Lately I've been a lot more careful about my speech. I flinch whenever I hear somebody say some kind of blanket statement about a certain race, religion, or what have you. And, as I knew would happen eventually, I'm a lot more careful about saying things that don't apply to me (eg: it's a lot easier for me to poke fun or laugh at jokes about Americans or JWs, than, say, the French or Catholics).
But I think it's getting out of hand. Today I almost lectured somebody who said something bad about Pizza Hut (I work at Domino's, for those who don't know). And I got offended at a comment about a High School in another town nearby yesterday.
I practically INVENTED the jokes about that school.
And I have no doubt this is the cause of Hatrack. I never used to be this careful/paranoid.
So has anybody had a similar situation?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm offended you would blame Hatrack for your nueroses.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I am offended at Kat's blame oriented attitude.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am offended by your incorrect grammar.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm offended by your superiority complex. The nerve (and disregard for personal safety) in insulting a lizard-man.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I'm offended that there are still goats running around after my celebration of Lupercalia.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sweetly* Xavier, is it really wise to taunt me while I'm mapping directions?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*snicker*
*pictures Xav walking confidently off the Santa Monica pier*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Naaahhhh.
There's a wall on the pier.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
It was taught to me at a very young age that it was impolite to refer to certain people in certain terms. Therefore for much of my childhood, I went around referring to Indians as Native Americans and blacks, as African Americans and whites as Caucasian and Mexicans as Hispanics and onward.
One day, while I was doing a writing assignment on a person in London I encountered a roadblock. I realized I didn’t know how to refer to his ethnicity. I couldn’t very well call him an African American because he wasn’t- well, an American. I couldn’t call him an African because technically, he was not from Africa.
Calling him an African-British was just plain ridiculous.
I think political correctness is so engrained in our society, particularly Californian society, that it's gotten to a point where you always have to watch every single word you say, or else risk the possibly of offending someone. I have like this invisible Thought Police behind me, and any time I cross the line beyond the point of Political Correctness, it whacks me with a big stick.
These day's I just try to avoid referring to race altogether if only because I'm starting realize that race is pretty much insignificant in the scheme of things. I no longer see anything wrong with referring to a black person as black anymore. What I think is really what's important is the intent behind the words. As long as their are no bad connotations behind the word, and it's meant as purely a word, then it's okay.
Dang. Now that I see this sudden burst of fluffy postings in the last couple of minutes in this thread, I feel like an uptight nimrod. Thanks a lot, guys. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am deeply offended by the term "nimrod."
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Maybe your sensitivity about it comes from the fact that you suspect you might actually be one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
PC-ness makes people talk too much and too long. All those terms are useless anyway. people are just people and nothing else to me. but obnoxious stereotyping is much worse than Pc-ness. i wonder why so many sitcoms have to be so offensive. Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
quote:PC-ness makes people talk too much and too long. All those terms are useless anyway. people are just people and nothing else to me.
Ah, if only I had your way with words, Synesthesia.
I go on and on in my post attempting to convey what you have in those little bitty bits words you have above.
Arg, man. Arg. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
While I sympathize with the sentiment that people can and tend to be too careful of not offending each other, I think the boogieman of PCness is pretty far removed from what actually exists. Of course you'll find the occasional wacko insisting that we refer to each other as mammalian height-challenged hair-intensive sentients, but it's hardly the norm. Where's the terror in politeness? Is calling black people "African-Americans" rather than "Negroes" so painful?
I mean, I have my problems with inoffense-intensive people myself, but I'm tired of hearing people complain about the monstrosities of political correctness without understanding what they're bitching about.
Not that this particular rant's aimed at anyone in this thread -- though I'm interested in hearing some commonplace examples of "political correctness" that hinder your daily living -- but I've been nursing a slow burn since the first time I heard that term. If it was ever once anything real, it's mutated into little more than an obnoxious attempt to paint civil-rights activists or feminists as nitpicking, wishy-washy psychotics.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
By the way, for whoever brought it up, I'm rather annoyed with the term "Hispanic" myself. As George Lopez said in a stand-up act, there are no Hispanics because there is no Hispania. It's just a term to lump together everyone from south of the border -- few people (myself not among them) have no difficulty in distinguishing a Puerto Rican from a Costa Rican from a Mexican from a Colombian, and people wanted to spare themselves the trouble and potential offense that can stem from misidentification.
