""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."
I am not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am confused.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
From Aspectre's post in the other Obama thread:
quote:...asked..if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama.
I think it's true that people don't see descendents of slaves versus descendents of voluntary immigrants- they visually see a black person. I think that any stereotypes or associations a person has about black people will exist regardless of their heritage.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
As a white woman, I would never have thought of the distinction. But for a black AMerican, I suppose there are all sorts of distinctions I would not consider.
It seems to me that an American of African descent would be an African American. But Dickerson(on Stephen Colbert) actually referred to this group as "African African Americans." I did not get the feeling she was being facetious.
It just breaks my heart to think that, when we finally have a viable African American candidate for president, he could be taken down because he is "not black enough."
The whole thing is just setting off a whirlwind of confusion and sadness for me.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I can understand the need to delineate between the descendants of slaves, and black people who immigrated or who's parents immigrated voluntarily; they can't be lopped together in the context of reparations debates, for example.
But if we're going to use a term to refer to the American descendants of West African slaves, shouldn't that term be 'African American' rather than 'black'? All over the world the word 'black' is merely an indicator of skin colour.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
There was a belief that the nation's first black president would be a person who came from the black American culture -- descended from slaves, and so forth -- rather than the black African culture that Obama is placed in (even though Obama's father left when he was very young, and he was raised here). There do exist cultural and political differences between black Americans descended from slaves and black Africans who immigrated to the US recently. My parents are examples of this.
I will say there are different stereotypes attached to the two groups, even if people can't distinguish between them on sight [edit: though I doubt they existed when Obama was growing up, since there were not many African immigrants during that time.]
To be honest with you, the entire debate reminds me of the "not black enough" comments that were thrown at Tony Williams when he was elected mayor of Washington. As far as most of this country is concerned, he is still a black guy. Growing up in this country, he had the experiences of a black man, regardless of how he was raised.
--j_k, who edited this for clarity and to remove repitition
[ February 10, 2007, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.
This part could probably not be more wrong. In our political and social reality, to be black means to look black.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's cynically ironic that here we've got someone whose skin is 'black' as it's called in the United States, and some blacks here are setting aside Senator Obama based on the circumstances of his birth.
I also find it ironic that in the article, she states that "...the black embrace is Obama's to lose." This, in an article laced with doubt and criticism and 'he's not really black'.
quote:We know a great deal about black people.
Also quite a troubling statement...one which would even be viewed (correctly, in my opinion) if it were a white person doing the saying.
quote: For all our sakes, it seemed (again) best not to point out the obvious: You're not embracing a black man, a descendant of slaves.
On the one hand, President Clinton had to reassure us whites that we knew how to keep the black man in line. On the other hand, us whites are sophisticated enough to notice the difference between one black man and another based on his parents. Because, after all, Jim Crow checked pedigree.
quote:It is also to point out the continuing significance of the slave experience to the white American psyche; it's not we who can't get over it. It's you.
Also amusing because much of this article (in fact, nearly all of it) illustrates that she can't get over it, either. It's a strange bundle of contradictions, which hardly make sense it seems to me even if one does buy into the initial assumptions being made.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thank you, JTK. I mean, I get it, I suppose, it just makes me realize how very white I am, and how clueless of these nuances, which to an African American is not a nuance, but an extreme difference.
Still, semantically, "African American" is an American of African descent. So, maybe there needs to be a new term? But why does there need to be a new term? Why do we need to make all these distinctions?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree, Samprimary. I was trying to get at that. Apparently, to the author, to be black means to both look black, and then to pass a "who are your parents" test.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Rakeesh, it really is ironic. And, to me, very sad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The idea is this: if you haven't been degraded enough, you don't get the membership card and the discount coffee at Denny's.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
*sigh* Why is it that we in this nation (not to mention the world as a whole) are so intent on putting up bigger and better divides between people.
I hear people say that Barak Obama isn't "black enough". The president of Gaulladet University was recently forced out of her position by students who decided that she wasn't "deaf enough" because she hadn't grown up speaking American Sign Language...which, by the way, was probably not her choice but that of her parents.
It goes on and on. Now, some people might think I don't have a right to an opinion on either issue because I'm white and hearing, but I just think it is stupid that we keep on emphasizing our differences. It's like people don't want to get along, like they want to find things to argue about.
You know, the sentiment "united we stand, divided we fall" applies to the species as a whole, not just to cultures and ethnicities within the species. Go back and look at those photos of earth from moon orbit and the moon's surface that the astronauts on the Apollo missions took...we're all in the same boat, folks, and while it seems very large from down here, it really isn't that big. If it sinks we don't, at present, have any lifeboats to speak of. I think it behooves everyone, from every ethnicity and religion and culture group to start looking for those points of commonality.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Essentially, if Obama is elected, he would be the first black President, but he wouldn't be the first black President descended from slaves, which is what the term "African-American" is usually taken to mean.
Seriously, though, I think if we're going to start talking about people in terms of who they're parents are rather than how they lived their lives (or, n Obama's case, what they experienced) then we're in ugly territory.
As far as terminology goes:
There was a suggestion somewhere that naturalized citizens would be "African-Americans" and the rest would be "Black Americans." Solves the South Africa issue, but this wouldn't work for every racial group, simply because this country is more than just blacks and whites. Someone else suggested putting the word American first, for any given racial group.
I really don't think we need another set of terms, particularly if we use experience (that is, everything after birth) to define someone.
