Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It somehow feels like being "black" is more inherited than being white.
> >   I don't get it.

> The whites set the rules. If you were a little black, you could be a slave. 
> Simple, really.

  I certainly do understand that some hundreds of years ago when oppressive
slavery and extreme ideological racism was prevalent in the US, that is,
when non-whites were considered inferior races, people who had non-white
ancestors were considered "less pure" than people who had only white
ansestors. In other words, in this ideology if one of your grand-grandparents
was non-white, you were partially "non-pure", and thus almost as bad as a
black person. Thus certainly if one of your parents was black, you were
considered as "inferior" as your parent, and thus black. Your "white half"
had not much significance in this: You were still "impure".

  But this is more the reason why I'm completely baffled about the modern
custom of calling people "black" if one of their parents, or even grandparents
is black. This is a reminder of the times of ideological racism and slavery,
and it's precisely what we want to eradicate. Considering "blackness" as
"more inherited" than "whiteness" is racism in its purest form, both
historically and ideologically.

  IMO racism will never be eradicated as long as a mulatto is considered
"black" and things like this are allowed to exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Black_Journalists

  (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
Journalists".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   But this is more the reason why I'm completely baffled about the modern
> custom of calling people "black" if one of their parents, or even grandparents
> is black. This is a reminder of the times of ideological racism and slavery,
> and it's precisely what we want to eradicate. Considering "blackness" as
> "more inherited" than "whiteness" is racism in its purest form, both
> historically and ideologically.

Yep. Nowadays, it can serve as an excuse for failure, or a source of pride 
(as in, blacks are proud of the accomplishments of Tiger Woods), or a door 
into affirmative action.

Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and spokespeople 
claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent was actually 
born in Africa or something.  Basically, his ancestors were never slaves, so 
he isn't really an African-American.

You may be under the mistaken impression that people don't *want* to be 
racist. They simply don't want *other* people to be racist against *them*.

>   (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> Journalists".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and spokespeople 
> claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent was actually 
> born in Africa or something.  Basically, his ancestors were never slaves, so 
> he isn't really an African-American.

  How does that make any sense?

> >   (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> > Journalists".)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

  I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
will let it pass... :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and spokespeople 
>> claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent was actually 
>> born in Africa or something.  Basically, his ancestors were never slaves, so 
>> he isn't really an African-American.
> 
>   How does that make any sense?

I'm not sure it does. I think many people thought it didn't make sense.

>   I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
> will let it pass... :)

No, actually, there was quite a shit-storm, with lots of peole screaming for 
heads or at least expulsion for even suggesting such a thing.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   I suppose that when the naming is humoristic enough, the big public
> > will let it pass... :)

> No, actually, there was quite a shit-storm, with lots of peole screaming for 
> heads or at least expulsion for even suggesting such a thing.

  I see. The wikipedia article just didn't mention anything like that.

  Well, I suppose it goes to prove that taboos are still based on the skin
color of who breaks them, which is sad, really.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 13-7-2009 18:34, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Interestingly enough, there were a number of black pundits and spokespeople 
>> claiming Barak Obama isn't black because his African parent was actually 
>> born in Africa or something.  Basically, his ancestors were never slaves, so 
>> he isn't really an African-American.
> 
>   How does that make any sense?

Some derive their sense of pride from the fact that someone in their 
ancestry was a slave and blame every failure of themselves* on those 
that have the same 'color' as the one time owners of slaves**. If you do 
that and claim 'compensation' for something somebody did 2 centuries ago 
against somebody that might have been a family member of an ancestor, it 
is important to give your group a name, say 'black', and prevent as many 
others as possible to join that group. In short, this logic only makes 
sense if you believe that black people are actually (morally) superior 
to the other races.

The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any 
color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it 
is a racist. He/she/it is not judging a person by what he does and has 
done, but by a superficial characteristic that is irrelevant for the job.

I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most (all?) 
presidents before him were from an upper middle class background. 
Perhaps that is even a bigger change than the 'color' issue, or am I now 
guilty of being an economist?

* which does not mean that racism does not play a role in many problems 
of 'black' people.
**irrespective of that person's ancestors having been in the US at the 
time and of their status at that time. Most were of course too poor to 
afford slaves.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any 
> color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it 
> is a racist.