Of course, I understand the attempt to create a term that allows identification of race without delving into potential offense -- Mexicans are likely to be taken aback if you call them Brazilians, for example -- but if it didn't work for Orientals, why would it work for Hispanics? I don't have any personal problems with being labelled Hispanic or not, but I'm rather curious why it's okay to lump Mexicans, Ricans, et. all under a general term when the Japanese, the Chinese, the Vietnamese won't put up with being labelled Orientals. When white people from a small island take great pride in labelling themselves Irish or English, though there's little genetic or geographic or physically identifiable difference between the two.
The term will eventually die out, I expect, probably due to sensitivity to the immense cultural differences between, say, Cubans and Guatamalans. Which is a good thing, but it's just that bugaboo of political correctness in action again. Is it so evil?
That's the only example of commonplace political correctness that I'm particularly unhappy with, really, aside from the exact same problem when applied to black people ("Africans" rather than "Zimbabweans" or "Ghanians") and Arabs ("Arabs" rather than "Iranians" or "Afghanis"). Which others are there?
Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
I use to go to a 90% Mexican school. Hispanic has been the term that I've been taught to use.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Azile, in Britain, they are normally referred to as Black people. At least, I've been getting the daily news email from the BBC for a while and thats the term they use. I don't particularly have a beef with the term "African-American" though I personally think it is a misnomer. I mean, the majority of black people in America prefer to be called African-Americans, so thats what I refer to them as. However, since the only Americans I know who are actually from Africa are white, it is kind of ironic.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Lalo, I'm disappointed in your lumping of all "Cubans" together, when there is such a clear difference between Cubans from La Habana and those from Camagüey or Cienfuegos. Shame on you. Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
btw, Lalo actually represents my feelings pretty perfectly. While I have certainly heard of extremes (more often in sitcoms than in real life, though) I don't in general see what the big frenzy over Political Correctness is. At least, not in the sense that most people gripe about it. What does it hurt to be sensitive, or to call people by the term they prefer?
I have seen excesses in university campuses, but that is a whole different kind of PC. I have seen classes where you must accept it as axiomatic that white men are to blame for the world's ills. But that is a far cry from frowning upon clearly sexist or racist statements.
If I somebody get offended over being called black by somebody who clearly didn't mean any harm, I would find that a bit extreme. Likewise, I don't take any offense to being called "hispanic" when the PC term, last I heard, was "latino." I don't take offense when people are not trying to belittle me. On the other hand, when people don't realize that I'm Cuban and tell me they would hate to live in Miami (where I used to live) because there are too many Cubans there, well, it's not in the least bit extreme to say that this statement reflects ignorance and prejudice and is hateful. I can't begin to count the number of times I have heard things like that. Or, "I wouldn't want to live in Florida. Too many peach-pickers there."
When somebody makes a statement that is clearly based in ignorance and hate, it is not excessively PC to tell them off. Nor is it too PC for those of us who are frequently the targets of baseless hatred to expect better.
And yes, I try to be as "politically correct" as possible in my speech, writing, and thought, and I'm most certainly not ashamed of it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just like being polite... but the terms black and white make no sense to me whatsoever...
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Now, if somebody makes statements that indicate they don't know the difference between Cubans and, say Mexicans, I will respond with mock indignation and attempt to educate them.
And yet, my mother-in-law keeps saying, whenever we bring up the idea of eating Cuban food, that she doesn't want to eat "spicy food."
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't want to live in Florida because Joe lives there.
*scratches head*
PC used to bug the crap out of me. At work we have to do cultural competency training and it makes you realize a lot. Miscommunication and the like. It wasn't PC training, more of an awareness training.
I think it helps.
...and when I lived in Key West and was taking Spanish in the fourth grade, I had a good accent.
The teacher said, "You have a good accent. Do you have any Hispanic ancestry?"
o_O
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think we should all start refering to each other as "that ugly jerk".
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Is calling black people "African-Americans" rather than "Negroes" so painful?
Not painful at all. However, the term African-American is factually incorrect when referring to a black person that was born in the USA. The term denotes someone who personally came from Africa, who now lives in America. Such persons can be black, white, indian, arabic, etc. Just as I am not a European-American because I was not born in Europe.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My father-in-law is an African-American. French white guy born in Zimbabwe or something like that.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'm 1/16 Native American.