--j_k
[ February 10, 2007, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
To be technical, I would call Barak Obama Kenyan-American, not African American but still say that he is black. One describes origin, the other skin-color. Since he looks "black," he is black. It really shouldn't matter, but it does, unfortunately. The fact of the matter is that, fifty years ago, Barak Obama would not have been able to sit at a lunch counter in Alabama becouse of the way he looked. Of course the same might be said of an Australian Aborigine.
Americans of African descent is concrete. Black doesn't exist except as perception.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Is there something about this candidate that is worth discussing, ASIDE from his race? Geesh...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Quite a lot, actually.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:You know, the sentiment "united we stand, divided we fall" applies to the species as a whole, not just to cultures and ethnicities within the species.
I think we have so much trouble with this because the reality is usually "united we can stand against X, divided we will fall to X."
There's not much that can replace the second X that can also replace the first.
--j_k
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.
This part could probably not be more wrong. In our political and social reality, to be black means to look black.
I disagree, at least in comparison to other cultures.
For instance, in Brazil, this is much more true. Due to a long history of integration verses our history of segregation, the majority of Brazilians have some African blood in them. Another result of this is that there is no such thing as "black culture" in Brazil -- it's all just Brazilian culture.
In Brazil, you are black if you look black. It doesn't matter what your parents were -- it just matters what you look like.
For instance, I doubt that if she were Brazilian, Halle Berry would be considered black. Her skin tone is well within the normal range for Brazilians, and her facial features don't look very African (at least to me).
Now, I'm not saying that the way it's done in Brazil is the way it should be done. I'm just saying, at least in comparison to Brazil, being black in the United States has much more to do with what culture you come from than how you look.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
The term African-American is flawed to begin with, it calls upon an observer to assume that just because a person’s skin colour is black, they are a) of African descent and b) American citizens.
Moving beyond that, I have a big problem with Debra Dickenson’s point that because someone’s ancestors weren’t slaves then that person doesn’t have a right to be called black or African-American. No one alive in America today was ever a slave or ever owned slaves, get over it. The only issue is the continued prejudice exhibited against black people, and Obama was just as much a part of that as Uncle Tom’s great-grand children.
Dickenson is the one being prejudiced and racist by implying that Obama isn’t ‘pure’ enough to be part of her special little group.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Christine: "Is there something about this candidate that is worth discussing, ASIDE from his race?"
Excerpt from his announcement:
quote:We'll have to make hard choices. And although government will play a crucial role in bringing about the changes we need, more money and programs alone will not get us where we need to go. Each of us, in our own lives, will have to accept responsibility -- for instilling an ethic of achievement in our children, for adapting to a more competitive economy, for strengthening our communities, and sharing some measure of sacrifice. So let us begin. Let us begin this hard work together. Let us transform this nation.
Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.
And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let's protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let's make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle class again.
Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America. Every single person willing to work should be able to get job training that leads to a job, and earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work. Let's do this...I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.
The big gamble is whether he means it, or is he talking to talk. Ninety-five percent of politicians don't even talk about the issues I care about. Then when they do, like Bush on alternative energy, they look into the television and lie, but with Obama, the question is whether he is going to give a good faith effort into fulfilling his rhetoric. I think he is, and to that extent, I'll help him.
[ February 10, 2007, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Here's a video of Debra Dickerson discussing the issue with Steven Colbert. It's pretty great. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Essentially, if Obama is elected, he would be the first black President, but he wouldn't be the first black President descended from slaves, which is what the term "African-American" is usually taken to mean.
How many people do you really know who live their lives with this level of specification, j_k? If you were asked about someone with fair skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair what race they were, wouldn't you say something probably very close to, "I don't know, he looked like a white guy?"
And if you were asked about someone with dark skin, brown eyes, and very kinky (or curly, I'm not actually sure which adjective applies) hair, wouldn't you say, "I'm not sure, he looked like a black guy, I guess? Or African-American?"
I've never met a person who looks at someone who appears black, but doesn't label them in their speech (or ideas, although of course I can mostly only guess at those) as either black or African-American. There are people I've met, and even some I've known, who use other, very stupid and hateful adjectives, of course. But, "I'm not sure...he looks black, but I don't know if he's from West African stock, or maybe from Kenya," has never come up.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
But, Rakeesh, I definitely distinguish between different white European Americans. Irish, Italian, Spanish...
I notice a difference.
For whatever reason, we humans categorize and subcategorize ourselves.
And there are dark-skinned Indians who look nothing like African Americans.
For me, it comes down to this: here we are, on the eve of change, when a woman and a man of color are vying for the Democratic nomination for president of our country, and we(the general we) are bickering over whether this woman is woman enough, and whether this man has enough color. Sadly,it seems to me, each group, which has fought so hard for its rights, is shooting itself in the foot.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
My high school chemistry teacher was born in Africa, as were his parents and grandparents. His parents moved to the states when he was 12, and he's lived here ever since.
Although he never took issue with it, for me, it really pointed out the inadequacy of the title "African-American" to describe someone's skin color--because Mr. G was white.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Here's a video of Debra Dickerson discussing the issue with Steven Colbert. It's pretty great.
The man is a genius.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is true, perhaps, that a descendant of immigrants would feel differently about his racial heritage than a descendant of slaves; so, to whatever extent Obama forms his own identity from his skin colour, he is perhaps not very black. I would hope, though, that a man who may become President of the United States would instead form his identity from his experience and intellect; and since his experience with others depends on their perception of him, why, he's as black as any man.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:How many people do you really know who live their lives with this level of specification, j_k? If you were asked about someone with fair skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair what race they were, wouldn't you say something probably very close to, "I don't know, he looked like a white guy?"
