A request [LWN.net]

A request

Posted Oct 8, 2015 5:34 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334)
In reply to: A request by Wol
Parent article: Sharp: Closing a door

> But in American, it was offensive enough to get my posts instantly censored.

Well, there is tradition and there is stupidity. I was working for some time with Eugene Rivers of the Azusa Christian Community in Boston, Ma. (Google him, he is certainly not shy to speak up his mind), who is very careful to talk about himself as a black man. I had a very nice chat with him about it, and he was adamant that "black" is the right word, because all issues of racism are about the color of his skin, nobody cares where is ancestors came from (besides, my another friend, who was Kenya had a long and passionate fight with somebody from the Black Boston neighborhood arguing who of them is the true African-American ;)).

Encouraged by Mr. Rivers I always use the word "black" and if anybody has a problem (and that happens very rarely; I guess most people who disagree with the word ascribe it to my English as a second language) then I explain myself. If you were censored just because of the B* word, then the community is probably not worthy to be participate in it.

to post comments

A request

Posted Oct 8, 2015 19:33 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (5 responses)

I'm going to attempt a quick explanation... The United States has tried multiple times to adopt more nuanced and sensitive terms than 'black'. All of them ended up getting used in overt racist discrimination: 'negro water fountain', 'colored playground', etc, presumably because they were supposed to sound more acceptable.

Now all the sensitive words are absolutely polluted with loaded meaning. Calling someone colored is discriminatory and revolting. The only term we're left with is black, saved perhaps because it was too coarse to be posted in hotel lobbies and restaurants.

(just found this, explains it even better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-wh... )

It's an absolute embarrassment that all this happened so recently in my country. I can't understand it.

And, you're right, calling someone African-American is like calling someone Oriental. You sure you know their blood lines that well?

A request

Posted Oct 8, 2015 19:41 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link] (3 responses)

Yes, African-American has so many problems ... I was asked by somebody in the States what is the capital of Africa (I know most Americans end with their geography studies in the sixth grade or so). So, yes, “Oriental” is a good parallel.

A request

Posted Oct 8, 2015 19:53 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

"African-American" also has the problem that they want it to exclude whole categories of people who are American and came from Africa. I've heard of some Authors who decided to make a stink about being excluded from "African-American Safe Spaces" at a conference because their ancestors further back came from Europe

A request

Posted Oct 9, 2015 16:32 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I've said this before ... I'm "British of WHITE Caribbean descent" - a second-generation Caribbean Brit. But the word "Caribbean" implies *black*. Although, not surprisingly, I'm not culturally Caribbean at all.

The other little problem with all this is that blackness is actually a genetic adaptation to living on or near the equator. I've not met that many, but I've certainly met some Indians (that's India, not America) who, at first glance, you would take as being black. Okay, they have other racial characteristics that show them up as sub-continentals, but that's beside the point.

(Plus, there was an article on the radio recently, I just caught the gist of it, but although it's well accepted that pretty much all non-Africans are descended from a small group of humans that crossed the African-Asian landbridge, apparently there was a relatively large REVERSE migration of Eurasians into Africa about 3000 years ago (they were farmers, as opposed to the indigenous African hunter-gathers) and most African tribal genetics have been well contaminated with Eurasian genes.)

Cheers,
Wol

A request

Posted Oct 11, 2015 16:27 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

More precisely, non-black skin is a genetic adaptation to *not* living in the tropics. (Our ancestors all had black skin once, after all.)

It's probably the need for vitamin D in less sunny climes that's the ultimate cause of melanin reduction.

A request

Posted Oct 15, 2015 8:26 UTC (Thu) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link]

The only term we're left with is black, saved perhaps because it was too coarse to be posted in hotel lobbies and restaurants.

"too coarse"? I mean, the appropriateness is not a property of "black". If there was a sign "No blondes" in a lobby, it would be offensive. Not because "blonde" is offensive but because it is offensive to discriminate according to epidermis coloration as if it carried any inherent meaning.

If you are looking for a more politically correct way of saying "No blondes", you are making a mockery of sensitivities.

If you put up a sign "Black patrons are welcome like all our other customers" in a country where such a sign is sadly not redundant, will you get the political correctness police breathing up your neck? Maybe.