*looks at skin*
That phenotype apparently didn't show.
[edit: I hate math.]
[ February 16, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(high fives mack) Me too!!
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
While the term "African-American" is of dubious legitimacy--I think the point was simply to come up with something new, that didn't carry the connotations that the word "black" did, and could thus be used without derogatory implocations--I don't quite agree with your definition, Robes. By your definition, I am not Cuban-American, since my parents came from Cuba and I was born here. And yet, I grew up immersed in the Cuban culture and experience. While "African Americans" often do have a shared culture, it is not synonymous with that of African-Americans. So I don't think it's so much about where you were born as it is what cultural heritage you share in.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Fascinating -
I attended a 1/2 day class on using the reports the US Census did in 2000 (2 years ago - the class, that is) so my recall may be slightly foggy. But as I understand it, the term "hispanic" refers to an "ethnicity" that is used in computing how tax dollars are spent on special programs.
A man I work with visited Africa and referred to himself as an African-American in conversation with some of the blacks that live there. The African blacks laughed long and hard at him. (Yes, this man is black himself.)
Awareness is a necessary thing - but also necessary are these traits: courtesy, civility, respect, willingness to learn about things and people that are strange, frightening, new.
Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
Lalo,
To be perfectly honest, I never really had an idea what "Hispanic" actually meant. So my use of the phrase pretty comes out of my ignorance. The word "Latino", is a fairly new word for me. I've only heard it used as of recently. Now reading your post however, I can most definitely see now how it can be wrong.
Brian,
I always try to refer to African-Americans as such whenever I can.
I don’t see any problem with people referring to a person as black because for many, it’s not meant derogatory term. I, myself, always had a bit of difficulty doing it because I don't like to refer to people on the basis of their color. In a way, I don't see how referring to a person as "black", is anymore different than referring to a person as "negro". The same goes with calling a Caucasian person white or me, yellow- even if it's not meant to offend, it still feels wrong.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Latino is extremely incorrect and most of the people getting lumped in there are hardly "Latin" at all.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, to me, the relevant point isn't my evaluation isn't whether or not it's appropriate by my standards - in Chicago, the many communities that make up "Latino" appear to have embraced that as the term they prefer.
Good enough for me. If I go somewhere else, and the associated communities prefer something different, I'll go with that.
Doesn't seem that difficult, really.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
yeah youre too PC. stop it.
and it's not necessarily the influence of hatrack. ive been around a good long while and havent gleaned ANY kind of PCness.
I guess that just my natural flaming assholeness though.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't mind using it, I just think it's silly to pick something that defines you, that you don't even really qualify as.
That's why I am American. At least I qualify as ONE thing.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think the problem that lots of people have is trying to stay current with the accepted terms. Certain terms used to be perfectly acceptable, but they're not anymore. It seems like "Oriental" is out and "Asian" is in. I seem to remember the term "Chicano" being popular a while back, but I don't hear it anymore. If a group of people prefers to be referred to in a specific way, that's fine with me. I just don't see why they need to keep changing their minds.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
sndrake, it doesn't seem that burdensome, either. Just like I wouldn't call you "Stevie," unless you preferred that to "Stephen." Of course, the next guy I meet might want to be called "Steve." Or "HunkO'ManlyLove." Whatever.
As long as it doesn't bind me in perpetuity, I'll call whomever by whatever they want, just as a matter of common courtesy.
[JonBoy, some Stevies grow up to become Stephens, and some become HunksO'ManlyLove. Sometimes you just don't know why, but there it is.]
[ February 16, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Ok, Eddie, here is where 'PC' gets on people's nerves. It becomes a club for those who want to feel superior without doing any actual work. And the list of criteria for the club is arbitrary and often nonsensical.
For example:
It is not PC to drive any vehicle that looks like an SUV. SUV's became the hated car of the PC crowd, for a variety of reasons. They are too big, they use too much gas, they are not environmentally friendly. And when all those conditions are true, yeah, they probably are a bad idea. However, there are quite a few cars that have the same basic functionality and look, for which those things are NOT true. My car, for examle, is exactly the same size as a longbed Nissan truck, and gets better gasmileage than my Stanza used to. And I still have PC buttheads sticking anti SUV propoganda on it. Clearly, they have done no research on which vehicles are actually the problem. They are just going over their PC checklist and going "Oh, SUV bad."