Hmm, this is a point I wanted to make, but I'm not sure how to put it.
When the term African-American first showed up, it meant "American of slave ancestry," because naturalized blacks were very rare. So, even today, if someone is described as "African-American," the mental image is a black person who is a citizen of this country -- but there's also assumption is that he or she is descended from slaves, simply because most black Americans are. The two concepts became synonymous, even though they shouldn't be.
So when Dickerson says that "he's not African-American," I don't think she means his skin color or his genotype as much as she means his ancestry. It's odd, because he certainly is "African-American" in the most logical sense, and he's certainly had that experience.
More importantly, none of this has any bearing on how he is perceived, or how he would've been perceived thirty years ago.
I get the impression she wants to be able to draw a straight line from "slave" to "President." I think she's missed what all the excitement is about. There was a time when Obama would have never had a chance. People are excited by how much this country as a whole has changed.
*
Incidentally, applications often list "Black" and "African American" as two separate options under ethnicity. The last Census had the option "Black/African American/Negro" (go figure).
*
quote:Sadly,it seems to me, each group, which has fought so hard for its rights, is shooting itself in the foot.
That's what I'm afraid of.
--j_k
[ February 11, 2007, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do we have proof that his father's family weren't at some point slaves? Not American slaves, obviously, but African slavery was and IS very much a reality.
Regardless I think it's silly. His heritage means nothing in this debate. What about a black family that came to America from Africa AFTER slavery ended? They weren't slaves, but they certainly would know what the "african american experience" is all about.
It's issues like this I think, that hinder more than aid whatever cause African American PACs are fighting for. We keep hearing how race is such a problem in America, and I'd say the grand majority of the fault for that problem is fixed squarely on the backs of white people, and now there's a potential civil war, if you will, among the black community on who is and isn't African American? It's like arguing who is and isn't black enough, it's stupid. This is the kind of argument that takes us backwards, not forwards.
I've read "An American Story" by Dickerson, I read it a couple years ago for an history class. It was a great story, and I really respect her. I don't like what she has to say on this though.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
The man is a genius.
Seconded.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should add, that at the end of her interview with Colbert, Dickerson says this isn't a diss on Obama but rather on white self congratulations, and that we feel all good and such about wanting to vote for a black man, but he's not really black.
She also said if he was sub-Saharan, he'd never be this popular.
Funny, do you think whenever opinion polls ask if you would vote for Obama, they give all the respondents a run down of his genetic karyotype? No one gives a flying flip about his lineage, they care about what he has to say! If a black man from Antarctica was doing and saying the things he's saying, he'd be just as popular, or from anywhere else on Earth. I don't get what Dickerson, or anyone, gets out of making a hullaballoo over useless distinctions like this.
If she's attacking white people, which from her own words it certainly sounds like, she's going about it rather poorly I think.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I should add, that at the end of her interview with Colbert, Dickerson says this isn't a diss on Obama but rather on white self congratulations, and that we feel all good and such about wanting to vote for a black man, but he's not really black.
The thing is, I'd guess that a majority* of Americans don't know Senator Obama's heritage. Therefore to most Americans, they look at him and see a black man, or an African American man...and I believe we can all agree that, to most Americans, being black means an ancestral tie to African slavery in America, and a much stronger tie to recent history of minority oppression in the United States.
I don't know where she's getting this idea that white Americans care where Senator Obama's father was from. Hidden within what she is saying is the idea that a child of West African slaves couldn't have grown up to be like Senator Obama...and that is why 'White America' is so tolerant of him, and wouldn't be if he were different.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
Following Dickerson's argument about "black" only referring to the descendants of African slaves, wouldn't that also mean that "white" should only refer to descendants of slave owners?
Personally, I dislike the term African-American... it seems silly to me, to tie certain citizens to the culture their predecessors belonged to two hundred years ago, while other immigrant families [german, french, spanish, irish immigrants] are just seen as "American".
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Question: Does anywhere else in the world refer to their black citizens with titles like "African-(nationality)". Like African-French, African-Australian, African-Russian...?
I definitely agree that the term African-American is inappropriate these days.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't get what Dickerson, or anyone, gets out of making a hullaballoo over useless distinctions like this
It makes it harder to claim to be a victimized minority when a member of that minority is elected president. By redefining that minority to explicitly exclude him, you can continue to claim to be victims.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
All this proves to me is that liberals are as racist, provincial, and biased as any of the conservatives they like to Harass. Then they get on their high horse and call it defending multiculturalism or personal rights.
"Does anywhere else in the world refer to their black citizens with titles like "African-(nationality)". Like African-French, African-Australian, African-Russian...?"
Actually, there are some nations (a few who criticize the U.S. for its so-called racism) that won't even grant a hyphen citizenship. They just try to exclude particular groups from any social involvment. Think of Muslim-French or Dutch for instance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All this proves to me is that liberals are as racist, provincial, and biased as any of the conservatives they like to Harass. Then they get on their high horse and call it defending multiculturalism or personal rights.
Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say. Which I'm sure you would not object to liberals doing about conservatives, for someone such as Fred Phelps.
----------------
quote:Following Dickerson's argument about "black" only referring to the descendants of African slaves, wouldn't that also mean that "white" should only refer to descendants of slave owners?
Given her statements about why exactly 'white America' is so fond of Senator Obama, I'm not sure if she doesn't already equate white with 'descendant of slave owner'. Her justifications for that would be interesting to hear, if I'm right, given that most white people aren't the descendants of slave owners.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: (I thought I had posted this thread. I am not sure what happened.)
""Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."
I am not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am confused.
So if Obama isn't black, then I guess I'm not white. I mean, I'm not descended from slave-owning Americans. Hell, my family wasn't even in this country until less than a hundred years ago.
Racists like Debra Dickerson want to have it both ways. She'd insist that I'm white, but won't have Obama as black.
That said, he really isn't any more black than he is white, except to racists.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Except I don't find Fred Phelps as objectionable as you seem to expect. I think he is rather brash, but I can't say I think he is wrong
"Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say"
Besides, this isn't a true statement. There are some on this very post that have stated her views are NOT unusual. On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"No one gives a flying flip about his lineage, they care about what he has to say!"
I wish I could believe this! If people really cared about what a candidate was saying, they would be able to know what they are saying, and I would bet a poll of 1000 Americans would show they were clueless.
What I find interesting is that the children in my class(fifth grade) really have no clue what the hubbub is about. It is a mostly-white community, but they were pretty unimpressed with the fact that two African American men coached the Super Bowl teams, etc. To them it is natural to watch the sports channels and see black and Latino players, Asian players, commentators of different heritage, all sharing the stage/field. They just don't see what I see, and I do not think it is because of lack of exposure to the issues. For them, it is the way it is.
I think.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice."
You are also making an assumption that all minority members, deaf, black, or whatever, are liberals. That is what it seems to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I wish I could believe this! If people really cared about what a candidate was saying, they would be able to know what they are saying, and I would bet a poll of 1000 Americans would show they were clueless."
Not only that, but why all the media hubbub or his own comments about his past in the first place? How many here, for instance (although I admit that Hatrack is a more conscious group) actually know what he stands for? For now he is simply, "that black candidate who represents a clean slate that I can pretend is filled with my own political agenda."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, you are wrong Elizabeth. You are making an assumption about my assumption. I am not seeing your logical leap to that assumption anyway, other than as an emotional reaction. Although I "assume" you see the "something I see all the time" as reference to those groups rather than liberals as a whole.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Stephen Colbert made this laughable issue the subject the other day and even he could not keep the left from looking wacky. I suspect it is a distinction started to keep Hillary from losing a wide swath of black democrat base (lets deny his 'blackness'... chuckle)
There are no former slaves living, so any person of color lives in the same reality of whatever prejudice remains, whether it is B. Hussein Obamma or that French guy on Gilmore Girls. To require 'True Blacks' to have a slave pedigree is reminiscent of the old racist laws requiring proof that your grandfather voted in order to qualify to vote, it is pure politically motivated racism.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
His website has a whole "Issues" section that explains in detail where he stands. Could it perhaps be that you haven't bothered to look?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Occassional,
quote:Except I don't find Fred Phelps as objectionable as you seem to expect. I think he is rather brash, but I can't say I think he is wrong
Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash'?
quote:Besides, this isn't a true statement. There are some on this very post that have stated her views are NOT unusual. On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time. You are actually the "one liberal" voice.
First of all, I'm not a liberal.
Second, I suppose 'deaf' equals 'liberal' then, from your words I'm quoting? Or is that just 'handicapped' equals 'liberal'? Or college students equal liberal, perhaps? One marvels at your methods for pigeonholing people into that label.
You can see something all the time in a nation with so many millions and so much mass media and easy communication, and still have it be quite isolated and not at all representative of the whole. But acknowledging that simple and obvious truth makes it more difficult to label and pigeonhole.
Put another way, if Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash', then that's evidence enough that what you see and what actually is reality are two mutually exclusive things.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Tarrsk, if you are refering to me I was talking about what the majority of people are thinking, and not what I am thinking. As to what his issues are? I admit to not knowing much, but he has said enough things about what he stands for to know I am not voting for him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Occassional,
quote:Well, you are wrong Elizabeth. You are making an assumption about my assumption. I am not seeing your logical leap to that assumption anyway, other than as an emotional reaction. Although I "assume" you see the "something I see all the time" as reference to those groups rather than liberals as a whole.
Oh, she is?
quote:On top of that, there was the example of the deaf University President who wasn't "deaf enough" for the deaf University. These are not "isolated incedents by single liberals," but something I see all the time.
Dude, you specifically linked deaf people with liberals. It's not an 'emotional reaction' to recognize what you plainly said.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Second, I suppose 'deaf' equals 'liberal' then, from your words I'm quoting?"
ummm . . . see my explanation above.
"First of all, I'm not a liberal."
"Yes, because as usual, the words of one liberal should be used to criticize all liberals-especially the ones who explicity disagree with Dickerson-do and say."
Ok, you got me there making assumptions. But, no more than what you and Elizabeth have about my own choice of words.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, I linked THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF DEAF PEOPLE with Liberals. As someone who is married to a person very familiar with the deaf culture, that University is predomanantly liberal. Then again, I suppose saying that University of Berkley is a liberal University is also a grevious assumption?
"Put another way, if Fred Phelps is merely 'rather brash', then that's evidence enough that what you see and what actually is reality are two mutually exclusive things."
Or, to put another way, what you determine as more than "rather brash" is your own personal opinion. Unless there is a legal term for "brash" and "rather brash" and "more than brash."
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: How many here, for instance (although I admit that Hatrack is a more conscious group) actually know what he stands for?
