectOmega’s “SIEG HEIL!” way back on page one.
And I agree: enough with the argument over the definition of African American already. Sheesh.
Why can’t we discuss this without all the “you’re wrong” shit. The fact of the matter is that everyone is right. DtC and pizzabrat are both correct in their assertion that “African American” is used most appropriately when talking about the descendents of American slaves. Dewey is right, too: most Americans just lump all the black folk together and call them “African American”, whether they self-identify as such or not.
Wikipedia does a good treatment of this topic:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American
excerpt:
Is everyone happy now?
I’m not sure why this African-American vs slave descendant dispute is even here. In the 2000 Census, there were 34,658,190 people identified as “African-American or black.” There were an estimated 700,000 identified as Foreign Born of African origin (which includes a substantial number of whites from South Africa and Egypt with smaller numbers from the other predominantly Arab states of North Africa or the formerly European-colonized nations south of the Sahara). So the number of “African-Americans” who are not descended from slaves imported across the Atlantic is fewer than one in fifty. (Since the overwhelming majority of the the 2,915,000 immigrants of Caribbean origin were also transported as slaves, they don’t really affect the numbers.)
“Any number,” however, tuns out to be fewer than 1 in 50 (and, with the preponderance of intramarriage by sociologically defined races, the percentage tends to be smaller than it looks on paper). The unfortunate phrase “African-American” was given its currency in today’s language by a group of Civil Rights leaders who were attempting to give their group of socio-economically disadvantaged descendants of slaves a name more similar to the white ethnic groups among whom they lived. To claim that the phrase does not generally connote that group is rather disingenuous.
It seems to be pretty much a matter of a nitpick hijack with neither side actually addressing genuine issues.
A lot “more”? You have provided none in this list. If you think that only whites are affected by “racially sensitive topics,” you are seriously not paying attention to the world. If you think that only whites are affected by discussions of diversity, you are seriously not paying attention to the world. If you think that peer relations are only a white issue, then you are simply ignorant. If you claim that double-standards are only applied to whites, then I suspect you are not even trying to be honest.
I’m afraid that the ignorance that is displayed, here, is not that of “American groups.” Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge should be aware of the “breaking” process that compelled slaves imported to the U.S. to surrender all vestiges of their language and culture, deliberately separating slaves taken from the same regions so as to isolate them and make them less likely to revolt. Unlike the British Flight Lieutenant, who could actually find a paper trail, slaves in the U.S. had their origins deliberately erased and only the few who may have had a family tradition passed down orally can even guess at their origins. The black culture in the U.S. begins in the slave market, continues through the period of slavery, extends through the times of Jim Crow and lynchings and the deliberate destruction of black wealth and is manifested in the artistic responses to those conditions. For a member of the culture that prevented those people from actually knowing their origins to insist that they only have a right to express cultural solidarity with people of Nigeria or Mozambique is simply sad.
Even with any number of cranks in the NAACP, the notion that David Duke’s NAAWP has “identical idiologies” is ludicrous.
NOW,
having gotten the statistical and historical and ludicrous issues out of the way:
I would say that as proposed, (at least according to the current story*), Lisa McClelland’s proposal seems to have been a good faith (if naive) effort and the reaction of the local NAACP was rather stupid. Part of her (current) explanation was that she wanted to explore the effect of white society on others. Why in the world should the NAACP object to that?
Of course, I don’t know what the initial petition said. If it was originally written that the “Caucasian Club” was going to “celebrate white culture” then the criticism by the NAACP and Diogenes the Cynic would appear to be valid. Clubs to celebrate ethnic identities have their place, as even sven has pointed out. In this context, Irish or German or Polish or black clubs make sense. The counterpart to a black group would not be white, but would be any of the various ethnicities that share an experience as immigrants. Certainly, we might see a Kenyan club near an area that has a significant number of Kenyan immigrants, but the overwhelming majority of black people in this country have a significantly different cultural experience than recent immigrants from Africa. The “white” culture of this country is the general culture of this country. Trying to celebrate it (particularly if it was named white or Caucasian) would certainly seem to be a slap in the face of anyone who was not white.
And a club that sought to provide “support” for all those “white” problems just begs to be mocked.
On the other hand, if Ms. McClelland’s intent was actually the one she now claims (and, it should be noted that she said very similar things in the reports that erupted in August when she noted that the club would be open to all who applied), then the NAACP’s reaction was exactly wrong. I understand how a call for a “Caucasian Club” would sound to someone who has encountered Duke’s NAAWP or the idiocy spewed by Storm Front or The Turner Diaries. However, it would seem to me that a couple of phone calls to find out what is really intended could have avoided a lot of problems. They could have even welcomed her efforts (and perhaps suggested a differentr name) and offered to provide materials to help with the discussions.
Instead, we got a knee-jerk reaction from them, followed by several knee-jerk reactions from poor, oppressed white folk around the country.
Everyone lost.
*From the OP’s link:
Diogenies, page 1:
"What is the fucking point of a “caucasian club” anyway? The whole damn country is a caucasian club.