Example the second:
I am squicked out by gay sex. For whatever reason, two men making out makes my stomach turn. I am also squicked out by calamari, and it is loved by millions, so personal quirks can hit you in all sorts of places, not just sexual politics. Anyway, I don't like it. So, I don't like books with graphic descriptions of gay sex, I don't like movies with gay sex, and I am unapologetic about it. Now, in the PC crowd, this makes me a homophobe and a bigot. Despite the fact that I have a number of gay friends, and have never done anything to harm a gay person for their sexual orientation, and in fact am square in the 'just leave them the heck alone' camp.
But that isn't good enough for the PC commandos. You are either 100% with their program, or you might as well be a nazi KKK member.
And yes, I have been told that I was a homophobe and a bigot because I could not see the beauty in gay love. Sorry, I also don't see the beauty in cubism, and some of those paintings sell for millions. It's just a matter of taste I guess.
But with PC extremism, NOTHING is allowed to be a matter of taste if it falls outside the agenda.
And that's what pisses people off. I have zero interest in forcing gay people to see the beauty in hetero love. And I would never yell at Karl and tell him he's a heterophobe if he told me hetero sex was icky. I would just laugh and keep chatting with him, just like he does with me. But Karl isn't a PC commando, just a good guy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
He's my HunkO'Manly Love.
(I leave it to you to determine the referent.)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
CT: I'm one of those people who doesn't have a preference. (This actually seems to throw some people - who feel like I'm somehow setting them up for some weird kind of test - judging them on which form of my name they choose.) I generally use "Stephen" in this particular forum when I use my name at all simply because there are a couple of other "Steve's" floating around. And I doubt they'd want their messages confused with mine.
Taking a deep breath now...
Labeling diverse groups under one term is very common, in this culture, and probably in most others. Historically, the labels were applied by the majority on the minority populations. It even still goes on.
Think about labels like "the retarded" or "autistic." You want to talk diversity? "Autistic" can describe a 20-year-old writer, a designer of slaughterhouses, and a nonverbal kid whose favorite activity is to look at their feet. "Retarded" can describe someone who is employed, pays taxes and is married - it can also describe someone who has never spoken and who has spent their entire life in an institutition.
We don't think about those labels and how little sense they make, because we came up with them. It's not that they necessarily make any sense, but so far the population being labeled hasn't been to vocal about wanting to be called something different.
We used to come up with all-encompassing labels for diverse sections of minority groups - some of them polite, some of them not so polite. The complaining about terminology and keeping up with it only came up when those same groups started taking control of the language being used to describe them.
I guess what I'm saying is that these labeling issues aren't new - what's new is who is in control of the labels.
[ February 16, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Alright, this is how I understand the terms Latino/Latin, Hispanic, and Chicano, and how they tend to be used in professional circles, YMMV.
Hispanics are people from Spanish speaking countries, including Spain.
Latinos are people from any country in Latin America or the Caribbean that speaks a Romance language. Brazilians and Haitians are Latinos, Jamaicans and Surinamese are not.
Chicanos are Mexican Americans.
There's a nice discussion of the differences between Hispanic and Latino here at dictionary.com.
Honestly, I can only think of one group that uses Hispanic rather than Latino (Hispanics in Philanthropy) and I couldn't tell you why they do so. Their choice and it doesn't bother me.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
That's pretty much my understanding as well, except that I have never heard Hatians referred to as latinos.
btw, what's the rule on capitalizing these names?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I have a feeling I know what my "Steve" would actually like to be called of the above choices, CT.
In Southern CA, when I was growing up the broad term "Hispanic", was used by the culture itself. Though it appears to have changed somewhat, according to Lalo, since I've been gone. Latino is definitely the more common term in the Chicago area where I am now like sndrake pointed out.
To me, the point is exactly there is no "hispania" while there is an area that can be called "latin" which would be any one from Rome, Italy or the derivative cultures, which Spain isn't entirely part of to begin with though somewhat I guess.
I finally figured out after listening to NPR jazz that what my Steve actually is: "Afro-Cuban" or "Afro-Carribean" since there is some Jamaican thrown in too.
So which box he actually checks on the census is pretty much up to how he feels that day!
AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(sndrake, isn't it odd how work keeps intruding on life, despite our best intentions? Face it, dude, the activist part of you never sleeps. It's a burden, but a HunkO'ManlyLove is up to the challenge. Or a Stephen, or a Stevie. But never StevieDoo, as that's just too Hanna-Barbera for words.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks for that link, Risuena. My problem is that I've always heard "Hispanic" and "Latino" used interchangeably, and I'm vaguely aware that "Latino" is preferred, though I really have no idea why. Maybe it's simply because it's an issue that doesn't really concern me, or because I just don't meet enough Latinos.
quote:btw, what's the rule on capitalizing these names?
From The Chicago Manual of Style 8.41: "Names of ethnic and national groups are capitalized. Adjectives associated with these names are also capitalized." From 8.43: "Designations based loosely on color are usually lowercased, though capitalization may be appropriate if the writer strongly prefers it." So for example, "white" is lowercased, but "Caucasian" is capitalized.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
More political commentary:
quote:In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined.
-- Thomas Szasz
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Hispanic refers to those who trace their roots to Spanish-speaking nations from Spain to the Philippines. Latino's are a subset of Hispanics who trace their heritage to the Americas.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ooh ooh! Here's a question.
Indians that were here before Columbus are really Native Americans, right? So what if you have an Indian that was here before Columbus but lives in the Mexican region. Are they also Native Americans (because it's the americas/North America) or are they Native Mexicans?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why do we even need labels? To me they are stupid and cumbersome and make absolutely no sense. The darkest black person isn't black. the palest white person isn't really white. Then you get billions of people that are Asian from Indians-Japanese people. Why are labels nessasary? Especially for people who just don't fit into neat little catergories.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:Hispanic refers to those who trace their roots to Spanish-speaking nations from Spain to the Philippines. Latino's are a subset of Hispanics who trace their heritage to the Americas.
Yes, but this misses the issue. The issue is with the emphasis on Spain in "Hispanic," which offends some Latin Americans. The reason they find this offensive is that they have a great deal of indigenous "blood" (for lack of a better term), and Spain to them represents the nation that came along and destroyed their culture, forcibly converted them to a new religion, and forced them to adopt a new language. Negative feelings toward Spain are very common in Central and South America.
In this case, Latino is preferred because it does reference the one commonality that all of these groups now have (the Romance language) without specifically giving a place of honor to Spain.
Of course, since my heritage is pretty much purely Spanish, I don't really have this hangup.
Syn, I am also a Dolphan, a teacher, an independent, a parent . . . . I think the issue is not the existence of labels, but the use to which we put them. I think we all pretty much agree that labels used to demean people (like "spic" or the N-Word) are wrong. But sometimes I hear people in the majority telling people in a minority that they should not apply a label to themselves, that this is foolishness and divisive. But I see this usage of labels as a way of describing, affirming, and celebrating the particular subset of American culture that I have experienced. The people saying I should not describe myself as a "hyphenated American" are typically the ones who feel that, to be American, I should subsume any aspect of myself that is different: that the fact that there is a difference between my experience as a Cuban-American kid growing up in Little Havana and that of a white kid growing up in Indiana is a bad thing, that needs to be eradicated for true acculturation to have occurred.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
What I don't like is feeling vaguely guilty if I'm say, trying to point someone out, and I say, "see, that African American guy over there." I live in a town that's mostly white, if there's a group with all white people and one African American, then naturally that's what I'm going to use to distinguish him. Just like if I was in a room with all blonde people and one red haired person that's what I'd use to distinguish them. I feel like I shouldn't even notice, you know, andcertainly I shouldn't bring it up if I make a mistake and do notice. And generally I don't notice anymore than in passing, but it seems like that's the one thing I can't comment on.
I generally switch between African American and black, just using whichever comes out first. As far as I can tell none of the African Americans I know mind (which granted, isn't many) so I don't see why I should worry about it.
General Note: I don't know many African Americans because our school is about 1% African American, not because I don't want to.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(Note to CT: The activist doesn't sleep, but has been known to take a day off, watch trashy TV [but "elegant trash," as Harlan Ellison once defined it], and even do something for the sheer fun of it once in awhile.)
Taking another deep breath...