For those who are interested, I also found his book, The Audacity of Hope to be interesting. Even if I disagreed with all of his issues, I still would have found the insights in to what life is like as a senator to be worth the read.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Actually, I linked THAT PARTICULAR GROUP OF DEAF PEOPLE with Liberals. As someone who is married to a person very familiar with the deaf culture, that University is predomanantly liberal. Then again, I suppose saying that University of Berkley is a liberal University is also a grevious assumption?
Now you linked 'that particular group' with liberals. Had you used words such as 'only' or 'these specific liberals', the assumptions would not have been made. If you want to avoid such assumptions choose your words more carefully in the future. And your underlying point still would not stand as anything other than to reinforce your prexisting stereotypes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Whatever Rakeesh. Assumptions, Assumptions everywhere. Where it stops nobody knows. As long as you can belittle the arguer rather than the argument then you win the day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given my statements in this thread about the original topic, I find your remarks ironic.
Furthermore I find them ironic from someone who believes Fred Phelps is 'brash'.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Occasional, this is sounding silly. So let's just stop making assumptions about each other's assumptions about our assumptions and get back to the issue, if that is OK.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If my post is to be paid attention to beyond trying to score points against my ideology, then a question must be answered. How responsible are Liberals and Convervatives to what others of that "group" say and think?
It is one thing to talk like Rakeesh about a lone voice not representing others of similar political or social backgrounds. However, what Fred Phelps and Dickerson say are not held only by them. Lets get at least a little real: most people are not sophisticated enough to individualize members of a group. In fact, the media and politicians thrive on the easy stereotype either to make a story easier to understand or get more votes.
Of course, what this has to do with Dickerson is if she is right or wrong. If she is right, what does that mean for black and white relations (or black and black for that matter). If she is wrong, what (if anything and by whom) should be done?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes. Quite a lot, actually.
My question was semi-rhetorical. I haven't gotten really interested in figuring out what the individual candidates stand for yet because a.) there are a lot of them and b.) it's a year to the primaries and I can't bring myself to care yet. Nevertheless, I do know a few things about Obama -- enough to form a positive first impression.
My comment, "Is there anything to know about Obama ASIDE from race?" was a more a statement of frustration. When asked the question, "Would you vote for a black candidate for president?" most would answer "Yes, a qualified black candidate." Yet we won't get past race to get to the heart of whether or not he's qualified. The media is buzzing about his color and whether or not his black color makes him BLACK?!?!? Good God, what is the world coming to?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
Most African Americans with ancestors who were slaves have white blood in their lines as well, we might as well go back to the laws of segregation where if you were 1/6th black you were considered a full black under the law.
I went to a Mcdonalds and an African immigrant took my order, he clearly was not from America as his accent gave him away. If he sets up shop here and raises a family and gains citizenship should I say, "But you are not an African American, because that title is reserved for the children of slaves."
There are plenty of African immigrants who were never slaves that lived in the US, should we slight their descendants by giving them their own category?
I guess what I object to is that Obama has been treated like he was black growing up because he looks black. He married an African American woman (whose blackness is beyond dispute) are his children African American courtesy of their mother but he is not?
It just sounds so stupid in my head, and very elitist.
I suppose unless your ancestor was one of the immigrants that came sometime in the 1500's-1900 at the latest then you are not REALLY an American.
These rules and specifics in this instance just seem so trivial and ridiculous to me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not understanding the thought process being described with whites supposedly patting themselves on the back for considering voting for a black candidate. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't vote and then go back and think, "Wow. I voted for a blonde. I'm clearly such a tolerant person because I was able to look past this person's blonde-ness." I mean, what people actually think that way?
-pH
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
How did this suddenly become a thread about left/liberal bashing? Do you not realize that Stephen Colbert [and his audience] is pretty much as left/liberal as you can get???
Clearly, most liberals think this woman's statements were ridiculous... and that's probably why she was brought to the show... because she was being stupid.
I'm brown [and liberal], and from my personal experience, white conservatives and certain black groups [I really dont know how to classify them] are the most racist groups generally speaking.
To be clear, I'm not saying that all conservatives are racist or that no liberals are racist. What I'm saying is that if you took a random sample of 100 liberals and 100 conservatives, you'll find more racists in the conservative group... even though they might not realize it. It's often pretty difficult to identify racism until it's directed at you, and unfortunately [or fortunately] white people in this country don't have to deal with it except in certain black neighborhoods [and maybe in IT companies :)]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, I don't really know Stephen Colbert's true political leanings. Taking anything he says on The Colbert Report is probably a big mistake as a guideline to specific political beliefs, or even broad ones, except for a mistrust of mass media and dislike of the increasing trust in pundits in general.
Time will tell, should his show air while there is a socially and fiscally liberal Administration and Congress in power, what his show would become.
--------
quote:What I'm saying is that if you took a random sample of 100 liberals and 100 conservatives, you'll find more racists in the conservative group...
When I think of friends of mine who are liberal, and friends of mine who are conservative...I think back, and I come to the conclusion that there wasn't really much racism (that I could notice), but what there was was pretty evenly spread. I think if you took a sample of 100 liberals and 100 conservatives, and based your sample only on those two adjectives, and then actually examined the lives of those 200 people, you'd find much more in common than in contrast, outside of specific political issues.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm saying is that if you took a random sample of 100 liberals and 100 conservatives, you'll find more racists in the conservative group... even though they might not realize it.
I don't know if that's true. I imagine it's close to evenly spread across the spectrum, but when it's brought to their attention, more conservatives will find the issue tiresome and won't be bothered to think about it.
But hey, I make distinctions. I think that black people and white people are culturally two different kettle of fish, standing with two different views to our American institutions, availing the two groups to two different moral and legal blind spots.