White people are not an oppressed minority. They don’t need clubs "
Followed by:
“It has been somewhat necessary for certain racial and ethnic minorities to band together to help promote social justice”
Hmm. White people don’t "need "clubs, yet minorities do “need” them. White people therefore should not have clubs, while minorities do. Double standard, based on race: That’s racism.
Diogenies again, in response to Danceswithcats asking “Do I understand you correctly? You’re telling me that everybody else can tout the achievements of their socioethnic group, and I must sit on the curb with my peers, watching the parade, forbidden to participate?”
“Yep. That’s what I’m telling you. Those are the rules.”
So, the rules state that people should be treated differently based on race: That’s racism
In response to fush’s "I’ve heard groups say that “every day is ‘white history’ day” (in refrence to Black History month) that “We should focus on minority acheivements because white achivements are celebrated everywhere” and other comments of that same kind.
My question is, if minorties are so quick to point this out, why are they equally as quick to cry ‘racist’ when a white person says ‘yep, I’m proud of that.’ ? "
“Because it’s a stupid thing to be proud of”
Pride in the acomplishments of people with one particular skin tone=good, pride in the acomplishments of people with another skin tone=stupid: That’s racism.
That’s 3 examples in the first third of page one, need I go on?
Look, it’s simple. Advocating treating people differently based on their skin tone is racism. Period. I am sure DTC has the most noble of intentions ( seriously ), but he’s like a lot of people who think the solution to the shameful history of racism in this country is to balance it out with a bunch of racism in the opposite direction. It’s not, that just perpetrates inequality and encourages idiots like those fools over at St@rm frunt and their ilk. The ONLY solution to racism is to eschew the entire thing and treat each individual you meet the same reguardless of race, creed or color, and to do this in thought, word and deed. The battle against racism will not be won by any law, government or organization, it will be won when enough individuals decide that it has no place in their lives to relegate those who still practice racism to the lunitic fringe where they belong, and to eventually bury racism in the midden heap of history where it deserves to be.
Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to another race. I don’t even believe that “race” exists is any meaningful way at all much less that any race is superior.
I said nothing that is racist, fuck you very much.
No, Diogenes ( sorry I mispelled it before ), advocating treating people differently based upon what “race” ( In quotes because I don;t like the term much either ) they belong to is racism, fuck YOU very much for supporting it.
Get thee to a midden heap.
I advocated no such thing. I specifically said that forming clubs based on ethnicity was one thing and skin color another.
DtC, in the fourth post you made to this thread, you said:
And now you’re claiming that you never supported forming race based clubs? Even Rumsfeld dosen’t change his stories that quickly or obviously!
Look, I’m not trying to beat you up, or insult you by calling you names, I’m trying to make you realize what your’re doing. I am confident that once you realize and accept that you’re advocating racism, you’ll stop. I am hoping you have the self confidence and intestinal fortitude to say “You know what? You’re right, I was wrong, thanks for pointing that out, I need to correct that.” What I want is less racism, not to win a stupid debating point on an online message board.
Weirddave, I had a spectacular post written out that would have resolved all issues but it disappeared into the great ether. It was Nobel Prize quality, but you will just have to take my word for that.
Suffice it to say that what you see as the solution, I see as the goal.
Pax
I’m not going to say I’m wrong because I’m not fucking wrong. By “racial minorities,” I meant specific segments of of what is sometimes classified as a “race.” An “African-American” organization is about more than skin color. A “caucasian” club is about skin color only.
What part of I am white do you not understand. How the fuckl could I possibly be racist against a group I belong to?
To accuse me of “advocating racism” is not only bullshit, it actually trivializes racism. Broadening the definition to include any distaste for overprivelged white girls who want to start “caucasian” clubs really cheapens the word.
Ok, I think I see the problem, and I’m going to try one more time to point this out calmly. Your quote:
pinpoints it. While it’s not impossible to be racist against a group you beling to ( I knew a black guy in college who would go on and on about how niggers were ruining this country, and yes, he meant folks with black skin. It was somewhat surreal to hear, although I finally understood what he was driving at about halfway through the semester and it made sense. kinda. For him anyway. I still didn’t want to be around him because of it ) I am not accusing you of being racist against whites in any way that matters at all, I am saying that by saying that one group-white kids- can’t have a social club for whatever reason while allowing another group-say the members of the Black Student Union-can IS a racist statement. You may feel that the white kids can’t be “harmed” by this because they “have all the advantages already”, but at heart, the statement is racist. You have said that one group of kids, whos common denominator is a racial characteristic-they’re white- can’t have the same type of club that another group of kids who share a different racial characteristic have. It’s not racist “against” the white kids in any way that matters, but acording to you the determining factor for a club to be acceptable is weather the members of said club belong to an aproved racial or ethnic group. That’s a racist arguement, the exact same one that Bull Conner was making down south 40 years ago. It dosen’t matter that your intent is to compensate for 300 years of racial persecution, it’s still making assumptions based upon the race of the people involved. You can justify it all you want, but that’s what you’re doing. You should recognize it and address it, rather than being blinded by your good intentions.
The groups are not comparable. “Caucasian” is not analogous to “African-American.” African-Americans are a cultural group. “Caucasian” is just a skin color.