I sometimes describe myself as a "recovering academic." I spent a lot of years safely cocooned in an environment that was extremely supportive of me and my personal growth - although I am quite sure my advisor and mentor is ambivalent about the choices I ended up making.
Based on my admittedly limited experience, I came across more obsessiveness with "correct" vocabulary and terminology in academia than I do in activism. Part of it is just the pragmatic nature of politics and advocacy - is your main focus to do a vocabulary lesson or to advocate about certain policy points? That doesn't mean you don't have your own "correct" vocabulary - you just pass on a lot of opportunities to "instruct" other people, except by the example of your own language use.
There are times I've felt a little bemused by terminolgy too. One particular instance comes to mind...
When I was doing my masters program in Special Ed (full-time), I took a course with one professor who had a particulary grating condescending style that rubbed almost everyone the wrong way.
In one class, an "older" student (probably the same age I am now) was telling a story and said something about "colored people." The instructor, surprisingly gently, told the student that this wasn't the accepted term any more - the term currently used was "people of color." (At this particular time, I believe college professors were probably the only ones using that term.)
I had one of those dreadful moments when the "unspeakeable thought" demands to be spoken. I probably could have fought it, but I was sitting next to Linda, one of my buddies in grad school. Linda was a very light-skinned African-American, and she told me she often got mistaken for "white."
I leaned over quietly and whispered to her: "Does that make me a person of no color?"
Compounding my own lack of impulse control was a fact I had forgotten. When it came to laughing, Linda didn't have any self-control either. She burst out laughing - hard. Tears in her eyes.
The teacher, smiling a lot like a shark smiles, said: "you know you're going to have to share that with everyone now, don't you?"
I did. Which resulted in the whole class bursting out in laughter - including, a little later than everyone else, the instructor.
I don't think she ever forgave me.
(Edit to add: to avoid any confusion here, the instructor was NOT a "person of color" - as she defined the term.)
[ February 16, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"what if you have an Indian that was here before Columbus but lives in the Mexican region."
One of the main reasons for emigration: MUCH less discrimination in the US than in Mexico.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
against indigenous people?!?!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So are you saying that it doesn't matter because in Mexico they'd just call them Indians or worse? I'm a bit confused.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, they suffer from a LOT of name-calling, negative stereotyping, and segregation. NativeAmericans in Mexico are strongly discriminated against as far as obtaining housing, property rights, equal protection under the law, work, governmental&political positions, schooling&college, etc
"against indigenous people?!?!
Naw. Here's the weird thing, once Mexican NativeAmericans cross the border into the US, they suddenly become just Mexicans -- whether they speak Spanish or not -- to the US's dominant culture, and to most other Mexican migrants. And enjoy the fruits of sharing the Mexican-migrant reputation of being good/hard workers. Admittedly, a few labor sub-contractors do take advantage of nonSpanish-speakers.
[ February 16, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, but the stereotypes they suffer in Mexico don't apply to ME when I'm trying to be PC.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
PSI, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Aspectre's pretty accurate, from what I've heard. (I've only visited my family in Mexico when I was a child, and without understanding the language, I won't pretend to have first-hand experience with the Mexican power structure.) Cortez never really died in Mexico -- Mexicans of pure or near-pure Spanish blood are still the top tier of the economic and social ladders in Mexico. The more sullied one's blood is with native blood, the farther down one goes.
My family's nearly pure Spanish blood, which means they have homes in safe neighborhoods. Hell, my tia Carolina was married to a pretty high-ranking government official until about six months ago -- she's now a Texan, but I still think highly of her. Because of my family's blood, my father was able to get a high-quality education that qualified him to immigrate to USC to get his MS. If he was of native stock, I seriously doubt he'd ever have had the opportunity to any real education at all, let alone a chance to immigrate to the United States and attend one of its top universities. Blood makes you or breaks you down there.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Asian from Indians [to] Japanese"
Most of the people of India are caucasian*, like most Europeans.
*And the Chicago Manual of Style can go crawl back under the rock from which it emerged.
[ February 17, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm asking what the most PC term is for a native Mexican.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Ok, Eddie, here is where 'PC' gets on people's nerves. It becomes a club for those who want to feel superior without doing any actual work. And the list of criteria for the club is arbitrary and often nonsensical.