Well, unless the person who is making the claim merely that his election 
showed that the country isn't as racist as it once was. I.e., if you're 
attributing anything to Obama himself due to his skin color, that's racist. 
If you're attributing something to the voters due to Obama's skin color, 
that's not necessarily racist.

> I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most (all?) 
> presidents before him were from an upper middle class background. 

Not exactly. Of course, by the time you're president, you have to have 
enough money to advertise to get elected. But quite a number of presidents 
were born into families too poor to effectively support themselves.

Abraham Lincoln in a one-room log cabin doing homework on the back of a 
shovel with chalk because he couldn't afford paper or a blackboard is the 
most famous example.  Some recent presidents started out rather poor too.

Of course, yes, you don't get to be president without any money to spend on 
a campain.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 13-7-2009 20:15, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> The main point of course is that if someone is claiming Obama is any 
>> color at all and that that is relevant, is that the person who does it 
>> is a racist.
> 
> Well, unless the person who is making the claim merely that his election 
> showed that the country isn't as racist as it once was. I.e., if you're 
> attributing anything to Obama himself due to his skin color, that's 
> racist. If you're attributing something to the voters due to Obama's 
> skin color, that's not necessarily racist.

True.

>> I am not totally familiar with US history, but I think that most 
>> (all?) presidents before him were from an upper middle class background. 
> 
> Not exactly. Of course, by the time you're president, you have to have 
> enough money to advertise to get elected. But quite a number of 
> presidents were born into families too poor to effectively support 
> themselves.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln in a one-room log cabin doing homework on the back of a 
> shovel with chalk because he couldn't afford paper or a blackboard is 
> the most famous example.  Some recent presidents started out rather poor 
> too.

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that the Bushes were 
rather well off and so were the Kennedys, I assumed Clinton was also 
from a middle class family because he studied law (using the prejudice 
that working class children are more likely to study something 
productive) and generalized from there. I must admit that it was mostly 
motivated by being able to make the 'economist' 'joke'.

> Of course, yes, you don't get to be president without any money to spend 
> on a campaign.

Sure but money that can come after your childhood. Perhaps because you 
have a talent.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that the Bushes were 
> rather well off and so were the Kennedys, 

Yes.

 > I assumed Clinton was also
> from a middle class family because he studied law 

Many people who wind up high in the legal system have studied law. :-)

I'mpretty sure Reagan started out very poor, for a recent example, but you'd 
have to look that up.

> Sure but money that can come after your childhood. Perhaps because you 
> have a talent.

Exactly my point, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/13/09 11:03, Warp wrote:
>> The whites set the rules. If you were a little black, you could be a slave.
>> Simple, really.
>
>    I certainly do understand that some hundreds of years ago when oppressive
> slavery and extreme ideological racism was prevalent in the US, that is,
> when non-whites were considered inferior races, people who had non-white

	Hundreds of years ago?

	Try double digits. There are light skinned people alive in the US today 
who were once discriminated against when it was discovered that they had 
a black ancestor. Not all are that old (you know, 60's or something).

	When both the victims and the racists (KKK, etc) are still alive in the 
country, it may be asking for a lot to expect everything to be "color 
blind", as they call it.

>    IMO racism will never be eradicated as long as a mulatto is considered
> "black" and things like this are allowed to exist:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Black_Journalists
>
>    (Imagine the outcry if there was a "National Association of White
> Journalists".)

	While I get your point about NAWJ, I wouldn't necessarily oppose the 
existence of certain groups that are for African Americans, including 
perhaps NABJ. Issues of color are still present in parts of the country, 
and such organizations may prove useful in countering them.

	(I have no idea if this one does, though, and I'll grant some of these 
organizations may create more problems than solving them).

	Also, I think you're looking at it from too narrow a lens. Unlike, say, 
Europe, the US doesn't have as strong a "fixed" and "known" culture, due 
to its history (mostly immigrants or slaves, etc). It's not unusual to 
see groups related to Italian Americans, for example. Or Central 
Americans. Or of various East European background (e.g. Russian). There 
are also groups of Irish background. I'd be willing to bet there are a 
bunch of Asian background.

	I don't know if any of these are professional oriented (lawyers, 
doctors, etc), but I don't think it would raise too much of an eyebrow.

	And so you have African American groups as well. Most likely in the era 
some were formed, AA was not the usual phrase, but black was.

-- 
AAHH!!! I've deleted all my RAM!

Post a reply to this message