I actually think that both groups could learn a lot from each other if they stop trying to pretend they are the same and use the other to sound out their deficiencies. I'm not race blind. I'm baffled that ninety percent of one race can vote one way, and have the President get elected from another, yet white people still say with a straight face that race doesn't matter.
_____________
As to Dickerson's comment, my mom is South Carolina slave black and my Dad is Ghana black, and yes, I think that colors how they view making their way in white America, and sure, I wish Obama was as physically dark as Paul Robeson, but this business is a continuum and if he is culturally black enough to be considered black and culturally white enough so that white people don't find him objectionable, then so be it.
[ February 11, 2007, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
[QUOTE] Does anywhere else in the world refer to their black citizens with titles like "African-(nationality)". Like African-French, African-Australian, African-Russian/QUOTE] Yes. The U.K. uses Afro-British or, more commonly, Afro-Caribean British.
All people living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the descedents of immigrants with one exception: Native Americans, who were not even granted citizensip until the 1920s.
I aprove of the term African American much more than I do "White" or "Black," which is all about color.
It would be naive to assume that people do not notice skin color in this country, they do. I do, and I wasn't even alive at a time when there was segregation in this country.
America should embrace the fact that its citizens come from all over the world. I say, the more hyphenated Americans the better. Our culture is made richer by this. I have a friend who is Greek-Dutch-American, another who is German-Mexican-Jewish Converso-American, another who is Roma-Hispanic-American, yet another who is Indian-Portugese-African-American. As for myself, I am a descedent of Basque settlers in Ireland, Irishmen of both faiths, Scotsmen, Ulster Scots and Alsation draft dodgers. Some members of my family came to this country before the Mayflower, others came in the late 19th century. I am just as American as Sen. Obama and no more so.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My brother in law's own siblings don't consider him "black enough." He loves going to museums and plays and artsy films, therefore he is pretending to be white. I actually thought that was one of the most racists statements I could imagine, equating a disinterest in intellectual pursuits as a black trait. My brother in law seemed to take it as a normal view he had heard often. So, I am not that suprised that some people are not wanting to let Obama be "black."
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I feel, as an outsider looking in, that there is a lot to Tom's comment that this is about not wanting to let go of a victimised, minority position. And I find that unspeakably sad.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: more conservatives will find the issue tiresome and won't be bothered to think about it
I think there's good reason for this. I frequently hear bemoanings of racism and the harshness of the black experience, but I'm not sure what I'm expected to do about it. I feel like I'm not racist, I don't contribute to racism, and the handful of times I've heard racist comments I've called the person on it. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I could do.
Further, I think putting things in terms of racial problems leads to this attitude and doesn't create positive change. I think that most racial problems are essentially socio-cultural problems and that an effective way to try to create change is to focus on fighting povery and increasing access to education for all Americans, rather than one subset of them. This also appears to be Obama's approach.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
It's worth noting that there isn't a single voice that speaks for the people you are (I think) referring to. We've had discussions here about how dismissive it is to say "Republicans think" or "conservatives say," especially since many of the Republicans and/or conservatives here don' think or say things in a monolithic way. Same goes for individual African-Americans, I expect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'm baffled that ninety percent of one race can vote one way, and have the President get elected from another, yet white people still say with a straight face that race doesn't matter.
Like I've said before, to you, and on Hatrack, when a candidate comes along that represents my views, he/she will get my vote. As no black candidates have come along that fit that mold, they haven't gotten my vote. Is that my fault, or is it the fault of black politicians that don't share my views? Or is it neither of our faults?
I think there is a difference, not necessarily between black and white as a race, but from white cultures and black cultures. Notice how I pluralize, becuase there is no one white culture. I have no idea what black cultures there may or may not be, I live in white suburbia. But anyone who assumes white culture is one giant bloc is ignorantly stereotyping.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I feel, as an outsider looking in, that there is a lot to Tom's comment that this is about not wanting to let go of a victimised, minority position. And I find that unspeakably sad.
I'm curious as to how Obama is going to handle this. I mean, whites are going to say, "Diversity programs? Affirmative Action? We have a black president. That's proof that these programs are outdated," while blithely highering and admitting douche bag cousins, nephews, family friends, church friends, and people who 'look the part' expecting non-whites are too stupid to notice. There is a decent article in today's Sun Times about the Gores and Frists bumbling their way to dynasties on the strength of money and fancy connections.
All that said, it's really an interesting time to be black. I look at my parents generation, and they were scared of white people, and when they were growing up, open disdain could get you shot or arrested and it certainly precluded you from working. White people worry about driving around in black ghettos, at least you all avoid ghettos. Pissed off whites can get you at work, on the street, they can even get warrants and do a home invasion with the entire Justice system supporting them.
For my mother, there were certain safe jobs for blacks, and if they kept their mouths shut and went into those fields, they could get on without having to worry about the queerly bureaucratic brand of mercurial white backlash. Stoop a little, don't make eye contact and respect the suit and you'll do fine in this wide land. The kicker, of course, is that if you wanted to climb, you had to pledge fealty to the same system of mores that kept you in chains. You had to ignore that the "progress" in American policy was contingent and piecemeal. Ignore that the same people who have grudgingly accepted women, then blacks as people are going to make Latinos dance the same dance under a different name because cheap, humble labor is a beautiful thing.
I'm curious to see how Obama is going to unify America, when unify means that white people give up some stability, liberty, status, mores and money.
[ February 11, 2007, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Middle class white Americans don't necessarily have much money or status to worry about giving up.