For example:
It is not PC to drive any vehicle that looks like an SUV. SUV's became the hated car of the PC crowd, for a variety of reasons. They are too big, they use too much gas, they are not environmentally friendly. And when all those conditions are true, yeah, they probably are a bad idea. However, there are quite a few cars that have the same basic functionality and look, for which those things are NOT true. My car, for examle, is exactly the same size as a longbed Nissan truck, and gets better gasmileage than my Stanza used to. And I still have PC buttheads sticking anti SUV propoganda on it. Clearly, they have done no research on which vehicles are actually the problem. They are just going over their PC checklist and going "Oh, SUV bad."
...so your point is that you ran into morons who are capable of understanding that SUVs are bad for the environment, but incapable of distinguishing which SUVs are more harmful than the status quo?
Is that political correctness or just idiocy? Anything when utilized by idiots can turn into a nightmare -- just look at the Libertarian party.
quote:Example the second:
I am squicked out by gay sex. For whatever reason, two men making out makes my stomach turn. I am also squicked out by calamari, and it is loved by millions, so personal quirks can hit you in all sorts of places, not just sexual politics. Anyway, I don't like it. So, I don't like books with graphic descriptions of gay sex, I don't like movies with gay sex, and I am unapologetic about it. Now, in the PC crowd, this makes me a homophobe and a bigot. Despite the fact that I have a number of gay friends, and have never done anything to harm a gay person for their sexual orientation, and in fact am square in the 'just leave them the heck alone' camp.
But that isn't good enough for the PC commandos. You are either 100% with their program, or you might as well be a nazi KKK member.
And yes, I have been told that I was a homophobe and a bigot because I could not see the beauty in gay love. Sorry, I also don't see the beauty in cubism, and some of those paintings sell for millions. It's just a matter of taste I guess.
But with PC extremism, NOTHING is allowed to be a matter of taste if it falls outside the agenda.
And that's what pisses people off. I have zero interest in forcing gay people to see the beauty in hetero love. And I would never yell at Karl and tell him he's a heterophobe if he told me hetero sex was icky. I would just laugh and keep chatting with him, just like he does with me. But Karl isn't a PC commando, just a good guy.
Exactly what is "100% with their program"? I'm a serious supporter of equal rights, and I've never found much "beauty" in homosexual sex. I'm not violently repulsed by the thought of it, but I'm not interested in watching any of it -- no more than I'd be interested in watching sex videos of Janet Jackson or fat people. Fat people don't disgust me (though to be fair, Jackson does), but I find no excitement or titillation out of watching them hump.
Again, this sounds like you just ran into idiots. While you may notice liberal idiots more than you notice conservative idiots, probably because the liberal idiots aren't representative of the entire philosophy, that doesn't mean they're anything more than a fringe element in what's by and large an intelligent civil rights movement devoted to the granting of equal rights to all citizens -- a philosophy you, by your declaration that you oppose legal persecution of homosxuals, belong in.
I stated in my first post that of course there are idiots who take inoffense to indecent levels. Are these two examples really representative of politeness as a whole? Trying to end use of the term "nigger" doesn't really correlate with slapping bumper stickers on car-based SUVs or harassing people who are repulsed by the idea of homosexual sex.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
PSI, native Mexicans are just that -- native Mexicans. Native Americans, if you prefer. Chicano.
There's a kinda-sorta-derogatory term for them in Spanish, but I'll be damned if I can remember it right now...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And by the way, you may want to give props to Jose. He's more familiar with his native culture than I am, and actually speaks the language, so he's probably a better spokesperson for the Hispanic/Latino/strawberry-picker minorities on this board.
Plus, he's always right, so long as he agrees with me.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
But Lalo, I always agree with you when you're right.
I don't have too much expertise on the indigenous thing, though, because unlike most of Latin America, in Cuba the Spanish pretty much obliterated the native population (Siboneys, Tainos, & Caribe)--even more successfully than the British in North America.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
But Eddie, the problem is that the extreme fringe is often the most vocal element of the 'PC' crowd, and the quickest to villify members that are not towing the line. It doesn't make the whole group of people who like politeness bad, as you say, but it does put a bad taste in the mouth of those who have been the subject of attack.
And, to your point, I feel the same way about what I think of as the radical right. It's just that they were not the topic of discussion.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
It's not that hard. Polite people do their best to call people what they wish to be called, and they don't take offense when none is intended.
