“… Cooke met Linda Boyer, a 22-year-old Eurasian…”
What does “Eurasian” mean in this context, and what earthly relevance does it have to the events of that night?
at the time of cooke’s death, ‘eurasian’ and other racist terms were commonly used to describe people. in this case, indicating a person who was (in racist terms), part eastern asian, part caucasian. for more outrageous racist concepts, look into the casting of ‘miss saigon’. asian advocacy groups insisted that only an asian person could play the role of a ‘eurasian’, but not a caucasion. their argument was based on the scarcity of roles for asians, but simply reinforced the concept of ‘pure whiteness’.
Geez, that seems kinda harsh. The way I see the use of “Eurasion” in this context is a descriptor of the womans ethnicity. I don’t see anything in the article that reflects on it, good or bad.
(fwiw) I knew immediately what Cecil was referring to with the descriptor and I didn’t see it as racist. Of course I was only 5 in 1973.
Since Cecil has shown himself to be pretty racist in all his other articles I’m pretty sure if there were some way it could have been intended as a racial slur that’s probably what he meant. :rolleyes:
i wasn’t calling cecil racist. i’m sure he was relating the information available on record. ‘asian’ is not an ethnic description. it refers in this case to people who eminate from eastern asia. it is rarely used to refer to indians or lebanese who are equally asian. which of the girls parents was european? likely neither. ethnicity has nothing to do with dna. ‘races’ are imaginary constructs based in the philosophy of ‘racism’. i don’t mean to be harsh. its tough for everyone in a culture where ‘racist’ terminology has infected the language, but i consider people who believe that there are ‘races’ to be ‘racist’.
Whether or not there are “races”, there are shorthand descriptors used to identify common ethic features.
yes, and i suppose that is the root of the problem.
It just sounds like kind of an old-timey word to me. Like reading an article that says: “Halle Berry, the Oscar-winning mulatto, has just broken up with her Canadian boyfriend.”
I’ve never heard of the term Eurasian to be racist. I usually hear “Eurasia” as a reference to other things besides people that come from, well, Eurasia. If someone said someONE was Eurasian, In my mind I would imagine ethnically, people from Central Russia, maybe Kazakhstan.
I disagree that having words to describe real physical differences between people is the root of any problem. We might as well say that the fact that language exists is the root of the problem. We have words to describe physical differences in everything we come across in life, why should people be an exception? The root of any problem that comes of it is fear, and human malice
oh yeah, i forgot, all those people look alike.
Certainly didn’t say that Eurasian was particularly useful as a descriptive term, only that it’s rare, probably due to its vagueness, as a description of people. But I can find no evidence that anyone finds it offensive. In my mind, a person described as Eurasian would be someone from near the center of the Eurasian landmass, someone called Asian would be from the Eastern part of it, and someone called European would be from the Western part of it. And like everything else that exists, these general categorizations can be further refined into subcategories that are more specific. I don’t think it should be considered “bad” to apply this to people,any more than it is bad to apply it to wine, or birds, or rocks. The fact that it is by some people is the result of a problem the root of which is not the process, but again, human fear and malice.
i have seen the term ‘eurasian’ used primarily to describe people who had parents of eastern asian descent and european descent, meaning mixed race, which is a racist concept to start with. but i guess if people are no different from wine, or birds, or rocks, then i shouldn’t be complaining.
Based on any definition of racism I’ve ever seen, the concept of a mixed race is not racist in any way. Please explain how it is? And people are no different from wine, birds, or rocks, or anything else under the sun, in that they are something under the sun.
to be mixed race, there would have to be races. and there are not. rocks may be uniquely found in some part of the world. any amount of wine can originate from some location particular location. some birds may be found only in some part of the world. people travel. we can continue sparring if you like, or you can show me your evidence for the existence of races.
Perhaps I should have said mixed ethnicity. Whether or not there are races is a matter of symantics, I have no concern whether there are technically races or not, so am willing to agree there are no races, but that isn’t pertinent to my argument that it is human nature to describe things based on their differences, and that fact alone isn’t good or bad, it just is. And people, like everything else, have definable differences, so like everything else, will be categorized, and any problem that is related to that is rooted in deficiencies in human character.
Although we may see it differently today, historically Eurasian was a term intended to flatter. A Eurasian woman was a particular beauty whose Asian and European ancestry had combined to show off the best features of both. (With the underlying racist assumption that such features existed.)
That’s not essentially different from the use of stereotypes about Asians today as “brainy.” Many people do in fact object to this stereotype as offensive because it assumes a characteristic without the individual differentiation that everyone deserves.
Is there a distinction to be made between stereotypes intended to be flattering and those intended to be denigrating? It may be a fine line, and I’d prefer neither, but given the way the world generally works I’ll take the former.
okay, i’ll accept that. you don’t sound like you have any bad intentions. i think (although cannot prove) in the original context of this thread the term ‘eurasion’ was racist. do you know any rational reason that the term ‘eurasian’ was relevant to the topic? this is a supposition, but there may have been a perceived need to place the blame for cooke’s death on a ‘non-white’ person. personally i feel that the use of racist terminology, even if used without racist context, will be taken by racists as reinforcement for their philosophy. it;s not about pc, which racism once was, its about accuracy. i doubt my actions have much impact, but i have decided not to stand by and watch.
Knowing that Cecil is rather an old fart, his use of the term “Eurasian” was something he posted without thinking. It’s probably a generational thing. It’s certainly not in the category of posting something like “the nigras are gonna…” Although, after typing that, I heard my grandmother say that a million times in the 1950-60s. She wouldn’t have let “nigger” pass her Southern lips, but she used the more polite(to her generation) term “nigra.”
I totally disagree that there was any “perceived need to place the blame for Cooke’s death on a non white person.” If you even thought that, you’d be wrong about Cecil(the old fart).
I warned a poster in the last two years for describing a person of Oriental descent as a “Jap.” I’m 65, but I’ve been aware that this isn’t something you call such a person in the US in the last 20-30 years. It might fly in other countries, but it doesn’t in polite society in the US. Nice long discussion ensued.
http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=408353
Hopefully, many members from all countires had their horizons expanded.
For something that “doesn’t exist”, it’s interesting that almost everyone can correctly pick the race of almost everyone else within seconds of meeting them. Pretending that race doesn’t exist is just as stupid as believing that race makes a difference.
I have Eurasian relatives. Mixed east-Asian and north-west European. They describe themselves as “Eurasian”. In fact I’ve never met a Eurasian person that describes themselves as anything else, and I’ve met plenty of them.
Eurasian is a descriptive term, not a racial slur. I agree that mentioning the woman’s ethnicity in the article was unnecessary, but the term used is not offensive in itself.
The column was originally from 1976. Wasn’t Eurasian a more prominent term during and following the Vietnam War?
Would you use the words “mulatto” or “quadroon” to describe someone of mixed race? They’re perfectly good words, aren’t they?