You're talking about richy rich white people, who are as different from me as black Americans in the ghetto are.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Middle class white Americans don't necessarily have much money or status to worry about giving up.
Sure they do. Why do you think there are so many suburbs?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe you had better further explain your theory on what "giving up" means then.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:while blithely highering and admitting douche bag cousins, nephews, family friends, church friends, and people who 'look the part' expecting non-whites are too stupid to notice.
This is so completely at odds with my experiences in corporate America that it feels untrue. I work at a company that does legal placement and in that field being a minority is a major asset to gaining employment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So let's just stop making assumptions about each other's assumptions about our assumptions and get back to the issue, if that is OK.
You're assuming that we're assuming that it's okay to stop making assumptions about each other's assumptions about our assumptions on the issue. I don't think it's appropriate to assume that we can assume that's it's okay to stop making assumptions about each other's assumptions about our assumptions on the issue. I assume.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
It seems reasonable for U.S. slave-descended blacks to think that Obama, having grown up in a different culture from theirs, would be no more sympathetic to their concerns than the average liberal white president. Of course, they should balance this possibility with the progress that having any person of color be president would represent.
I agree that most whites probably do not know that Obama is descended from a Kenyan immigrant rather than U.S. slaves (I didn't until this controversy started). But you can't help but think that Obama would have had a tougher time with whites if he had been darker-skinned, regardless of his ancestry.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Sure they do. Why do you think there are so many suburbs?
A lot more high school graduates?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Why the crap is this an issue? It's not like Obama is claiming to be more or less "black" than anyone else. He's not running on a platform of "Hey look! I'm black!" So why would someone even think it was relevant to question his level of "blackness"?
Of course, it would be hilarious if, for the first time in history, someone was denied the presidency because he wasn't black enough ...
But in the real world, I'd love it if we could just try and elect the best leader for our country, regardless of how "black" or "white" he is or is not.
Yes, it would be fun to have a black president. It could break down barriers, and open a lot of new doors. So could a female president. So could a Mormon president. But no matter whom we elect, the oppressed-minority novelty is going to wear off in about 2 months, and then we'll be stuck with the same person for another 46. Let's hope we base our voting decision on our expectations for the last 46 months, and not for the first 2 Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about a president in his early 20's (with a Constitutional amendment of course), from the mean upper-middle white class suburbs of Detroit?
It'll break down that age barrier that's plagued us for so long.
Vote Lyrhawn for a better America. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: My brother in law's own siblings don't consider him "black enough." He loves going to museums and plays and artsy films, therefore he is pretending to be white. I actually thought that was one of the most racists statements I could imagine, equating a disinterest in intellectual pursuits as a black trait. My brother in law seemed to take it as a normal view he had heard often. So, I am not that suprised that some people are not wanting to let Obama be "black."
I got something like this from a security guard when I was in high school. People can be so... MORONIC!
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I'm an east african refugee, and even I've had my blackness (for lack of a better term) repeatedly questioned by both blacks and whites. The problem is that the term "black" in America is supposed convey a certain manner of speaking and attitude, and if Barack Obama adhered to this and talked like Al Sharpton, no one would be questioning his blackness despite his non-connection to African American heritage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So they want people to behave a like a stereotype to prove their blackness? Do whites have to prove their whiteness like this? I just don't get it!
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Barack Obama actually mentioned that in his keynote speech to the DNC -- the one where the snowball began to grow.
" Children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."
--j_k
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
It's worth noting that there isn't a single voice that speaks for the people you are (I think) referring to. We've had discussions here about how dismissive it is to say "Republicans think" or "conservatives say," especially since many of the Republicans and/or conservatives here don' think or say things in a monolithic way. Same goes for individual African-Americans, I expect.
Oh agreed completely. But this is not the first time I have been exposed to the, "Obama is not really black" sentiment. Alan Keyes has been saying it a long time, and I was surprised to read a NYT's article where it spoke of several political rallies with Obama as the speaker and how the Whites in the audience adored him but Blacks seemed reserved in acknoledging him at all.
Now I could be wrong and this is all anecdotal evidence but I just have not been exposed to a "pro Obama" sentiment from African American sources. But your point is taken, I would not presume to know the entire spectrum concerning this matter, in fact I hope I am wrong in this instance.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
yes
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Irami, that was a powerful post. Thanks.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem with Aboriginal Reconciliation in Australia is always that giving up something - even something symbolic - seems to claw back so many good intentions. Its impossible to heal something like that without everyone being willing to give.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I think the real problem here is that he doesn't really look very "black". He looks more...Mediterranean.
I'm kidding about that being the real problem, by the way. Except for the haircut, it isn't his appearence that's the problem.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
...
These rules and specifics in this instance just seem so trivial and ridiculous to me.
My family, and hundreds of other families date back to the first colonies in this country. I'm a twelfth generation American from a Massachusetts family that came from Northern England. I ask no special privileges or distinctions from other Americans, some of whom are 2nd and 3rd generations with strong ties to the old countries.
Yet, I hear from my half Japanese friend that she has trouble distinguishing herself between the generations of Japanese in America, that actually have NAMES attached to them as whole groups, because part of her family goes back in America as far as mine does. The labels seem to be pretty cumbersome, especially in her case, since they have nothing to do with how or where she was raised.
She has told me that some Japanese Americans ask for specific information about her generation, when they came here and why. On the other hand, white, black, and hispanic Americans often simply ask where she is "from," which is taken to mean where her family (the Asian part) is from.