The polite term for African-Americans in my lifetime has been Negros, Colored People (as in the NAACP), then Blacks, then African-Americans. It's not that hard to keep up. Older people who still use the old terms aren't trying to be offensive and nobody takes it that way. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is deliberately being rude.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
'Chicano' refers to MexicanAmericans of SouthernCalifornia. Despite efforts to extend that self-identification to include all SouthWestern MexicanAmericans -- heck, farther, even to NewYork -- it's still pretty much an "LA thing".
'Indios' is probably the politest Spanish word to refer to NativeAmericans of Mexico.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The fact that a term is inaccurate really has little to do with anything.
We will have labels for any large group of people, particularly if they decide that there is a particular term they would like to be referred to by, until everyone can know everyone else personally.
People don’t particularly like all the labels for a lot of reasons. They are very ambiguous. Is some one are should all the following people be call Cubans: Some one from Cuba, Someone who has two parents from Cuba, Some with two grandparents from Cuba, Someone with one parent from Cuba, someone with one grandparent from Cuba, someone who looks like they could be from Cuba, who has a brother-in-law from Cuba. This ambiguity makes them difficult to apply properly unless the party being referred to has told their preferred term. It is also ambiguous in that “nigger” is ok for some people to use yet not for others.
Another reason people dislike the whole thing is they don’t like being sued, particularly for merely exercising their first amendment rights, like Southwest Airlines did (see here and here (See the last paragraph, too). So great length, large sums of money are spent for the sole reason of reducing this possibility. Diversity training, Racial Sensitivity training, your employer does not care; they just don’t want to get sued. The end result is people go around second guessing everything they say, and everything they do.
One last reason is that stereotypes grow up around labels. Most people feel that the entirety of any given stereotype fits them, and that the label is pigeon holing them into a particular identity.
One last reason is that most people are bright enough to see that the ever changing labels some groups pick for themselves are just an attempt to hide. Just look at NAMBLA.
(The argument is going to be made that not everyone sues over stupid stuff, that this is rarity, hardly ever happens, yadda-yadda-ya. If this argument is good enough to defend performing medical procedures on a minor without parental consent, I think it is good enough for this.)
Oh, yes you are being too sensitive.
Posted by ravenclaw (Member # 4377) on :
Wait so the politically correct term is African American? At least in DC where I go to school, I have never heard anyone call themselves that. I mean Al Sharpton says black, so that must mean it's okay. Of course there is always that annoying thing where blacks can call each other "nigga" (you have to have the a, or so my friends tell me) and it means friend or brother or "dawg" if you will. But if I were to say that I might get beat up. From my experiences, my white friends are more likely to be shocked by my "non-PC" terms than any of my black or other minority friends. My little brother was shocked when I told him I was dating a black guy, he said "shhh Molly I think you're supposed to say African American!" so if it were not 2:30 AM, this would be more coherent, so I am going to stop now...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tain't never polite to use the word, luthe. It's just that one can address ones friends with the rudest labels and most scurrilous charges -- eg "you dumb <insert whatever nasty here>" -- and get away with it. And comedians can get away with it as a part of the act: being rude and offensive in a manner that one couldn't get away with in real life is a portion of comedy.
However, using that same language offstage is likely to earn that comedian a bit or more of trouble. Similarly, using the epithet you chose as example upon a stranger or with a real intention to insult is nearly as likely to land a black in a heap of trouble as it would a white.
There are probably many words/phrases in your vocabulary that you would censor yourself from using on this forum, but would feel quite comfortable using amongst your closer friends. Same rules apply in real life.
[ February 17, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: There's a kinda-sorta-derogatory term for them in Spanish, but I'll be damned if I can remember it right now...
Unfortunately, there's probably more than one.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Why do we even need labels? To me they are stupid and cumbersome and make absolutely no sense. The darkest black person isn't black. the palest white person isn't really white. Then you get billions of people that are Asian from Indians-Japanese people. Why are labels nessasary? Especially for people who just don't fit into neat little catergories.
Syn,
Tell that to the government! THEY are the ones that insist we designate our "label" on every frickin' form we fill out, and on the census, and on all types of applications.
If the government would quit asking, maybe it would be less of an issue.
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm pretty sure most of the time those questions are optional. Except on the Census, which isn't exactly a frequent occurence.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)