Exactly. I don’t see it as very hard to do. This is generally what I would do if I didn’t know how easily offended would be the person I was talking to (and anyone in the immediate viscinity who could hear me).
Though, in a truly post-racial society, there wouldn’t be any problem using the old terms, as they would have lost their offensive meaning. A post-racial society refers to one that doesn’t care about race, not one that cares so much about it that they carefully try to avoid offending someone.
At least, that’s how I understand the term. What we are talking about here is a racially conscious society–a society where everyone is aware of the problems of the various races.
Once, I was meeting someone I’d never met before. On the phone, she asked what I look like.
“Tall, skinny, light-skinned black woman with short hair and sunglasses.”
When I told the person’s daughter that this was how I described myself, she was aghast. “I was raised not to call people that!”
Now, I know this chick. She has no problem calling people “black”. I’ve heard her use the term before. I’m guessing her problem was me referring to myself in that way. Like, it’s alright if you describe a person as “fat” if they aren’t within earshot. But to their face? How rude!
I have no problem describing myself non-racially. “Tall, skinny, beige-skinned woman…” is no more of a mouthful, and actually more accurate (since “light-skinned” is relative and someone’s “black” is someone else’s “colored”). The English language has a lot of words that are useful descriptors of skin tone. “Black” is useful in some contexts, but insufficient for physical description, especially in heterogeneous populations.
The main issue I have is that 90% of the time, people include race as part of a description when it is absolutely unnecessary. If you are trying to help someone pick a specific individual out of a group that that person has actually seen, or is looking at, then certain characteristics such as skin color and hair color/type/length can be useful. But if you are telling a story about something that happened with a coworker, or a person you saw on the bus, or any of dozens of situations where the listener is not seeing the person, there is no reason to include race, yet people do it all the time. I think this is where we can make improvements in the way we discuss people.
There are two ways to correct an imbalanced scale – you can remove weight from the heavy side or add weight to the light side. I am a white American, and I, in fact, do use race as “a primary defining attribute” for white people. My tactic admittedly is the opposite of what most would advocate, but I hope it does my small part for creating balance in the using-race-as-a-descriptor imbalance. Examples:
[ul]
[li]In a room full of white people: “You should to talk to Joe. He’s the white guy over there… with the blue shirt… standing next to the chair.”[/li]
[li]“Who’s that white dude who played Obi-Wan Kenobi? No no, I mean in the prequels. You, know that other white dude.”[/li]
[li]Upon rounding a corner in a public space and seeing an unexpected a crowd: “Aw, man. This place is packed with white people!”[/li][/ul]
Ah, but you’re wrong. It IS still as funny, and I encourage you to continue. Even better would be to refer offhandedly to Mitt Romney, should he win, as the nation’s 43rd white president.*
Depending on how you count Grover Cleveland.*
**That is, whether you count Cleveland once or twice. Not whether or not you count him as white.
Those are both named shades of brown - “bronze” and “chestnut” and that’s actually my own basic forearm skin tone and my iris colour.
Here, “Brown” = Coloured = “multiracial”, and applies to mixed-ancestry people, who could have any mix of European, Khoekhoen, Black, Malay, etc ancestry. It’s a translation of the Afrikaans “Bruin mens”, and wasn’t historically applied to Subcontinentals. My mix, for instance, is primarily Dutch, English & Indian with Chinese, Black and Khoekhoen as well, and a part of my family (the Indian/English part) is St Helene in origin. Because of that intermediate step, my St Helene ancestors assimilated into the Cape Town Coloured community, not the (at the time tiny) Indian one. It’s important to note that Coloured is an established set of Creole cultures - the child of a White person and a Black person would not really be Coloured, just multiracial.
Here, Black meant Bantu (although Eastern African Nilotics and West African/Sahelian non-Bantu immigrants are also called Black) - also called “African”, but that gets confusing…
Yeah, but it you actually look at them, the HTML named colors don’t always match up with what people think of when they see those colors. I seriously doubt that, if you took a photo of yourself and used the eyedropper tool in an image editing program to see what color you eyes and skin were, you would wind up with those colors.
I saw an example on the board recently: this is supposedly brown, but appears orange on most monitors.
Seems a bit daft to pretend that all and any group assumptions we might ever make are worthless. If I’m supposed to be meeting someone I’ve never met before called Ms Ngozi Nwosu, arriving on a plane from Nigeria, I’m not expecting her to have pale skin, freckles and ginger hair. There’s a slim chance I could be wrong in that assumption, but nothing in life is ever 100% reliable - that doesn’t make it useless.
I’ve noticed that too, but almost exclusively from older people that I know. They grew up during a time when there was a great deal more racism than there is now, and while they themselves are not racist, it seems that they still retain a few habits that are more or less harmless, but sound strange to us younger folks.
I hear it everyday, and not just from older people. Stuff like “So I was waiting for the bus, and there was this black guy on his iPhone…” or “We all went to lunch together, and the Japanese secretary wanted to go to McDonald’s, so…” I think people of all ages automatically classify people by race and use that as a primary descriptor when it is not relevant.
It should mean that finally we can treat nappy hair or black skin as physical features, like blue eyes or large breasts. The problem is when some people hate almost any physical description that might “mean” something socially.
There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging someone’s apparent race. What is wrong is making a judgment about that person based on that race that has no connection. It shouldn’t really be any different than sex, that it’s sexist to make judgments about a person based on their sex, but it’s not like we’ll ever stop using someone’s gender to describe them.
Yes, it’s a loaded term, but that’s really what makes it clear that we’re not in a post racial society, when merely mentioning someone’s apparent ethnicity or incorrectly identifying it can cause offense to someone. Why should it cause offense to anyone if we see them all as equal? In my opinion, I think trying to sanitize language of acknowledging that will just make it more difficult for that time to happen.
I’ve heard my mom (who isn’t racist by any reasonable standard) say things like “cousin Tara married a nice black man”. Which is true: I’ve met the fellow, and he was a great guy, as well as happening to be melanin-enhanced. But one must still question the relevance of the fact.
I would expect that in a post-racial world, skin color would be considered as relevant as hair color. I wouldn’t mention someone’s hair color in most contexts, but if I were pointing someone out, I wouldn’t feel at all odd about saying “that guy over there, the one with brown hair”.
Reallt the OP is absurd and overly politically correct.
“I need you to ask Jim about that report”
“Which one is Jim?”
“He’s about average height”
…
“Kind of medium build”
uh…
“Probably wearing the same black dress pants and blue dress shirt as everyone else.”
mmm:confused:
“Dark hair”
eee…
“Works in Deborahs group.”
welll…’
“Oh yeah…and he’s also the only black guy in the entire company.”
My point is not that Ms Ngozi Nwosu won’t be likely to have dark skin. My point is that there’s no black “race” in any meaningful way.
My point is that assuming everyone who has similar skin tone has some kind of heritage in common – racial, ethnic, linguistic, historical – in any way more meaningful than just being human – is a mistake, a common mistake, and a serious mistake. Sometimes an offensive mistake. Like assuming a Tutsi and a Hutu are “the same” somehow, or confusing a Korean with her Japanese oppressors, or calling one Middle-Eastern Semitic person a Jew when it turns out he’s Palestinian. Lumping people together as “races” is mostly a an act pigeonholing we do to simplify a much more complex reality – and it’s often a stupid, dangerous, or offensive oversimplification.