I've been at a UC school for four years, where the student population is largely Asian American. I've been told or asked what Asian country a person's family comes from countless times. I don't off hand recall a single instance of someone asking me about my family in such a way. I think people assume a lot based simply on my waspy appearance, but they're right!
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
IIRC, the generation specific labels aren't really 'names' per se; issei, nisei, etc. just mean 'first generation,' 'second generation,' and so on.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The President can't unify America anyway, if that means "make people stop venomous invective." And a good thing; I don't want our government to have that much power.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've never understoon why it;s considered rude or disrepectful to ask about someone's heritage. Personally when I ask someone of Asian descent where they are from, initially I mean where in America, if they are from the Detroit area or not.
If I want to know what nationality they are I'll ask something more specific maybe like "Where's your family from originally?" Sometimes when I'm with a group of friends or at work, almost all white people, we'll get to talking about where our ancestors came from and we'll ask each other where we came from 'originally' and there's nothing offensive about it at all.
Two things on this. 1. When I ask where someone is from like that, it's because I'm curious about what sort of family heritage and history they might still have from their ancestors. I love that sort of thing, it's fascinating to hear, and I like learning about other cultures first hand. 2. Quite frankly, whenever I see anyone in America who isn't white, I just assume they are American, especially black and Asian people. I assume they speak English, I assume they grew up here. America is so multicultural and multiracial, it just makes sense to me to do so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
...
These rules and specifics in this instance just seem so trivial and ridiculous to me.
My family, and hundreds of other families date back to the first colonies in this country. I'm a twelfth generation American from a Massachusetts family that came from Northern England. I ask no special privileges or distinctions from other Americans, some of whom are 2nd and 3rd generations with strong ties to the old countries.
Yet, I hear from my half Japanese friend that she has trouble distinguishing herself between the generations of Japanese in America, that actually have NAMES attached to them as whole groups, because part of her family goes back in America as far as mine does. The labels seem to be pretty cumbersome, especially in her case, since they have nothing to do with how or where she was raised.
She has told me that some Japanese Americans ask for specific information about her generation, when they came here and why. On the other hand, white, black, and hispanic Americans often simply ask where she is "from," which is taken to mean where her family (the Asian part) is from.
I've been at a UC school for four years, where the student population is largely Asian American. I've been told or asked what Asian country a person's family comes from countless times. I don't off hand recall a single instance of someone asking me about my family in such a way. I think people assume a lot based simply on my waspy appearance, but they're right!
See but I just have not had that experience. When I am in a social setting even in Utah people often ask "Where are you from." Even if I was from Utah they would want to know the town/city. If I was from out of state they would want to see if perhaps we had a mutual acquaintance.
In my case I have to say "Well I was born in Provo Utah, but I left when I was 3 days old, I mostly grew up on Hong Kong, so I guess you could say I am from there."
BANG! The moment they hear Hong Kong they want to know everything about why my family was there, was my dad in the military? Do I speak Chinese/Japanese? etc.
On several occasions I have had people tell me that I am not as "American" as they are because I did not grow up here, disregarding the fact I came to the US every summer growing up and I went to an American run school. They thought it was hilarious that my American geography was not as good as theirs, whereas I thought it was retarded that when I said I was from Hong Kong they would ask if I spoke Japanese.
In China if a little kid said, "Hey its a big nose American/foreigner" I would respond, "How long have you lived in China?" Obviously as children anywhere from 3-13 years. I'd say, "I've lived in China for 11 years, so that makes me more Chinese then you. They'd giggle and insist that my logic was flawed and that I was not Chinese.
Alot of folks who grew up like I did have this situation and I've even heard people like me described as, "Third Culture Kids." Go ahead and google it, its the first result.
I consider myself as American as anybody else in this country, in fact, I do not think one can truly appreciate this country until they spend sometime outside of it and know what they lose by so doing.
People assume things all the time, THAT does not bother me, its the fact that people feel threatened when somebody wants to associate with them, and they feel that some sort of cultural integrity is threatened by this.
"They're a house negro because he/she spends their time reading books"
"He's not descended from slaves, so he is not really black."
"He immigrated here, so he is not a real American."
"Your white, and you were born here but you grew up overseas so your loyalty to America is inferior to mine."
It's all disgusting to me.
Orincoro: My ancestors on my fathers side first settled in Massachusetts too I'm directly descended from a guy who kept alot of journals named William Bradford, you might know of him Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I am descended from a man who pushed his girlfriend down the stairs, thought she was dead, and took off from England to America.
I remember telling that story when I was going to a prep school in New York, and we did one of those ancestry reports. Everyone was a Mayflower descendant.
I think it is human of us to categorize, for whatever reason we do it. I just hope that if a black man is elected president of this country, that this argument becomes a dead issue, and we all rejoice in how far we've come, while acknowledging how much further we have to go.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's ironic to me that African Americans fought so hard to be considered just as American as the rest of us, and now that they are, they immediately start saying who is part of "their little club."
This may be a difference in perception. I thought we fought hard to change America into something better. The other America, we were cool to let burn.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: The other America, we were cool to let burn.
No you were not, Black units, despite worse prejudice then you have ever faced did their duty in WW II, driving armor into the Nazi heart. They fought in Korea and in Viet Nam, again in times when things where not so fair. You disgrace them by speaking of letting things burn.
quote: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.
we learned to disagree without being disagreeable
Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that call”
B Hussein Obama
Barrack needs to work on making his platitudes rhyme and then he will be embraced as black by the Jesse Jackson crowd.
Edited to clear up any comprehension issues...
[ February 15, 2007, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Counter Bean ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)